I usually dont go to those lengths but I get tired of people on the message boards saying stuff like "sci fi cliches" when it is clearly not true. Now I can copy and paste that every time but at least now I have written proof for the story being very original.
Plus I get veyr patinate when people dont show great things the proper respect it deserves, just like the people in the sports forum not giving frankie edgar his due credit.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
That sounds like a defense mechanism when someone criticizes something you like.
No, it's merely the difference between those among us wise enough to recognize the world for what it really is and the rest who simply parrot internet critics like RedLetterMedia or Confused Matthew.
TheOneOfMortis
Thanks buddy.
yw
Originally posted by The_TempestSo when someone criticizes something you like, you never argue back because you know it's all 90% subjectivity? Except of course when it's you who's doing the criticizing, in which case the numbers are reversed, right?
No, it's merely the difference between those among us wise enough to recognize the world for what it really is and the rest who simply parrot internet critics like RedLetterMedia or Confused Matthew.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
NOW SWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITCHTO KRYPONIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITE
I second this motion.
Seriously, this guy is so MGS obssessed as the best series ever, he's too closed minded to even think about it NOT being the best series ever because you know.. No series is the best series ever, it depends on the person.
To Mortis: Yo dawg, I told Kojima to make the best series ever, then stick it in the best series ever so when you play the best series ever you can play the best series ever while you fap over the best series ever. Yeah.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
So when someone criticizes something you like, you never argue back because you know it's all 90% subjectivity? Except of course when it's you who's doing the criticizing, in which case the numbers are reversed, right?
wut
I never said anything never arguing back. Certainly there are great discussions that can be had on this subject and I've had the pleasure of participating in many. You don't need the pursuit of an objective outcome in order to have a discussion, in which opinions and ideas are exchanged and tested.
Originally posted by The_TempestWhile you're reading this, do it in Strother Martin's voice:
wutI never said anything never arguing back. Certainly there are great discussions that can be had on this subject and I've had the pleasure of participating in many. You don't need the pursuit of an objective outcome in order to have a discussion, in which opinions and ideas are exchanged and tested.
But if you're looking to change someone's outlook or opinion, simply stressing your own subjective feelings isn't enough. Objectivity needs to be applied. But too often in conversation, people blend their objective statements with their subjective ones, making it look like they're trying to pass off their feelings as irrefutable truths. They've mismanaged their own context. Then tempers flare when someone reacts, miscommunications mount, and somebody gets butthurt.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
While you're reading this, do it in Strother Martin's voice:But if you're looking to change someone's outlook or opinion, simply stressing your own subjective feelings isn't enough. Objectivity needs to be applied. But too often in conversation, people blend their objective statements with their subjective ones, making it look like they're trying to pass off their feelings as irrefutable truths. They've mismanaged their own context. Then tempers flare when someone reacts, miscommunications mount, and somebody gets butthurt.
The objectivity in these discussions, aside from continuity concerns, is simply a matter of defending your opinion with a cogent argument. Take TPM: you think it sucks and you've provided exhaustive reasons as to why. Jim Raynor at SD.Net thinks the film was good and provided exhaustive reasons as to why. Who's right? Which perspective triumphs?
Spoiler:
Mine, of course. But the answer in this context is neither.
Originally posted by The_TempestNeither. Which is why every time I talk to someone about film quality, I'm constantly asking them to detail what they think makes a movie good. Then, based on their subjective criteria, I line up examples from the films that objectively clash with it. My only problem with Raynor is that, unlike the monstrous, evil, demented, fictional character that reviews the Prequels on RLM, he seems to be genuinely aggravated and annoyed, both at the criticisms of the subject of his devotion, and at the reviewer himself. He's blending objective counter arguments with his emotional hang-ups. Forcing his opinion as fact, as you'd say. And not for humor (like RLM), but for the sake of proving himself right.
The objectivity in these discussions, aside from continuity concerns, is simply a matter of defending your opinion with a cogent argument. Take TPM: you think it sucks and you've provided exhaustive reasons as to why. Jim Raynor at SD.Net thinks the film was good and provided exhaustive reasons as to why. Who's right? Which perspective triumphs?Spoiler:
Mine, of course. But the answer in this context is neither.
What I was mentioning was all objective byw. I didn't make statements like "the story is really good" or "the music is really good", but just that its extremely innovative and original in both gameplayt and storyline, has massive production values, and offers a very varied, grand campaing experience.
Originally posted by TheOneOfMortisWhich is all fine. But it should have become obvious that everybody else feels the quality of subjective components (character, story, gameplay etc.) isn't up to par with their standards.
What I was mentioning was all objective byw. I didn't make statements like "the story is really good" or "the music is really good", but just that its extremely innovative and original in both gameplayt and storyline, has massive production values, and offers a very varied, grand campaing experience.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Neither. Which is why every time I talk to someone about film quality, I'm constantly asking them to detail what they think makes a movie good. Then, based on their subjective criteria, I line up examples from the films that objectively clash with it. My only problem with Raynor is that, unlike the monstrous, evil, demented, fictional character that reviews the Prequels on RLM, he seems to be genuinely aggravated and annoyed, both at the criticisms of the subject of his devotion, and at the reviewer himself. He's blending objective counter arguments with his emotional hang-ups. Forcing his opinion as fact, as you'd say. And not for humor (like RLM), but for the sake of proving himself right.
