The Completionist Reviews Sonic Heroes

Forum devoted to Sonic the Hedgehog, Sonic Universe and the entire Sonic line by Archie Comics.

Re: The Completionist Reviews Sonic Heroes

Postby SonicBlueRanger » Wed Dec 23, 2015 6:58 pm

Mordum wrote:
Look if you don't like reviewers or even exaggerated humor in general that's fine but why do you constantly have to tell everyone that does that you don't and these critics are idiots?

Honestly it kinda makes you come off as petty man.


If you go back and read the thread, you'll note that my first post was commenting on and reminiscing on what I enjoy about Heroes. I don't diss internet reviewers until someone else opened that as a topic of conversation. I'm contributing to the flow of preestablished conversation and it wasn't a subject I felt any need to force onto the thread.

So I'm actually evidenced here showing the restraint you've said you'd wish I'd had. But I'm still petty for talking about it with other people who want to talk about it, but the people I'm agreeing with aren't petty.

Sure, I guess.


Okay but normally it seems like anytime someone so much as says "I like Linkara" or something you tend to go off on why Linkara's an idiot with an annoying voice. It seems to me like literally anytime anybody mentions something that you personally don't like then you just have to make a snide comment about that thing.

Diamanda Hagan is the worst to me on the basis that she takes my single favorite genre (underground/extreme horror) and gives it the stupid That Guy With The Glasses smug snark treatment.


So your problem is that people riff on Movies/Comics/Whatever? Because frankly that's all I'm getting from this. Also don't care what anyone says about Hagan since she's the only person I've seen who has given "The End of Time" the verbal beating it deservers.
User avatar
SonicBlueRanger
BumbleChosen
 
Posts: 12370
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 9:12 pm
Location: Angel Grove, CA

Re: The Completionist Reviews Sonic Heroes

Postby DoNotDelete » Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:39 am

Just to be clear, when I implied that amateur videogame reviews were 'asinine drivel', Truthfully I was thinking more of 'let's plays'.

I don't really have time or patience for either, to be honest. If other people find them entertaining that's really not my concern.
User avatar
DoNotDelete
BumbleCitizen
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 2:17 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The Completionist Reviews Sonic Heroes

Postby Mordum » Thu Dec 24, 2015 2:19 am

SonicBlueRanger wrote:So your problem is that people riff on Movies/Comics/Whatever? Because frankly that's all I'm getting from this. Also don't care what anyone says about Hagan since she's the only person I've seen who has given "The End of Time" the verbal beating it deservers.


If someone's creativity is being snarky about someone else's creativity, they can eat feces.

Especially underground or extreme film, which are often so uncommercial that, by definition, they represent incredibly personal feelings of the filmmakers that produce them. But no, let's make a living off of taking the really brave stuff people are willing to be personal about and then crapping on it for NO OTHER REASON than they need a format to hang jokes on. It's not even that they're reviewing the content (which, if they ACTUALLY were reviewing, a negative opinion would be fair). It's that they always just take random works and use them as a format for their crappy jokes.

For all you talk about loving lighthearted, positive things, the vindictive streak that comes with thinking certain works, made by actual human beings with emotions and artistic passions they want to express, "deserve" to be dragged out and shamed in front of a crowd is suspect.

(This admittedly isn't as bad if it's a review about something like G1 Transformers or other throwaway shlock even the creators didn't care about, but it's still just needlessly negative for the sake of looking superior or using other material in a desperate cling to give oneself a vague niche in life.)
User avatar
Mordum
BumbleNoble
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:58 am

Re: The Completionist Reviews Sonic Heroes

Postby Unknownshadow675 » Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:39 am

So how about that Sonic Heroes am I right?
Unknownshadow675
BumbleFan
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:20 pm

Re: The Completionist Reviews Sonic Heroes

Postby RaceProUK » Thu Dec 24, 2015 8:38 am

DoNotDelete wrote:Just to be clear, when I implied that amateur videogame reviews were 'asinine drivel', Truthfully I was thinking more of 'let's plays'.

