Woohoo, official off-topic thread!

Started by RE: Blaxican3,949 pages

Fanboys not being objective is a stereotype that is similar to the one that states that black men are lazy and suck at being fathers. It's a stereotype that is so prevalent because of how commonly it is vindicated by real world examples.

For example, your criticism of the writer's point here basically boils down to: He didn't provide solutions to the problems he pointed out.

To which I would say, so what? How is that a valid criticism? It's not as if the article was titled "Why Kingdom Hearts sucks, and how I would make it better", ergo the writer isn't obligated to provide solutions to problems he sees. If you saw that the muffler on my car was dragging on the ground, should you only be allowed to comment on it if you know how to fix mufflers? Should only political science majors be allowed to comment on why the Bush Administration sucked? Obviously, that's not the case. You don't need to explain how to fix something in order to point out that it's broken. Ergo your criticisms, while fine as a personal peeve, can't really be taken as anything more than just that.

He didn't really point out what about the way it was handled was bad either, just that it was, to be fair.

Also, respond to my trolling insect.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
For example, your criticism of the writer's point here basically boils down to: He didn't provide solutions to the problems he pointed out.

To which I would say, so what? How is that a valid criticism? It's not as if the article was titled "Why Kingdom Hearts sucks, and how I would make it better", ergo the writer isn't obligated to provide solutions to problems he sees. If you saw that the muffler on my car was dragging on the ground, should you only be allowed to comment on it if you know how to fix mufflers? Should only political science majors be allowed to comment on why the Bush Administration sucked? Obviously, that's not the case. You don't need to explain how to fix something in order to point out that it's broken. Ergo your criticisms, while fine as a personal peeve, can't really be taken as anything more than just that.

Considering the title and article are split into two sections, one for the problems and one for the offered solutions, yes I would expect an answer. But the reason it's not a very valid criticism is this: He presents it at a problem, one of two big ones apparently, but near the end says that the worlds being retelling of the stories is essentially what they should be. Just that they weren't handled clever enough. This does not equate to Kingdom Hearts sucks, it equates to Kingdom Hearts is not clever at working around limitations. However, why should I trust the opinion of someone who does not offer an alternate, more clever solution. It would be simple. Take a world, say Wonderland, and change the story a bit so that it works better in the context of the game and better reflects the story of the movie. The author doesn't do this and instead of coming off as a professional, he kinda just comes off as whiny.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Considering the title and article are split into two sections, one for the problems and one for the offered solutions, yes I would expect an answer. But the reason it's not a very valid criticism is this: He presents it at a problem, one of two big ones apparently, but near the end says that the worlds being retelling of the stories is essentially what they should be. Just that they weren't handled clever enough. This does not equate to Kingdom Hearts sucks, it equates to Kingdom Hearts is not clever at working around limitations. However, why should I trust the opinion of someone who does not offer an alternate, more clever solution. It would be simple. Take a world, say Wonderland, and change the story a bit so that it works better in the context of the game and better reflects the story of the movie. The author doesn't do this and instead of coming off as a professional, he kinda just comes off as whiny.
The statement "why should I trust the opinion of a man who doesn't offer an alternate, more clever solution" implies that offering a solution to the problem is required in order for the assessment to be sound. As I've already stated, it's not. If you don't like the man's article because he doesn't offer solutions, that's really nothing more than your own peeve; it's certainly not an objective criticism, and it doesn't show that his points are wrong, either. Just because I don't make suggestions on how to fix your broken muffler doesn't mean that I'm wrong about it being broken, just because I don't tell you why you're wrong about 2+2 equaling 22 doesn't mean that it equals 22, etc. Basically, your argument is a non-sequitur.

Originally posted by NemeBro
He didn't really point out what about the way it was handled was bad either, just that it was, to be fair.

Also, respond to my trolling insect.

