Criticisms your'e sick of seeing in a film/story

[MetricFurlong]

It's not so much a criticism as it is a label/word but the term 'pretentious' seems to be getting thrown a hell of a lot more than it should. It seems to be slapped on just about anything that attempts to try and say something - whether that be a philosophical issue or a statement about the medium the work exists in - place strong emphasis on it's themes or present information in ways which aren't glaringly obvious. As if trying to engage the audience on an intellectual level, giving them something to consider beyond what's immediately going on in the story, is something to be ashamed of on some level.

 

[CManator]

'I didn't like this film, it wasn't like the book/earlier adaptations' - NO, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOUR FACE, FUCK YOUR FAMILY AND THEN FUCK YOURSELF AGAIN WITH YOUR FAMILY.

ADAPTATIONS OF WORKS ARE AMAZING AND AWESOME AND YOU SHOULD JUDGE THEM ON THEIR OWN MERITS AND NOT ON THE MERITS OR RELATIONS OF THE ORIGINAL WORKS (unless the new adaptation just mimics the older one completely, i.e. Oldboy). EVEN IF AN ADAPTATION IS TERRIBLE, YOU JUDGE IT AS A TERRIBLE FILM/BOOK/COMIC/WHATEVERTHEFUCK, NOT AS A TERRIBLE ADAPTATION OF WHATEVER SHIT YOU'RE BUSY FANBOYING OVER.

FUCK. ING. CHRIST.

*cough* so yeah, that's my most irritating criticism I find towards films/books/alternate media. Having people go 'Oh, Memento was a terrible movie because it didn't follow the original short story close enough' is stupidly frustrating, as they avoid viewing the movie in it's own rights and judging it on what it does/doesn't do right cinematically, instead judging it by their own stupidly-high standard set by their reaction to the original material.

I make this complaint when important details are left out in the transition. It can't be helped when cramming a 900 page book into a 2 hour movie, but it can be very noticable.

Still, most of those complaints boil down to preferring one interpretation over the other. But comparisons will always be made, may as well accept it. If you are going to stray too far from the source material, you may as well change the title while you're at it. Just my 2c.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Snip

Except... Hollywood is undoubtedly biased towards the white male. I mean, how many big movies came out this with black men as the sole protagonist? I can think of two, The Butler, and 12 Years a Slave, the latter of which is far from being a contemporary story and can practically write itself.

And? That doesn't mean that they should start changing the race of the character just to meet some arbitrary quota.

This is especially true in current superhero movies; there was ONE black person in The Avengers. ONE. Like it or not, Samuel L. Jackson was the token black person. I think in this case, when the racial landscape is undeniably uniform, I think it's okay to race-swap a character whose race has never been a part of their personality.

Again, the lack of Black characters in superhero movies currently out doesn't justify changing the characters race to meet some arbitrary quota. What they should do instead is make more movies with superheros that are already Black, instead of just resorting to lazy writing and just changing the race of a non-Black character.

Besides, in the Thor films they're not actually gods, they're aliens, and they clearly have a multi-cultural society, and why wouldn't you want Michael B. Jordan as the Human Torch? He's a great actor!

That's a pitfall excuse, nothing more. If the Norse Gods were trademarked characters, the owner would have sued Marvel over using their likeness. As for the Human Torch, he is a white guy. As I said, I've nothing against Mr. Jordan, I just wish that they would put him in a movie like Static Shock instead.

 

[Something Amyss]

I would like to see less of Idris Elba pretending that a Norse God is a Black guy

I would like to see less of people pretending the Norse only had white folk in their pantheon. It's hard to take complaints about Thor seriously when they had deities described as dark-skinned.

Ignoring the fact that we're talking fictional characters in the first place. Ignoring that nobody cares that they speak Shakespearian prose.

You know? the thing I like the most from jrpg's is the turn based combat system, and I believe is what most people that like jrpgs , like about'em, just my opnion.

I think that's also what a good chunk of people hate about them. If you can't quickscope it then teabag it, a lot of people just don't care.

Yup this came to my head when I read the post, I would add:

Superman is to dark and gritty and he didn't save anyone in the movie.

How silly. This is a re-imagined Superman for a modern era. He should carry guns and have a skull on his chest.

 

[[Kira Must Die]]

"There is no story!" Usually when referring to anything slice of life or anything simply about one's daily life.

