Jump to content

Bruce Everiss Vs Stuart Campbell


Swainy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just so I can get this right, Stu wasn't Dev Manager for Sensible? He's used his spell at Sensi a lot in the past as credentials as a voice of authority in a number of arguments.

Stu's own post just a few pages back stresses his involvement in 3 games at Sensi but doesn't refute Bruce's claims he didn't do much beyond level design for one game.

Looking at MobyGames he's credited as Manual Writer for SWOS, tester for Golf and level designer for CF2. I know what's written in manuals doesn't always capture the extent of someone's involvement in a project but on the face of it this does seem to backup what Bruce is attributing to Jon.

That said I do think Bruce is getting wrong on the piracy thing and I mostly agree with Stu on this one case.

Yep. The Very Reverend Bellend makes out he was Development Manager of a developer churning out number ones.

In reality he did the level design on a rehash of an existing game and the result was a turkey.

Totally deluded Walter Mitty.

Jon says Development Management was done by himself and Chris Yates.

It's nice to be able to get the facts straight for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so I can get this right, Stu wasn't Dev Manager for Sensible? He's used his spell at Sensi a lot in the past as credentials as a voice of authority in a number of arguments.

I don't recall ever having done any such thing, but this needs to be nipped in the bud either way. I'm not going to quote anything from Jops' subsequent mails regarding - let's call them "third parties" - but he sent me this in relation to the matter:

Hi Stuart

No problem, I understand what Bruce is like and also I have never heard you

overstate your role at Sensible before so I have no axe to grind with you at

all. As I was writing to Bruce I struggled to recall your official formal

Sensible job title, I feared it might be "Development Manager" which would

make me look like a fool :lol:

And indeed it was, and plenty of references to it as such can be found in magazines of the time, though (like most things at Sensible) it was a fundamentally meaningless title which encompassed a very wide and often-changing variety of responsibilities. I've often openly noted that fact in the past, such as in my "Making Of CF2" feature for WoS in which I say, for example:

For the next six months I was pretty much just a glorified office manager

http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/cf2/cf2d.htm

So Bruce's notion that I've EVER attempted to "big up" my role at Sensible is, astoundingly, not even one of his most easily-disproved lies. It has an awful lot of climbing out from under a massive landslide of ever dumber, more comically absurd and nastier lies before it can hope to ascend that peak.

That's it from me on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're drunk/unwell this morning, because otherwise your dismal behaviour would be incredibly damning.

I believe what happened was you posted a very spurious and poorly informed article, and then very many people armed with information and facts challenged your position. You then began deleting comments that asked you awkward questions, then went on to openly lie about why you were deleting comments. This upset a number of people, especially those who had written intelligent, coherent and extremely well researched responses, which you repeatedly ignored.

Obviously lots of people find this all hilarious. You start screaming about the £11m being the delusions of the stupid, when it came from an article you wrote. No matter how many people point this out, you continue to scream that Stuart, or whoever else might have read your own words, are lying or stupid. This is enormously amusing to a point, because it's you having an argument with yourself. But unfortunately when you start behaving in your current manner, calling people childish names, and attempting to smear others of whom you're afraid, it's extremely ugly and distasteful. The entertainment wears off, and we're left staring at a spiteful man resorting to the most immature of means to try and win... whatever it is you feel you need to win.

It's unsurprising that the only person you so vociferously attack is Stuart. It's a cowardly move based on your awareness that many here don't like him, so you assume it will gain you sympathy. Instead the most extraordinary thing has happened: people on rllmuk have reluctantly defended Stuart, even admired him for his conduct in communication with you. The scale of this must be lost on you. However, reading through the extensive comments on your blog post, Stuart was one of very many people making the same argument, armed with the same facts, mostly rather helpfully supplied by you in the past. You ignored almost all of them, and continue to do so now.

I think the most telling factor in this whole debate is that when people reference your seven-point article on the cause of the demise of Imagine and its having no mention of piracy, your response is only ever to claim that a sub added the "not piracy" line in the strap, rather than acknowledge that if one were writing a seven part piece on the reasons why a company closed, one might include the one that one thinks is the primary cause. It's the tacit acknowledgement in your article by not mentioning piracy, not even alluding to it within seven other stated reasons, to which people are refering. I don't believe this is lost on you - I believe it's very awkward for you to acknowledge, thus your refusal.

I plead to you to stop your current campaign. Trying to arm yourself with private emails from unwilling individuals you dragged in is utterly grotesque. You are so very fortunate that Stuart is infinitely more genteel than you, and would not stoop so low as to do the same. It would be rather embarrassing for you.

You will forever believe in the Great Evil of Piracy, because you are demonstrably unable to listen to any other points of view, astonishingly including your own. So there is no point in anyone attempting to reason with you on the matter. But hopefully you can be reached with regard to your current conduct.