I actually didn't see your post, which makes it kind of eerie that we both decided to make black jokes in that moment.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
The statement "why should I trust the opinion of a man who doesn't offer an alternate, more clever solution" implies that offering a solution to the problem is required in order for the assessment to be sound. As I've already stated, it's not. If you don't like the man's article because he doesn't offer solutions, that's really nothing more than your own peeve; it's certainly not an objective criticism, and it doesn't show that his points are wrong, either. Just because I don't make suggestions on how to fix your broken muffler doesn't mean that I'm wrong about it being broken, just because I don't tell you why you're wrong about 2+2 equaling 22 doesn't mean that it equals 22, etc.

Blax, if I told you that your muffler was broken and then told you that I can offer advice on how to fix it and then didn't, then I'm in the wrong. Not because your muffler isn't broken but because I'm not really telling you how to fix it. He got the first part right, the complaints, but the second part is rather sporadic. If his complaint was "There are more clever ways to write this", I'd expect his solution would be an example of more clever writing because that is how his article is structured.

For example, if he wanted to make the argument that the writing of the Disney world's is pitiful, than he could do it like this:

Wonderland, a world I grow weary of with each release as I'm constantly forced into a fight with the same boss for the hundredth time, doesn't help it's case by being poorly written. In the first game, Sora and Co are just dropped in there with the Chesire Cat just dicking around with them. Sora and Co are then stupidly wrapped into a scene where they have to find evidence in little pink boxes to save Alice. None of this, if I recall correctly, is in the movie and it just seems like pointless padding. Not helping the matter is that in order to obtain several of the boxes the player must go through poorly executed platforming. The world simply isn't fun and has nothing to do with the movie.

Now, I'd improve this by doing something rather simple: Put Alice in the party. Make her an optional party member like Tarzan, Peter Pan, etc. The charm of the Alice in Wonderland movie was that it was very much just an experience rather than a narrative. Let Alice still experience this world along with the protagonists in the game. In fact, this would effectively make the moment in the game where Alice is kidnapped all the more meaningful as the player would actually grow to care about Alice. Some might argue that Alice isn't exactly a fighter but neither was Ariel, who the game had no qualms about placing in the party for combat. This is a simple solution that allows for a new, interesting party member, grants the player to experience the story of Alice in Wonderland in a way that is closer to the movie, and improves the overall writing in general.

His complaints are merely complaints. And the only reason I care is because he doesn't offer a solution even though the title and structure of the article implies that he is going to. That is just sorry writing.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Blax, if I told you that your muffler was broken and then told you that I can offer advice on how to fix it and then didn't, then I'm in the wrong. Not because your muffler isn't broken but because I'm not really telling you how to fix it. He got the first part right, the complaints, but the second part is rather sporadic. If his complaint was "There are more clever ways to write this", I'd expect his solution would be an example of more clever writing because that is how his article is structured.

For example, if he wanted to make the argument that the writing of the Disney world's is pitiful, than he could do it like this:

Wonderland, a world I grow weary of with each release as I'm constantly forced into a fight with the same boss for the hundredth time, doesn't help it's case by being poorly written. In the first game, Sora and Co are just dropped in there with the Chesire Cat just dicking around with them. Sora and Co are then stupidly wrapped into a scene where they have to find evidence in little pink boxes to save Alice. None of this, if I recall correctly, is in the movie and it just seems like pointless padding. Not helping the matter is that in order to obtain several of the boxes the player must go through poorly executed platforming. The world simply isn't fun and has nothing to do with the movie.

Now, I'd improve this by doing something rather simple: Put Alice in the party. Make her an optional party member like Tarzan, Peter Pan, etc. The charm of the Alice in Wonderland movie was that it was very much just an experience rather than a narrative. Let Alice still experience this world along with the protagonists in the game. In fact, this would effectively make the moment in the game where Alice is kidnapped all the more meaningful as the player would actually grow to care about Alice. Some might argue that Alice isn't exactly a fighter but neither was Ariel, who the game had no qualms about placing in the party for combat. This is a simple solution that allows for a new, interesting party member, grants the player to experience the story of Alice in Wonderland in a way that is closer to the movie, and improves the overall writing in general.