This mostly comes from people who seem like they absolutely, positively NEED their movies/shows to have a traditional narrative or plot. I just don't see it as a valid criticism, especially when that's the whole point of not just the movie, but the genre as a whole. It's just a matter of whether it's the kind of thing that works for you or not. Also, I don't see how ones person's life isn't considered a "story."

Also, people who hate dubs just because they're dubs. I don't even accept the fact that most english dubs suck, because I liked most of the dubs I've listened to.

Or hell, any complaint about a remake, reboot, or dub that is basically "It's not as good as the original, therefore it automatically sucks." Or the assumption that the people behind those are deliberately trying to replace the original, stating that they can do it better when nothing of the sort has been said or even implied.

 

[Dalisclock]

That Avatar sucked because it was basically "Pocahontas in space". Yeah it was unoriginal...so? It was still an entertaining movie.

Unoriginal doesn't make it bad. Also the whole 3D hate. Get the fuck over it already.

I didn't hate avatar, I just didn't think it was super awesome like it was being hyped for a long time. Oh, it looks really pretty, but it's nothing terribly special. It's also really wierd when people(mostly the fox news crowd) kept seeing political agendas in it.

Also, the hate usually isn't against 3d, but rather when 3d is done badly and looks fake. A lesser, though sometimes important issue, is that it's harder for actors to respond appropriatly to a green screen then something they can actually see. Or if a character is CGI and not there, it's hard to deal with that.

It's why voice acting can be difficult because most of the time voice actors record their lines in isolation, so they often have only their half of the conversation to work from, which is not how people normally have conversations.

 

[sXeth]

- Backwards compatibility: I can think of only 4 and a half systems that had it(excluding handhelds and pc), now all of a sudden it's a dealbreaker? Yes it would be a lovely addition to any system, and a good selling point, but it's not necessary, apparently difficult to implement, and doesn't include the entire previous system's library.

The people citing PC as the great be-all answer to this problem is a big one too. Its gotten *somewhat* easier to do in modern times, but its still significantly likely that to get a game 5, 10, 15, 20 years old working on your PC is gonna involve massive amounts of configuration resetting, workarounds, scouring about for emulators, and whatall.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I see allot of old criticisms being brought up whenever someone mentions a favourite story/film. Often, they are valid and well thought out. Other times, they are recycled arguments that have been used by people who cant think of their own one or a better one. Whatever the reason, be it righteous indignation or good old fan boy rage, such repeated criticism can drive me insane.

So I put it to you, oh mighty escapist forum community, to bring forth the ones you hate.

The criticism I hate is over the issue of how all the superheores are White men, and that is wrong/unfair, so its ok to change the race of a superhero because otherwise all the superheroes would be White(which is inaccurate). It irritates me because as a fan of Spawn, I would like to see less of Idris Elba pretending that a Norse God is a Black guy, and insteadI would LOVE to see Idris Elba in the Blockbuster role of Al Simmons and star in Spawn trilogy(which could be directed by Christopher Nolan[footnote]Hopefully Mr. Nolan could take his skills from making three great Batman movies and use it to make three great Spawn movies. Hopefully he would be the director, and not somebody like Michael Bay or Silent Bob.[/footnote])! Seriously, its not just lazy writing to change the race of already established characters, its also insulting for those of us that are already fans of non-White superheroes like Spawn. Please Hollywood, stop trying to change characters like Heimdall and Johnny Storm, and instead start making movies about Spawn(starring Idris Elba) and Static [from Stack Shock](starring Michael B. Jordan).