Actually, Raynor is the one who concedes that determination of TPM as a good film or not is a subjective matter. He simply addresses RLM's argument, not his conclusion.
RLM, on the other hand, is not so self-aware.
Originally posted by The_TempestNow imagine me speaking with Ozymandias' voice.
Actually, Raynor is the one who concedes that determination of TPM as a good film or not is a subjective matter. He simply addresses RLM's argument, not his conclusion.RLM, on the other hand, is not so self-aware.
With Megaupload gone, I can't find a copy. This excerpt though:
"Stupidity, exaggeration, getting overrated by sheep-like followers…the RLM review of TPM basically covers all of my pet peeves. It’s not even hard to show why it’s dumb, because some of the things in that review are just really dumb."
doesn't lead me to believe that Raynor is a fictional character designed for humor. He loses points for being so goddamn serious and offended at something so inoffensive and silly. And if the man is trying to persuade people that RLM's argument (about why TPM is bad) is wrong, then he's trying to prove why TPM is good. Trying to disprove the review's subjective assertion is trying prove another subjective assertion. The word "prove" being hilarious here. If that's what he's doing, then he's no different from Stoklassa, and there's nothing wrong with it. The RLM reviews put forth a criteria as to what they feel makes a film good, and they gave examples from the Prequels as to why they don't match. If Raynor didn't provide his own counter-criteria and examples, then his essay was a spectacular waste of time. If he did, then kudos. But where the two are totally different should be obvious: one is a fictional character reviewing a movie for profit and humor, and the other is an offended fan with a bone to pick.
I can't take someone's argument seriously, if they take something so light-hearted so seriously.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Now imagine me speaking with Ozymandias' voice.
If you're referring to Shelley's poem, I've never heard an audio version.
If you're referring to the character from the über-lame superhero movie, I'mma slap you.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
doesn't lead me to believe that Raynor is a fictional character designed for humor.
Since neither Raynor nor myself are trying to lead you to that conclusion, I'm not sure why this is relevant.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
He loses points for being so goddamn serious and offended at something so inoffensive and silly.
His petulant rage or lack thereof has absolutely zero bearing on the merit of his argument, but it's pretty obvious that you're disinclined to hear the other side out on this issue.
Which only furthers my point about objectivity's fleeting role in these discussions.
And given the absurd amount of time and effort Stoklassa spent in scripting and filming these elaborate (and very long) criticisms, I'm not sure you're in a position to assess what constitutes a "goddamn serious" effort and what doesn't.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And if the man is trying to persuade people that RLM's argument (about why TPM is bad) is wrong, then he's trying to prove why TPM is good.
This is actually a pretty stupid conclusion, Canadian. And a false equivalency. Setting aside the fact that Raynor openly acknowledges that evaluation of TPM as a good or bad film is entirely subjective (a fact of which I have reminded you already), one need not oppose a conclusion in order to attack the argument.
To provide a recent example, Arhael posted an argument here. I object to his reasons and find them silly; but in fact I agree with his conclusion.
Obviously Raynor disagrees with Stoklassa on the quality of TPM, but his approach is less concerned with "proving" TPM is a 'good' story than he is rebutting Stoklassa's provided reasons to the contrary.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Trying to disprove the review's subjective assertion is trying prove another subjective assertion. The word "prove" being hilarious here. If that's what he's doing, then he's no different from Stoklassa, and there's nothing wrong with it. The RLM reviews put forth a criteria as to what they feel makes a film good, and they gave examples from the Prequels as to why they don't match. If Raynor didn't provide his own counter-criteria and examples, then his essay was a spectacular waste of time. If he did, then kudos. But where the two are totally different should be obvious: one is a fictional character reviewing a movie for profit and humor, and the other is an offended fan with a bone to pick.
No, what Raynor does is respond to the various reasons why Stoklassa derides the film, which is an entirely valid approach. For example, Stoklassa criticizes Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan for not taking the Trade Federation capital ship by force; Raynor explains that this approach is untenable because the Jedi were forced to flee from two droidekas of the [presumably] thousands aboard the ship. You might not agree, but what he's actually doing is entirely reasonable despite attempts of Stoklassa and others to discredit it.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I can't take someone's argument seriously, if they take something so light-hearted so seriously.
Says the guy who's spent how many years arguing and debating hypothetical brawls between fictional characters? All of us here stand guilty of taking light-hearted things seriously at one point or another. Whether or not you take the argument seriously should be determined by the merits of the argument. It might be different if you had a history with Raynor by which you could reasonably conclude he's an emotionally-stunted rage!tard, but you don't to my knowledge.
How many times need I clothesline you before you get off the high horse, you Canadian Mountie bastard.
Submit.