His complaints are merely complaints. And the only reason I care is because he doesn't offer a solution even though the title and structure of the article implies that he is going to. That is just sorry writing.

The structure and title implies that he is going to point out ways the games suck and ways it could be better, which is what he did. The title and article structure does not imply that he was going to make each segment of the article a mirror of each other and provide a solution for every problem he points out. This is the opening statement on the second page of the article:

So how does Square-Enix and Disney fix this? It's really not as dire as it seems. In fact, there are some really basic things that could improve the series dramatically.

How does that translate to "Now that I have listed X amount of reasons for why this game has problems, I am now going to list a solution that specifically addresses each one of those problems"?

It doesn't.

If he isn't going to provide a solution to the problems he points out, why point them out at all? It's a waste of space. If a mechanic were to write down a two lists, one for problems and one for solutions(along with prices), and that list didn't even have comments on some of the problems, then he's either a stupid mechanic or a dick.

The second page of the article wasn't bad because, even if I think that some of the complaints are petty, they're still given and still have a solution. Problem: Kingdom Hearts has shitty names. Solution: Stop giving the games shitty names. Simple and Clean(lol). The first page offers few and fairly unsupported complaints and that is supposed to be the page where the complaints are, not on the page with the solutions. This appears to have been the intent of the author so I'm going to judge it like that.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
If he isn't going to provide a solution to the problems he points out, why point them out at all?
Because it's an opinion article and that's what people do. They write out their opinions for other people to read.

Can you provide an objective argument for why you need to provide a solution for every problem you point out? As so far this seems to be nothing more than some arbitrary rule that you hold over people's writings. It's the equivalent of me saying that if you don't end every one of your posts with a sentence that ends in an exclamation point, the post is therefore a waste of space. Why? Where's the hard justification for such a declaration?

Because it's, pfft, helpful. If he didn't have an answer to the problem, he could just say "I'm not sure yet how exactly they can work around this" then it would be fine. As it stands, what we have is an article that:

1. Offers us rather vague, mostly unsupported complaints that sometimes appear contradictory.

2. Tells us how the series can be better if they did such and such but neglects to address some of the problems they themselves presented, leaving the reader perplexed as to why they were brought up or why they weren't answered.

Sure, I guess the author didn't promise us solutions to each complaint they bring up. However, it only serves to make them and the article look poorly written(because it is).

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
[B]Because it's, pfft, helpful.
Helpful for what? It's an opinion article, not some official consultation that is designed to be mailed to Square-Enix so they can make a better game. It literally serves no other purpose beyond being something for us to read.

Sure, I guess the author didn't promise us solutions to each complaint they bring up. However, it only serves to make them and the article look poorly written(because it is).
Poorly written according to... what official guidelines, exactly? I'm a writer too, and I have never seen anyone besides you claim that you have to provide a solution for every problem you bring up in order for your writing to be good. Unless you can provide some sort of official source that justifies such a claim, it's pretty obvious that this is nothing more than some arbitrary requirement you've made up.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Helpful for what? It's an opinion article, not some official consultation that is designed to be mailed to Square-Enix so they can make a better game. It literally serves no other purpose beyond being something for us to read.

Poorly written according to... what official guidelines, exactly? I'm a writer too, and I have never seen anyone besides you claim that you have to provide a solution for every problem you bring up in order for your writing to be good. Please provide an objective source to support that claim.

Because it allows for KH fans, the people presumably reading these articles, to think "Yeah, that would make things better. They could be more clever about such and such." Helps the reader. Hell, whose to say that someone from Square wouldn't read the article?

Me. Seriously, I can't believe you don't see the problem with this. The article builds these two things up as big problems to the series and yet neglects trying to consider the answer to the other one. It makes the writer look stupid.

Maybe this would make more sense: Kishimoto is not by any means required to give us a final fight between Naruto and Sasuke. He could just have, say, Madara kill one of them before it happens. But this is shitty writing because, well, the fans really want to see that fight. Same with this article. I was genuinely interested in seeing the solutions he offered but he didn't. Instead, he offered solutions to things which, annoying, are not what he calls the "inherent problems".