I'll agree with you to a point. I'll go even as far as to say I didn't see Heimdall as a black guy working to begin with. Then Elba nailed it, and made me rethink the part a bit and the idea that character's race unless its specific to background (Black Panther for example wouldn't work as a white guy, neither would changing Storm to an Asian girl, etc.) isn't for the most part relevant. I actually at one point would look at trading cards I had of Marvel Characters and note a lazyish design similarity of Nick Fury and Mr. Fantastic. Take off the eyepatch of the old Nick and he does resemble Mr. Stretchpants a good bit, if a little more grizzled.
However when they changed Fury in the comics (in the Ultimates universe prior to the movie) to a black guy, it gave me a little more investment in his character. And yes he was modeled after Sam Jackson, but not because he was already playing Fury, rather the basis was a catalyst for Mr. Jackson to secure the role in any movies made containing Fury. And he does it with his usual flair and style, which fits the character in my view.
Now back to Elba, I love his portrayal of Heimdall and don't begrudge the casting one bit. Now this leads me to feel that having race not trump acting ability is a good idea as long as its not too much a departure from the character. BTW Heimdall was so ancillary a character it really didn't matter much and I would have forgotten about it altogether anyway except that Elba was damn damn good.
However I would agree he'd also be interesting as Al Simmons, as long as the writing and directing of another movie was decent. Just don't let Todd MacFarlane write it...
Anyway, I can still say that not every character would benefit from a racial rewrite and most would suffer especially if it became a habit. Its not a bad thing to have diversity, but not for the sake of diversity or racial ass-kissing. A character must stand on its own merit, and not be the token x-race because "we need moar".
Sidebar: Part of me really hates one fact of this Marvel film universe, its missing so many possibilities because of other studios owning film rights... I mean I'd love to see the worlds cross-over even if its a minor mention in the background like a news story about mutants during an Avengers scene or during the inevitable Infinity Gauntlet having the effects of the conflict touch each of the different parts of the universe in some way. Thats what I loved about Marvel.

 

[ShogunGino]

Something that really gets me is that the Internet doesn't like to deal with someone found the Star Wars prequels and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull to be enjoyable, despite their flaws. Mostly due to nostalgia being given FAR more emphasis by modern audiences that possibly ever before, because we have nearly all media available to us whenever we want.

The Star Wars nuts can't help themselves from posting the link to RedLetterMedia's reviews of the prequels (which I dislike because, despite some good points, acting like a complete asshat in your reviews tends to kill how much I can take you seriously) before /threading the article, and wiping their hands clean of the matter, as if one person's opinion is now all of a sudden fact, and it justifies their overblown hatred.

On a related note, I can't stand people who think that old classics are now automatically immune to modern critique. I hate the idea of 'critic-proof' movies just because its 'old' and 'classic'. Now, contextualization is very important in enjoying old movies, and I always consider the time it was made, but age is not a good excuse for why somethings are badly made. Nor should a movie's age and vast popularity protect from any later critique.

That said, I personally think the original Star Wars trilogy has gotten an obscene amount of overpraise, and, yes, while I fully understand the futility of criticizing them in the face of their massive popularity, I will still say that I think Empire Strikes Back had crappy romantic dialog and poor performances between Leia and Han, the AT-ATs are stupidly designed vehicles of war, the fight scene on Hoth was poorly paced, everyone on the Falcon should have been sucked into space when they stepped out while inside the asteroid-worm, Yoda's introduction was not a good way to introduce him, Han Solo was a whiny bastard until they start to head to Cloud City, and that Luke should not have survived that fall after he finds out Vader is his father.

But I'm not allowed to say any of that because CHILDHOOD!!

Also, I'm not a fan of people who just bash CGI just because 'its not real'. I am a fan of all effects and animation. I study the history of animation, and it really irks me when someone calls CG 'soulless' or 'cheap' or 'charmless', simply for being. Yes, it is true that computer generated imagery is not physically there on camera, and I agree that some things are more effective with something physical there, but instant disgust over the fact that it is simply used in a movie just makes me frustrated.

Often, these people just look at the fact that CG is used and never mention pacing, editing, screen direction, and how well it interacts with the actual physical objects on screen. For me, effects wise, if any effect, even physical ones, aren't executed with a certain degree of care, will not be considered 'convincing' by me. And it most definitely doesn't feel less 'warm' than practical effects, because the same standards are held by me no matter what effect style it is. Just because its practical does NOT mean it gets a free pass from me.

Perhaps its because I grew up watching movies and shows with lots of different effects and techniques, and that I've studied how to do both traditional and digital animation before, but I just have a lot more appreciation for everything that goes into CG. Which is why hate it when someone just calls it 'cheap', when I know that it had to be designed on paper first, approved, built in 3D as a model, approved, given textures and colors, approved, given a skeletal rig that requires constant tweaking, animators working at a full 24/30/60 frames per second as CGI is always on ones, with lighters and prop designers making sure the animated creature can interact with its environments well, and THEN a final render which always takes a long time...well, 'cheap' is a very poor word to describe ALL of CGI to me.

 

[Astoria]

I see allot of old criticisms being brought up whenever someone mentions a favourite story/film. Often, they are valid and well thought out. Other times, they are recycled arguments that have been used by people who cant think of their own one or a better one. Whatever the reason, be it righteous indignation or good old fan boy rage, such repeated criticism can drive me insane.