Those are useful for people who want to see a game's full story, but don't have the time to play to completion.
User avatar
RaceProUK
BumbleFan
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:54 pm
Location: Knothole & Shang Mu

Re: The Completionist Reviews Sonic Heroes

Postby ToaArcan » Thu Dec 24, 2015 9:56 am

I am not very good at video games, I tend to get stuck and frustrated and stop playing, so I like LPs.

I also like "amateur" or Youtube reviewers a lot more than the "professional" sites like Kotaku. Bias steamroller and heavy opinion might be in full force on Youtube, yes, but on the "pro" sites, you get corruption, collusion, clickbait, and much pushing of narratives and agendas.

I've stopped going to CHannel Awesome lately. THe amount of rot that Lupa, LordKat, and Random Assault have covered in their discussions on the site makes it hard to watch the videos now. I still watch Zero Punctuation, but I also watch Yahtzee's "Let's Drown Out" videos, where he's plainly stated a few times that if you're taking Zero Punctuation as a serious review and basing what you buy on it, then you're doing it wrong.

I haven't played Heroes much, and while I had fun with what I played, I probably wouldn't want to do much more than Team Sonic's path. Team Rose might be easy mode, but it's still playing as two characters that I can't stand and one that irritates me at best. Team Dark being hard mode would get tedious, because it's less "Hard" and more "Long". Team CHaotix brings awful missions and the joys of listening to Charmy, which is never a good thing.

That said, at least it's better than Shadow, a game which has no reason to exist because why wouldn't Rouge just tell him who he is!? That's an enormous plothole that the Shadow game opened up for the sake of having a broken, idiotic morality system, when the last game to come out, Sonic Battle, had Shadow already knowing his whole past!
User avatar
ToaArcan
BumbleFan
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 5:13 pm
Location: Right behind you

Re: The Completionist Reviews Sonic Heroes

Postby SonicBlueRanger » Thu Dec 24, 2015 10:33 am

ToaArcan wrote:
I've stopped going to CHannel Awesome lately. THe amount of rot that Lupa, LordKat, and Random Assault have covered in their discussions on the site makes it hard to watch the videos now.


Yeah all the stuff with Lupa kinda killed CA for me too. I still watch people I like but I try to avoid giving money directly to Doug Walker as a result.

If someone's creativity is being snarky about someone else's creativity, they can eat feces.


So that includes the MST3K/Rifftrax guys then? Because making fun of objectively bad movies was sorta their deal.

Especially underground or extreme film, which are often so uncommercial that, by definition, they represent incredibly personal feelings of the filmmakers that produce them. But no, let's make a living off of taking the really brave stuff people are willing to be personal about and then crapping on it for NO OTHER REASON than they need a format to hang jokes on. It's not even that they're reviewing the content (which, if they ACTUALLY were reviewing, a negative opinion would be fair). It's that they always just take random works and use them as a format for their crappy jokes.


Have you never hung out with friends and made jokes at a movie? That really all the reviews are it's just for entertainment. I can assure you I'm not going into these things expecting deep critiques I'm just wanting a laugh. I know it's not everyones cup of tea but still.

For all you talk about loving lighthearted, positive things, the vindictive streak that comes with thinking certain works, made by actual human beings with emotions and artistic passions they want to express, "deserve" to be dragged out and shamed in front of a crowd is suspect.


So I'm not allowed to be displeased with media just because I like light hearted stuff? I only get vindictive towards things that made me feel true hatred with what I was watching (IE The End of Time, Power Rangers Operation Overdrive, Man of Steel). Yes people put hard work into that but that doesn't mean mistakes shouldn't be called out.

(This admittedly isn't as bad if it's a review about something like G1 Transformers or other throwaway shlock even the creators didn't care about, but it's still just needlessly negative for the sake of looking superior or using other material in a desperate cling to give oneself a vague niche in life.)