In essence, he is not really doing anything. We have the thesis in the title "KH Sucks (But it Doesn't Have To)". First we need to support that KH sucks(and he did a poorer job of that than should be possible). Then you need to answer why it doesn't have to suck. In a way, he did that. But the Devil is in the details. Referring to those as the inherent problems, doing a poor job of explaining them, and then neglecting them is just stupid. Yes it's an opinion piece but it absolutely fails as an argumentative piece because the argument is poor.

Though yeah, done with this. I can pretty much predict what your next post will be like and I just do not care about pressing the matter further. You can call me a cop out if it pleases you though.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
[B]Because it allows for KH fans, the people presumably reading these articles, to think "Yeah, that would make things better. They could be more clever about such and such." Helps the reader.
And he did do that. The entire second page is dedicated to providing solutions for how to make the game better.

Hell, whose to say that someone from Square wouldn't read the article?
How is that relevant?

Me. Seriously, I can't believe you don't see the problem with this. The article builds these two things up as big problems to the series and yet neglects trying to consider the answer to the other one. It makes the writer look stupid.
That's your opinion and nothing else, which you've just admitted. Ergo it means nothing. I thought the article was great.

Maybe this would make more sense: Kishimoto is not by any means required to give us a final fight between Naruto and Sasuke.
This metaphor fails because Kishimoto is selling a story to us for money. This writer is not selling us a story, he is posting his opinion. A story has objective mechanics it needs to have in order to be defined as a story. An opinion article does not.

In essence, he is not really doing anything.
He is providing an opinion. That's something.

We have the thesis in the title "KH Sucks (But it Doesn't Have To)". First we need to support that KH sucks
No he doesn't, because you can't provide an argument for why something "sucks", because "suck" is relative.

Yes it's an opinion piece but it absolutely fails as an argumentative piece because the argument is poor.
And as you just said, it's not an argumentative piece it's an opinion piece. So how does this statement fit into anything? "My car sucks as an airplane because it can not fly." ... It's a car. It's not supposed to fly. How is that a meaningful statement at all?

Though yeah, done with this. I can pretty much predict what your next post will be like and I just do not care about pressing the matter further. You can call me a cop out if it pleases you though.
I don't need to state the obvious; your post does a fine job of that on its own. Concession accepted.

lol... 5L got ignored. xD

Gai got buried. Thats what you get for leaving this place for half a year >:0

Aura you're not very good at getting Blax's balls into a vice-grip.

Change your argument to say that "opinion articles" that merely complain without giving substance to their complaints are an inherently shitty medium, and then list why, and then laugh as Blax tries to defend a bad article.

It was 5 in the morning. I had shit to do. 😮

Shitty is relative. gg. 131

"In Generation V, many monsters rely on cowardly tactics—hit-and-run maneuvers with Choice items, unfairly exploiting their foes' typings to set up, or using despicable entry hazards to violate the sanctity of Focus Sash. Some simply use sheer brute force to crush those foes who are less fortunate, or a favorable typing and natural defensive power to wall their foes. Farfetch'd is a simpler kind of Pokémon. An honorable Pokémon. A decent Pokémon. Using Farfetch'd isn't just picking a team member—it's standing up for the restoration of knightly virtue to Pokémon battles. Farfetch'd can't use Choice items; it doesn't have a STAB combo that leaves many Pokémon no choice but to flee. Nor does it wield those entry hazards, or any other such trickery. And of course it is humble, statistically. Farfetch'd is a Pokémon which desires a duel; in a situation where its foes grant it the chance it needs to show its abilities, it cannot be beat."

Farfetch'd FTW.

YouTube video

I would love to see that biker-looking fella beat the crap out of that Justin Beiber lookalike.

Nemesis you've become a character flanderized over his MLP fetish. This will not please the aliens watching my life as if it were a sitcom. Cease or they will replace you with a new character, probably a gay one since those seem to be a big hit.