So I put it to you, oh mighty escapist forum community, to bring forth the ones you hate.

For me? The whole "Lulz why didn't the eagles just fly them to the mountain?" from the hobbit. Of the top of my head? How about smaug (you know, the freaking Dragon that lives there) being one of the few things in universe that would pass for a natural predator for a giant eagle. Cant imagine they want to go anywhere near that thing.

Also, maybe, just maybe, giant birds have different motivations and thought processes to bipedal mammal folk. I don't know Gandalf's relationship with them, beyond his ability to call in a favour from them occasionally if there is no other way for him to accomplish something (Not being dead, saving lives ect)

If I remember correct Gandalf did ask them to take them there but they said it would be dishonourable to them as they'd been seen as servants or something.

It annoys me that people keep saying that Inception was too confusing. What was confusing about it! The deeper you go in sleep, the slower time is. The deeper in sleep, the more their influence has an effect. That's not that difficult to get is it?

 

[Terminate421]

People do this to the Halo games all the time:

"There is no story! Nothing is explained!"

Because we need a narrator telling exposition to explain everything that happens right? If you're lost on the story of Halo 3, then go play the other 2! Simple as that! A sequel this late into a franchise shouldn't have to hold hands on the story!

On top of that, some people hate it for the lack of characters. Bullfuckingshit. Master Chief may not say much but he clearly has his own personality, Sgt. Johnson, Cortana...hell, in one game alone without context, I can pick up on all the character's personalities. I actually REPLAYED all the Halo games this summer and found myself still enjoying each of the characters, it's not about them fucking crying their feelings, it's about subtleties in movement or the way they say their lines. They don't need a Mass Effect level opportunity about a conversation of their favorite cereal to know a character

On top of that, even then. My most hated argument I ever see about Halo is that "It's Generic"

Name one game in the past 5 years that plays even remotely close to Halo. You can't come up with one.

The only I can THINK of by technicality is Bioshock: Infinite. And that's fucking pushing it.

It alone is it's own genre of shooter in a genre plagued with shooter rip-offs and attempts to be call of duty. I doubt that's considered generic.

Fuck me, I needed to rant.

 

[Shadow flame master]

Anything that boils down to nostalgia and childhood. Maybe it's because I was born in 1994, but I don't that much attachment to most of the media that I've consumed over the years. That's why I see the hate Michael Bay gets for making the Transformers movies as fucking stupid. The Transformers themselves would not look anything like the ones you saw on the Generation 1 show because a living sentient mechanical being that has been engaged in war with another half of its race would look, I don't know, more WAR LIKE, how about DANGEROUS.

Then there's the too 'kiddy' response to some movies and games. First off, almost anything made by Disney will have at least 5 to 20 minutes of depressing scenes or have a general theme in the movie that says something along the lines like "If you honestly believed we wouldn't go this far, then you're an idiot."

This applies to the Kingdom Hearts series too, it is a partnership game with Disney and Square Enix, a game company that gave you Xenogears. I mean let's forget that the game has themes about dealing with loss of friendship, a potential loved ones death, philosophical questions dealing with matters of the heart and whether or not one should exist or is allowed to exist, suicide, and other things.

Let's also forget that the main villain of the series is a man who wishes to "create an apocalypse to see what happens." He has systematically broken lives, friendships, homes and worlds all in the name of the creation of a weapon that is said to be the key to the universe, or what created the universe. He also has a tendency to body-jack people and posses them as well.

But besides all of this, Kingdom Hearts is too kiddy to be taken seriously. Fuck you. With a rusty dildo.

 

[Mick Beard]

For me? The whole "Lulz why didn't the eagles just fly them to the mountain?" from the hobbit. Of the top of my head? How about smaug (you know, the freaking Dragon that lives there) being one of the few things in universe that would pass for a natural predator for a giant eagle. Cant imagine they want to go anywhere near that thing.

Also, maybe, just maybe, giant birds have different motivations and thought processes to bipedal mammal folk. I don't know Gandalf's relationship with them, beyond his ability to call in a favour from them occasionally if there is no other way for him to accomplish something (Not being dead, saving lives ect)

if you read the silmarillion it will explain who the eagles are and what their deal is


but they pretty much don't care what happens in middle earth as they live in Valinor.... where all the elves are heading to in LOTR

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Well, I can?t really think of any general ones now that no-one else has already mentioned, but I do hate when people criticise Black Swan for being ?sexist?, ignoring the fact that Natalie Portman is meant to be weak and infantilised because of the whole ?White Swan/Black Swan? dichotomy (and that, to some people, she?s a victim of mother-daughter sexual abuse ? I?m personally on the fence about that interpretation, but it?s certainly not invalid).