So it's okay as long as it's something with very little effort? Personally I think the projects that clearly had a lot of love and passion put into them that come out as unwatchable garbage are a little more deserving of negative reviews myself but whatever.

Also you're still under the impression that Internet Reviewers are genuinely always angry at what they're covering. It's put on. It's a character. Only occasionally have I ever seen anybody genuinely get angry at what they're reviewing.

I don't know maybe I'm taking this personally because I want to actually do reviews myself but it just seems like you're being completely unfair.
User avatar
SonicBlueRanger
BumbleChosen
 
Posts: 12370
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 9:12 pm
Location: Angel Grove, CA

Re: The Completionist Reviews Sonic Heroes

Postby Mordum » Thu Dec 24, 2015 2:06 pm

SonicBlueRanger wrote:
So that includes the MST3K/Rifftrax guys then? Because making fun of objectively bad movies was sorta their deal.


If only I made some sort of comment about how MST3K was distinct from these review shows in a post that specifically quotes you and thus would be a post you'd be likely to have read --

An Attractive, Scholarly Man wrote:Linkara, for completely misunderstanding the core conceit of the show he claims is his inspiration: Mystery Science Theatre 3000. MST3K was about discovering new things with your friends and finding value with them through in-jokes, running gags, and bonding together.


Oh, I did.

Have you never hung out with friends and made jokes at a movie? That really all the reviews are it's just for entertainment. I can assure you I'm not going into these things expecting deep critiques I'm just wanting a laugh. I know it's not everyones cup of tea but still.


See above. MST3K could get away with it because they were relaxed, light hearted, and didn't pretend to take the movies like they were serious malevolence. The Satellite of Love as a torture chamber was always ironic. Characters like Rowsdower are likable and iconic. People WILLINGLY submit their botched movies to that show.

Joel, Mike, and the Robots didn't pretend to have heart attacks or immense nerd rage over meaningless lack of quality. They didn't have the sense of entitlement these "review" characters. They told the ACTUAL jokes you tell with your buddies while you're mocking a movie. Turning it into a fun thing.

MST3K was about sitting with buddies and turning a bad movie into a fun experience. Modern "review" culture is about sitting alone and angry and being venomous. Mean for it's own sake. MST3K was about enhancing. "Reviews" now are about shaming.

So I'm not allowed to be displeased with media just because I like light hearted stuff? I only get vindictive towards things that made me feel true hatred with what I was watching (IE The End of Time, Power Rangers Operation Overdrive, Man of Steel). Yes people put hard work into that but that doesn't mean mistakes shouldn't be called out.


Honestly? On this, you're right. I really shouldn't tell you you're not allowed to be displeased with things.

What I Actually Said wrote:For all you talk about loving lighthearted, positive things, the vindictive streak that comes with thinking certain works, made by actual human beings with emotions and artistic passions they want to express, "deserve" to be dragged out and shamed in front of a crowd is suspect.


Oh, I never said that.

Look at my specific statement. It's bizarre to me that you, someone who talks a lot about loving lighthearted entertainment that doesn't try too hard to be serious ALSO believes that if you don't like something or if something isn't up to whatever your standards actually are, it "deserves" to be gutted by this mean spirited culture. That if we don't like something, it "deserves" to be publically shamed and battered for the sake of those doing the insulting to profit off of it. To take what we perceive as the mistakes of others and then squeeze money out of it.

THAT is a load of crap. That is horrible. As someone who's written under artists and directors, I can tell you how hard it can be to produce something even PASSABLE. The idea that there's an entire culture that's so vindictive that they have to build an entire culture of creators around crapping on real creators, and pass it off as continuing the love-of-bad-movies MST3K culture, is infuriating. Genuinely infuriating. The fact this is a small industry in of itself, that people willingly profit off of petty nitpicking? Yes. I mad.