Yours,

John Walker

post of the thread. well, tied with RSCs initial one. excellent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But surely, the point that we're trying to put across is that many didn't. And they still had great success in the remaining years of the 8-bits. So to claim piracy as a major reason for Imagine's failure (which Bruce has backtracked a little from, to be fair) just seems incredible...

Comparatively successful. The big, big money was already in the consoles by the end of the eight bit era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparatively successful. The big, big money was already in the consoles by the end of the eight bit era.

I'm willing to bet that Ocean made more money from Chase HQ and Robocop than they did from Hunchback and Hunchback 2.

EDIT: to expand on the point - my problem with Bruce's article is that the 8-bits were clearly not in the doldrums post 1984. There were a whole host of successful games which sold more than games produced in the early days of the Spectrum, so to suggest that after Imagine & Ultimate stopped producing games, the UK 8-bit market was a budget wasteland is just wrong. Full-price games were still successful into early 1990 (and then the budget wasteland took hold).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm willing to bet that Ocean made more money from Chase HQ and Robocop than they did from Hunchback and Hunchback 2.

Yes because the market had changed.

However if they'd had jumped to the NES or the SNES the rewards could have been far, far higher.

I'm not denying there was money in the 8-bit computer software market. I'm just saying there was more in the 8 (and especially 16) bit console market. That, coupled with the difficulty of pirating console software, caused many developers to jump ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. The Very Reverend Bellend makes out he was Development Manager of a developer churning out number ones.

In reality he did the level design on a rehash of an existing game and the result was a turkey.

Totally deluded Walter Mitty.

Jon says Development Management was done by himself and Chris Yates.

It's nice to be able to get the facts straight for everyone.

you're a vile idiot sir with no grounding in reality. you literally get pulled up on EVERYTHING you say, and yet here you are...giving us more.

please. get a job. i'm at mine. you need one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caught with his pants on fire. :):lol:

And quoting from a private email too.

To begin with I was rooting for you on this one, Bruce. Somehow, though, you've managed to make yourself look less likeable than Stuart Campbell :lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Bruce's notion that I've EVER attempted to "big up" my role at Sensible is, astoundingly, not even one of his most easily-disproved lies. It has an awful lot of climbing out from under a massive landslide of ever dumber, more comically absurd and nastier lies before it can hope to ascend that peak.

Fair enough, if that was your job title it was your job title. What you actually did is different from what a lot of people would assume from the title Development Manager without any further explanation, particularly how that information was deployed on Bruce's blog but there you go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you totally delusional? Yes. You are.

On his website the Very Reverend Bellend says "Bruce can consider himself very lucky indeed that, unlike him, I'm too classy to quote Jops' personal emails."

Yet on here he cuts and pastes a whole chunk of one of Jops' personal emails.

A deluded hypocrite.

Also, if he was such a great game designer why has he sunk to the level of keyboard warrior?

Surely Rockstar would be paying him hundreds of thousands a year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sycophants on his website are calling it "libel and defamation of character."

But they don't notice all the names he has called me over the last couple of weeks.

Hypocritic sycophants.

Actually, reading the thread, we're objecting to being called sycophantic acolytes - that's the 'libel and defamation of character' bit. Nobody cared much either way about your calling Stu 'Bellend'; he's had worse, especially recently. In fact, I can see no mention of it over there.

As in your post:

Stuart has his own forum for a handful of sycophantic acolytes.

Mind you, that's the usual accusation levelled at the WOS forumites, so we're used to it. As I've said on here before, despite Stu's reputation for being an argumentative SOB elsewhere on the interweb, the way he runs his forum makes it a remarkably civilized place to hang around in.

You got the context wrong.

Aw, heck, I posted in an inter-forum spat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On his website the Very Reverend Bellend says "Bruce can consider himself very lucky indeed that, unlike him, I'm too classy to quote Jops' personal emails."

Yet on here he cuts and pastes a whole chunk of one of Jops' personal emails.

A deluded hypocrite.

Also, if he was such a great game designer why has he sunk to the level of keyboard warrior?

Surely Rockstar would be paying him hundreds of thousands a year?

talk about not arguing the points at hand, and using embarrassing playground name calling. stu designed a game, did some stuff at sensi. is a friend of jon hare's etc etc.

you. you know nothing. stop it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not denying there was money in the 8-bit computer software market. I'm just saying there was more in the 8 (and especially 16) bit console market. That, coupled with the difficulty of pirating console software, caused many developers to jump ship.

But Bruce seems to be - and that's what I've been trying to point out (also, the 16-bit console era didn't really start here in the UK until 1990, which co-incides roughly with the end of the 8-bits, so during the interval where Nintendo/Sega didn't have as much pull in the country, it would have been crazy for Ocean to abandon the Speecy/C64 unless they managed to leap in bed with a console manufacturer like the Stampers did)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On his website the Very Reverend Bellend

I don't think that's his real name. But then I don't know if Stuart is an actual, real life vicar, either. Either way they certainly won't let people named after dongs into the clergy.

Just trying to help :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.