Oh, how about people criticising The Hunger Games for being ?a rip-off of The Running Man/Battle Royale?? If you?re going to criticise The Hunger Games, don?t criticise it just because it?s not the first film ever to be based around what would be a popular concept. Otherwise, you might as well lambast almost every action film that?s ever been made in the last twenty years because it?s not Terminator 2.

Or people saying ?this film adaptation didn?t stick close enough to the original source material; therefore, it sucks?. I mean, fuck. It?s an adaptation. I haven?t read the book The Wives of Bath and don?t know much about its themes (other than something to do with feminism, maybe?), but I still liked the film Lost and Delirious because, aside from the obvious, it was an interesting look at the breakdown of a same-sex relationship in an all-girl boarding school.
Of all the films I?ve watched, I think Kubrick?s A Clockwork Orange is probably the best adaptation of a book, because even though they are some changes to the original (e.g. the scene where Alex drugs and rapes two 10-year-old girls), it still follows the general plot and themes (and, IMO, improves upon it on some occasions).

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

Any JRPG, no matter how good or bad, will always have one ass-wipe reviewer go "It's a JRPG therefore it sucks." And yes, this person is paid to review games this badly.

Are you referring to Yahtzee? lol

Seriously though, I think JRPG's would get less crap if they dropped that horrible turn-based combat system. It's 2013, please update your combat system and join the rest of the world. Keep your crazy male haircuts, giant swords, angsty characters, anime art style, focus on teenagers and children as main characters, bishonen guys, Japanese view of Christianity, and other cultural differences, but please drop the outdated turn-based combat system. The only game I think that gets a pass on this is the Pokemon series, and I say that as someone who hasn't cared about Pokemon since I was 10years old.

I'd rather they ditched everything BUT the combat. That's probably why I like Shin Megami Tensei. The primary reason I play JRPGs is because I like turn-based, menu-driven combat. I usually just tolerate the plots, with a few exceptions.

Plus Tales still gets the same crap from those critics and that has real-time combat.

 

[Evonisia]

People do this to the Halo games all the time:

"There is no story! Nothing is explained!"

Because we need a narrator telling exposition to explain everything that happens right? If you're lost on the story of Halo 3, then go play the other 2! Simple as that! A sequel this late into a franchise shouldn't have to hold hands on the story!

On top of that, some people hate it for the lack of characters. Bullfuckingshit. Master Chief may not say much but he clearly has his own personality, Sgt. Johnson, Cortana...hell, in one game alone without context, I can pick up on all the character's personalities. I actually REPLAYED all the Halo games this summer and found myself still enjoying each of the characters, it's not about them fucking crying their feelings, it's about subtleties in movement or the way they say their lines. They don't need a Mass Effect level opportunity about a conversation of their favorite cereal to know a character

On top of that, even then. My most hated argument I ever see about Halo is that "It's Generic"

Name one game in the past 5 years that plays even remotely close to Halo. You can't come up with one.

The only I can THINK of by technicality is Bioshock: Infinite. And that's fucking pushing it.

It alone is it's own genre of shooter in a genre plagued with shooter rip-offs and attempts to be call of duty. I doubt that's considered generic.

Fuck me, I needed to rant.

/hugs.

Additionally, I hate how people are so quick to dismiss Halo Wars for... gasp... making a few changes to the story and made a slip up or two in canon (like SPARTAN Shielding and the Arbiter). As if Bungie has never slipped up on their own canon. As if 343 Industries haven't been trying desperately to retcon and change everything Bungie did ever since they got their sharp, brutal claws on the series.

"OMG why are they using Spartan Lasers???"

Well, who said that Spartan Lasers were new?

 

[Baddamobs]

Any JRPG, no matter how good or bad, will always have one ass-wipe reviewer go "It's a JRPG therefore it sucks." And yes, this person is paid to review games this badly.

Holy freakin' crap, I HATE when people do that!
That's like saying that, because a game is a third person shooter, they should all be disregarded as non-sense and unintelligent, and Spec Ops: The Line taught us differently.
I get that people have presences, but PAID reviewers should at least try to have a neutral stance.
/Rant.