So it's okay as long as it's something with very little effort? Personally I think the projects that clearly had a lot of love and passion put into them that come out as unwatchable garbage are a little more deserving of negative reviews myself but whatever.


You're an expert at missing the point.

You get what a real review is, right? Like Roger Ebert's old column? Like a real review? Not a really bad comedy sketch that tries to use creative works the "reviewers" could never be as good as as props for stupid jokes?

Also, use context clues please. If my post is based around the idea that this new style of "review" is needlessly skewering or nitpicking really personal art pieces (rather than actual critique), then obviously a work that the creators were not personally invested in is not going to be as offensive to skewer. Because it's not needlessly insulting people. There's a difference between giving a passion project an actual negative criticism and playing a stupid character who inserts snarky "jokes" between scenes.

You're talking strictly through the internet comedy era of reviews and saying someone's passion project deserves to be insulted if you don't like it. If someone's heart and soul, if their passionate, personal art, isn't good to you, it deserves to be publically shamed for profit of the person insulting it. That's awful. That is a genuinely awful outlook. This is not just ranting why you don't like something on a message board, or while talking with friends. You're saying someone's heart and soul is fine to insult for profit moreso than something nobody put any soul into.

Also you're still under the impression that Internet Reviewers are genuinely always angry at what they're covering. It's put on. It's a character. Only occasionally have I ever seen anybody genuinely get angry at what they're reviewing.


I know this. I'm not an idiot.

That makes it worse. That doesn't make it less petty. It doesn't make it less reprehensible.

I don't know maybe I'm taking this personally because I want to actually do reviews myself but it just seems like you're being completely unfair.


Saying that someone shouldn't be able to build an industry around profiting on insulting other people makes me unfair?

I hope, whenever you start this review show of yours, you're still able to sleep at night.
User avatar
Mordum
BumbleNoble
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:58 am

Re: The Completionist Reviews Sonic Heroes

Postby The Swordsman » Thu Dec 24, 2015 5:29 pm

Mordum wrote:Linkara, for completely misunderstanding the core conceit of the show he claims is his inspiration: Mystery Science Theatre 3000. MST3K was about discovering new things with your friends and finding value with them through in-jokes, running gags, and bonding together. Atop the Fourth Wall is about sitting alone in your room, angry about the things you remember not living up to your sad obsession as an adult. History of Power Rangers is a fascinating look at how a college graduate is incapable of analyzing a TV show meant to be understood by six year olds, but is still heralded as a well done dissection by illiterates.

So Mordum are you incapable of not insulting people that like the things you don't like or insulting the creators? People aren't illiterate for liking HOP. :x
User avatar
The Swordsman
BumbleCitizen
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 2:05 pm
Location: Somewhere fighting the Eggman Empire for the United Federation.

Re: The Completionist Reviews Sonic Heroes

Postby Specs64z » Fri Dec 25, 2015 12:21 pm

Mordum wrote:...I hope, whenever you start this review show of yours, you're still able to sleep at night. [shortened for length]

Dude, we appreciate your passion, insights, and opinions, but there's no reason to be so hostile.

Also, I think you're reading into that part specifically a little too much. He never specifically stated it deserves to be insulted. He said it deserves negative reviews. Negative review =\= angry rant. I'm no artist or writer, but I do know that negative criticism is an essential part of improving your work, no matter how objectively good or bad the product is. Whether that negative criticism is actually helpful or just being a jerk is somewhat subjective, though, so you are still perfectly entitled to that opinion.
Specs64z
BumbleFan
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:13 pm

Re: The Completionist Reviews Sonic Heroes

Postby SonicBlueRanger » Fri Dec 25, 2015 4:14 pm

Specs64z wrote:
Mordum wrote:...I hope, whenever you start this review show of yours, you're still able to sleep at night. [shortened for length]

Dude, we appreciate your passion, insights, and opinions, but there's no reason to be so hostile.

Also, I think you're reading into that part specifically a little too much. He never specifically stated it deserves to be insulted. He said it deserves negative reviews. Negative review =\= angry rant. I'm no artist or writer, but I do know that negative criticism is an essential part of improving your work, no matter how objectively good or bad the product is. Whether that negative criticism is actually helpful or just being a jerk is somewhat subjective, though, so you are still perfectly entitled to that opinion.


Exactly. When a product is bad pointing out what didn't work and explaining why it didn't work is called for. That's all I meant. And throwing in jokes to make it fun (for some) doesn't hurt.
User avatar
SonicBlueRanger
BumbleChosen
 
Posts: 12370
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 9:12 pm
Location: Angel Grove, CA

Re: The Completionist Reviews Sonic Heroes

Postby MetalSkulkBane » Fri Dec 25, 2015 5:00 pm

Mordum, I have a question: Do you hate the very idea of review or just community of reviews that are mostly references currently on Internet?
User avatar
MetalSkulkBane
BumbleKnight
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:02 am
Location: Poland

Re: The Completionist Reviews Sonic Heroes

Postby Mr.Unsmiley » Fri Dec 25, 2015 6:19 pm

it's the latter, I thought he made that pretty clear
User avatar
Mr.Unsmiley
BumbleKnight
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 3:20 pm
Location: North Charleston, SC

Re: The Completionist Reviews Sonic Heroes

Postby MetalSkulkBane » Sat Dec 26, 2015 4:26 am

Ups, now I see I missed one of his posts :oops:

EDIT: Ok, I checked this Super Bunnyhop and... yeah, he's kinda better then SomeCallMeJohnny.
Johnny pretty much describes you the game with some commentary. "Graphics are great/ controls tight, but make game too easy/etc"
Bunny does similar thing, but digs a little deeper, asking why specific choices were made "Symphony of the Night tries do defy old system/ Shovel Knight is playing on nostalgia, but in the very clever way/ etc."

I still like Johnny. He still does what I expect from review: tells me important details and whenever game is good or not. (That and Bunny doesn't review Sonic :P )
Last edited by MetalSkulkBane on Tue Dec 29, 2015 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MetalSkulkBane
BumbleKnight
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:02 am
Location: Poland

Re: The Completionist Reviews Sonic Heroes

Postby Mordum » Tue Dec 29, 2015 7:14 am

Specs64z wrote:Dude, we appreciate your passion, insights, and opinions, but there's no reason to be so hostile.


The overwhelming consensus of this thread is "We support an economic infrastructure dedicated to shaming other human beings for profit," so yes there is.

Also, I think you're reading into that part specifically a little too much. He never specifically stated it deserves to be insulted. He said it deserves negative reviews. Negative review =\= angry rant. I'm no artist or writer, but I do know that negative criticism is an essential part of improving your work, no matter how objectively good or bad the product is. Whether that negative criticism is actually helpful or just being a jerk is somewhat subjective, though, so you are still perfectly entitled to that opinion.


Well, no, this is what he said:

SonicBlueRanger wrote:Also don't care what anyone says about Hagan since she's the only person I've seen who has given "The End of Time" the verbal beating it deservers.


He's specifically saying, in this statement, that Hagan's value to him as a reviewer is the fact she gave a negative review to The End of Time.

Here's the thing about that, though. That sentence becomes contextualized in the type of reviewer Hagan is. She's not a reviewer. She's a snarker who nitpicks individual clips of mediocre films. She's not analyzing things, she's recapping a plot and telling you it's dumb. Her position isn't "critique film", it's SPECIFICALLY about picking subject matters she can construe as objectively terrible and then parading how horrible they are in front of people. That is my point: THAT IS NOT BEING A CRITIC.