Any JRPG, no matter how good or bad, will always have one ass-wipe reviewer go "It's a JRPG therefore it sucks." And yes, this person is paid to review games this badly.

Are you referring to Yahtzee? lol

Seriously though, I think JRPG's would get less crap if they dropped that horrible turn-based combat system. It's 2013, please update your combat system and join the rest of the world. Keep your crazy male haircuts, giant swords, angsty characters, anime art style, focus on teenagers and children as main characters, bishonen guys, Japanese view of Christianity, and other cultural differences, but please drop the outdated turn-based combat system. The only game I think that gets a pass on this is the Pokemon series, and I say that as someone who hasn't cared about Pokemon since I was 10years old.

I don't know, even Yahtzee said he dislikes when JRP's try to 'mix up' turn based combat (in his "White Witch" review), because at least the former un-messed with versions WORK, its when you screw with a perfectly workable system that things go astray. Besides, it more of a cultural thing: you noticed the number of first/third person shooters have come out in the west recently that strive for 'realism'? It's basically like that, but less crappy.

OP: complaints about difficulty, though my grip with it is downplayed. I understand that if a game is too easy or too hard it becomes next to impossible, but at the same time, it mostly relates to context and personal perception: certain games have certain audiences, but likewise what some find hard others find easy, hence any review on difficulty should have some sort of disclaimer in the sentence, i.e., "in my experience of [X]" etc. etc.

 

[wizzy555]

I never got how Sucker Punch was suppose to be misogynistic. I can see the argument for it being a little exploitative (is that interchangable with misogynistic now?) but that's it.

Also didn't get why 300 was supposedly homophobic. One villain who happens to be a effeminate does not send a message on its own.

 

[Mangod]

I think people who disregard characters' flaws and the fact that they are under duress in certain situations when criticizing their actions is pretty annoying. Oh, that's what YOU would have done? Okay, well, you're not a German bounty hunter in the old west, or a shellshocked veteran, or a man who dresses up like a bat and fights crime, and you're certainly not being shot at by a police helicopter, or being attacked by a killer robot... so on and so forth.

This is actully my main problem with a lot of people who criticise JRPG/Anime/Manga characters. I believe TV Tropes calls it the "What Measure is a Non-Badass" trope.

Basically, yes, Shinji Ikari (for example) is whiny, unlikeable kid who doesn't have a spine that a snail wouldn't scoff at... but he's also got the justification that he's a 14 year old boy, in what is a (character interactive-wise) realistic setting. He has suffered severe trauma, with the loss of both his parents early in his life, one by "death" and one by abandonment, something which he's never recieved therapy for, and his treatment at the hands of people once the series itslf gets going (being forced to pilot a warmachine he's never even seen, being reduced to a live-in maid, his father being more interested in the wellfare of a complete stranger than his own flesh-and-blood) only compounds and adds to his issues, like a man with broken legs leaping off a tall building.

But I suppose you, Mr. Badass Complaining Strawman, would shrug all of that off and proceed to beat the Apostles like you're two WWE wrestlers in a squash-match.

Also didn't get why 300 was supposedly homophobic. One villain who happens to be a effeminate does not send a message on its own.

I believe that's from Leonidas calling the Athenians "boy-lovers" in a derogatory fashion, when the Spartans themselves practised homosexuality as a way of bonding the troops... although Frank Miller justified that (YMMW) with the Greek inventing the word hypocrazy.

 

[ATRAYA]

"I didn't get the story, therefore I hate it!"

I saw this a lot with Inception, Bioshock: Infinite, Fight Club, Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords, and many other favorites of mine. Frankly, I found the plots to all of those media smart, insightful and straightforward (which is why I love them). When a movie or game makes you look deep inside yourself and learn a thing or two, that's fucking amazing. To then have to hear people whine about how it didn't make sense because they either weren't paying attention, or are just used to the typical shitty blockbuster they get fed every month to know what a good story is is infuriating.

Similarly, whenever I was discussing the intricacies of Bioshock: Infinite, even away from this site, I got Yahtzee's "it had its own head up its arse" response by the few haters out there, without any proof to back-up their regurgitated claim. I'm glad Yahtzee is popular and all, but for him to have such a wide area-of-effect is a bit scary... Don't just blindly repeat what your favorite critic said without coming up with your own opinion, please. You're just making an ass out of both the reviewer and yourself.