So if someone who's dedicated specifically to only reviewing "bad" things and telling you that they're bad, they're not a critic. At that point, that's just shaming. Look, I hate Russel T. Davies's Who writing. I think it's awful and, at times, even outright morally reprehensible. All the stuff people criticize OTHER showrunners for being (in terms of bigotry) are often displayed and ignored in his writing in spades (because, yes, insert standard Mordum "you lack critical thinking skills" statement here). Davies Who, the first four seasons of the revival, is one of my least favorite TV shows of all time. If someone asked, or if it came up in conversation, I would explain in my usual excessive detail why I hate his dogturd Who writing.

But you know what I wouldn't do?

I would not join an elaborate economic infrastructure based entirely around intentionally picking mediocre-to-poorly-made entertainment and bashing them with snarky quips over regurgitated clips for the sake of my own personal profit and admiration. I would not talk about it to a bunch of mouthbreathers as if it was OBLIGATED to have me like it, for me to completely agree with it. I would not relentlessly nitpick every little detail of it as a way of squeezing profit out of someone else's hard work, heart, and dedication. It does not matter what I think of Davies as a person or his work; there is no real justification for there to be a minor economic ecosystem that drags his or anyone else's work into a black void just so they can get money from other people's perceived mistakes.

SPOILERS FOR GROWN UP TALK

Spoiler: show
Hagan in particular bothers me because independent, extreme film is often really, really personal and is near unmarketable to most major distributors (which I know personally). I really feel like her review of Slaughtered Vomit Dolls points out how much of a horrible person she is. I don't even LIKE that movie, mind you. Of the four movies in the Vomit Gore Trilogy (it's, uh, that's kind of series), I dislike half of them. But those movies are art performances specifically designed for its lead actresses to express their traumas and work through really deep, dark personal things. Don't like the movie? Fair enough. Can articulate WHY you don't like it? Totally fine. Slamming the movie incessantly through shallow snark and your cheap, crappy five dollar camera? That is not being a critic. That is being a bully.


These reviews are not "negative criticism". I am really annoyed by the only counterargument to this being "Yeah, but negative criticism is natural for creative work." These people are not Roger Ebert. ProJared not Alan Sepinwall, SomeCallMeJohnny is not LaToya Ferguson, et al. Or because I know those names will be meaningless here, they're not Bunnyhop or Red Letter Media. They are failed comedians abusing the works of others in order to prop up their crappy comedy careers and pretending to be critics. They portray angry, entitled turbonerds just complaining about things that they specifically choose because they CAN complain about them. This is not discourse. This is anti-intellectualism disguised as cultural osmosis.

And look, most of these filmmakers probably don't care about these stupid reviewers. I mean, besides the fact Mr. Enter sicked a bunch of his fanboys on Jimmy Screamerclauz because he made a CGI movie that happened to be about child abuse (because, as it turns out, he was close to people who suffered abuse as a child and wanted to tell a story about the complexities of coping with abuse) and now Screamerclauz gets a bunch of hatemail even now from angry, entitled millennial nerds. But besides that case? I know that most of these filmmakers are either ignorant of it or brush it off. The last thing I want to do is assume people, most of whom I don't even know, need my defense. But I really hate that the culture itself is seen as something okay to do when it's actively dumbing down everything it touches and making everything vile.

But if you support this crap, and think it's the same as REAL reviewing and dissection, you're an anti-intellectual who basically supports mean spiritedness and bullying. There's not a real way to get around that, though I'd be willing to see someone try. There is just no conceiveable reason to support an entire culture of trivial malice and anger for its own sake.

If there's one plus side? Compared to most of these pieces of crap, the Completionist comes off pretty well. I don't get the point of his niche (I can just...read a player's guide or FAQ), but at least he actively tries to not be a horribly stunted manchild.

The Swordsman wrote:People aren't illiterate for liking HOP.


It sure doesn't hurt.
User avatar
Mordum
BumbleNoble
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:58 am

PreviousNext

Return to This Side of Mobius



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron