Zero Punctuation: Webcomics

[Tempdude0]

Huh...The discussion continues.

The "ham hands" references his lack of subtlety. That's the whole idea. It's not all that complicated or in need of more detail.

Oh ho ho, the old "lets see you do better." line. It's called a fallacy, use this to prevent further fallacious arguments (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/) I don't need to be a chef to recognize a shitty meal and I don't need to be a writer to recognize shitty writing...But I'll humor you. None of the characters have had "development" Luna is still a pathetic emotional train wreck, Dominic is still an asshat desperately in need of another boot to the head, Sparks or whatever is still the "comic relief" cat, Quilt is still the "random" idiot character...You know, the only one person who's changed is the gay dude, and the only development there was making him gay. Unless of course you're thinking of "feelings for my rapist" orc chick, which if that's the case, you have no right to talk about writing ever, anywhere.

As for the golem thing, it's been established that the kind of magic Sephiro...Jacob uses is evil. Jacob is evil. His intent is to commit relatively evil acts. All this together makes a wise cracking force of good? Yeah, that makes a whole bunch of sense. Oh, and he has EVIL BODY PARTS AS WELL. He reeks of evil in all way shapes and forms. As for "NO BLACK AND WHITE ONLY GRAY!" He's shown time and again that there IS black and white. The flame emo and the new ruler of the hell dimensions are perfect examples. They're undeniably evil based solely on what they are. Infernomancers are portrayed as being bad simply by being infernomancers. Even the "good" ones were shown to have evil qualities.

Moving on to the laws of nature, it's been established that fucking with corpses and raising the dead is evil. Evil is bad, and since death is meant to be the end of life, yes, it's a perversion of nature. I'll concede on that point though, since I don't have many instances I can reference.

Your argument for my statement about survival is laughable. Infernomancers may have tipped the balance of the wars in favor of the humans, but since they're not around en mass anymore, that's not really an issue for anyone else. Also, sharks, tigers, lions...None of those have higher cognitive functions like, oh, I don't know, all the races the humans were stomping a mud hole in. After the infernomancers were gone, they should have bum rushed the humans that were slaughtering their people. You know, to keep the ca-raaaazy humans from another attempt at the genocide game.

If you want a full dissertation, look back through the thread. There are multiple instances of people breaking down just how bad his writing is, ESPECIALLY in the recent miscarriage storyline.

They do cite their sources. That's the thing, they actually screencap things. It's the closest you'll get to "citing a source" on the interwebs.

Nice "I don't care" argument. That's not lazy at all. As for Tim being an ass, follow some of the links to other sites. They're right out in the open. Click them.

Once again, click the links. There are nifty little images that address your queries...and no, he wouldn't be arrested. You need quite a bit of proof where Johnny Law is concerned, and images of his nifty stunt and an admission on a website aren't nearly enough.

To that last guy, the "Why do we know so much about things we hate." deal? Yeah, we know about it because we dislike it, we dislike it because we know about it. Each and every one of us either read the comic at one point or learned about it and decided to see what all the hype was. As a result, we found something terrible that was being touted as amazing. As for ignoring it, people have already gone into why they don't. It's not a mystery, nor is it complicated.

Oh, and NICE AND CONSTRUCTIVE, HURR HURR HURR! Most of us can be constructive as well, but to be frank, they need not go hand in hand. Even the vitriol filled rant of a Soloman has constructive criticism. Just because someone is calling you an asshat doesn't mean their point isn't valid, it just means you're a namby pamby pussy. Suck it up and see if there's a point to be found, and if there is try to see what they're saying.

 

[CrazyBerk]

Woooow 28 pages pretty sweet..
Also i loved the fake names of the review they were pure awesomeness.

 

[Sylocat]

I like the serious discussion but the people who keep posting "Tim Buckley shows his penis to minors" should either realize that IT PROBABLY NEVER HAPPENED or DEMONSTRATE PROOF.

The proof is in the way he acted when the topic was broached on the forums. He immediately deleted all the threads pertaining to it, and perma-banned anyone who talked about it, EVEN THE ONES WHO DEFENDED HIM. If that doesn't scream guilt, I don't know what does.

 

[Dramus]

Maybe it screams "I'm pissed off about this false rumor, what kind of dipshit would make up something like that anyway"
I know nothing about it, just read about it in this post, but I don't think deleting posts about it is any indication of guilt, as whether he was guilty or innocent he'd be pissed off over them.

 

[Sols]

I'm sure someone's pointed this out, but...

www.ctrlaltdel-online.com

Accurate right down to the miscarriage.

 

[Epic Wizard]

Huh...The discussion continues.

The "ham hands" references his lack of subtlety. That's the whole idea. It's not all that complicated or in need of more detail.

Wasn't 'ham hands' refering to Tim Buckley and yet you start talking about Dominic Deegan >.>

Oh ho ho, the old "lets see you do better." line. It's called a fallacy, use this to prevent further fallacious arguments (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/) I don't need to be a chef to recognize a shitty meal and I don't need to be a writer to recognize shitty writing...But I'll humor you. ...

Yes it's a logical fallacy. However, in my experience it's a very instructive one if you just think about it a little. If you realize how hard something is then maybe you wouldn't be so derogatory when referring to something which fell short of your standards of excellence. Lets take your food example. Cooking a gourmet meal is hard work. Therefore when someone cooks a meal that is fairly good but not quite five star restaurant quality then I doubt you explode all over the nearest forum saying how horrible it was. Granted if you had paid for it then you would expect your money's worth but if you haven't then you have gotten a fairly decent meal for nothing. The same applies to Dominic Deegan and other web-comics. They are providing something, free of charge, and at great expense of time and effort in most cases (and the ones that don't spend much effort on it say as much). So if you can't do better and you will admit that it's not an easy thing to do, why are you complaining?

...None of the characters have had "development" Luna is still a pathetic emotional train wreck, ...

I'm rather curious if you simply stopped reading the comic about 2 years ago or have continued reading it and just don't look for subtle character development. Besides which if you haven't noticed people take YEARS to change in real life. I've had my fair share of problems and I'm still dealing with most of them. Luna is doing better than she was which counts as development in my book.

... Dominic is still an asshat desperately in need of another boot to the head, ...

No he's not an asshat but if you had his problems you would probably act like he does too. The largest problem you've probably had to deal with (and for all I know I'm dead wrong) is losing your job. Dominic has lost his leg, several teeth, and gets visions of the future which nine times out of ten deal with different levels of impending doom. He's actually a rather caring person or he wouldn't act on his visions at all (see yesterday's comic for reference).

... Sparks or whatever is still the "comic relief" cat, Quilt is still the "random" idiot character... ...

Can't really fault you on this but I would like to point out two possible reasons/excuses for this. One: in the best of books not every recurring character changes. Two: there hasn't been much time to focus on developing these characters. Hell we don't even know HOW Sparks is talking since the story has mostly been focused on Dominic and Luna's relationship recently as well as their own personal problems.

... You know, the only one person who's changed is the gay dude, and the only development there was making him gay. ...

See previous about character change. Also he stopped killing people >.> Or does that not count as a change -_-.

... Unless of course you're thinking of "feelings for my rapist" orc chick, which if that's the case, you have no right to talk about writing ever, anywhere.

She is actually a rather new character and for that matter 'her rapist' did what he did to save her life. Which would you rather be (hypothetically speaking) dead or 'raped'?

As for the golem thing, it's been established that the kind of magic Sephiro[th]...Jacob uses is evil. Jacob is evil. His intent is to commit relatively evil acts. All this together makes a wise cracking force of good? Yeah, that makes a whole bunch of sense. Oh, and he has EVIL BODY PARTS AS WELL. He reeks of evil in all way shapes and forms. ...

And yet the master necromancer (who is a good deal more powerful than Jacob btw) that Jacob 'idolized' was decidedly a grey area. He 'cured' Jacob's arm and frankly gave him a rather long lecture on morality and necromancy. Jacob is evil because he wants to be and he's probably not the worst guy we are going to meet.

Oh yeah back to Quilt. It's the author's world and if you don't like the quirks he throws into magic in his universe then that's really your problem. (like home brew D&D, if you don't like the DM then leave or be smote by his wrath)

... As for "NO BLACK AND WHITE ONLY GRAY!" He's shown time and again that there IS black and white. The flame emo and the new ruler of the hell dimensions are perfect examples. They're undeniably evil based solely on what they are. Infernomancers are portrayed as being bad simply by being infernomancers. Even the "good" ones were shown to have evil qualities.

The ruler of hell was one of Deegan Senior's old adventuring buddies and he seems to be at least a little better than the previous crowd if for all the wrong reasons. Also I defy you to show me a universe where Demons aren't evil. Just look at D&D for one.

Moving on to the laws of nature, it's been established that fucking with corpses and raising the dead is evil. Evil is bad, and since death is meant to be the end of life, yes, it's a perversion of nature. I'll concede on that point though, since I don't have many instances I can reference.

Actually it's only been established that Dominic sees Necromancy as inherently evil. The author never came down from the heavens and spake that it was an abominable sin. In fact, in the last D&D game I played we had a Necromancer in the party and he was good (or at least neutral) he just used the corpses of our foes and went with skeletons instead of zombies.

Your argument for my statement about survival is laughable. Infernomancers may have tipped the balance of the wars in favor of the humans, but since they're not around en mass anymore, that's not really an issue for anyone else. Also, sharks, tigers, lions...None of those have higher cognitive functions like, oh, I don't know, all the races the humans were stomping a mud hole in. After the infernomancers were gone, they should have bum rushed the humans that were slaughtering their people. You know, to keep the ca-raaaazy humans from another attempt at the genocide game.

Or maybe they realized how horribly hypocritical killing off the humans would have been in response to their attempts at subjugating and killing them >.> Or do you really think that we should have wiped out the German people after they started their SECOND World War? I would LOVE to see you explain THAT view without getting flamed. (FYI this is known as "Stepping in it")

If you want a full dissertation, look back through the thread. There are multiple instances of people breaking down just how bad his writing is, ESPECIALLY in the recent miscarriage storyline.

And now we're back to Tim Buckley ... okay WTF? Since I don't have time to go back through the 28 pages just this second (dinner and all) I'm just going to say that I doubt you or I could do better, I've never had a problem with his dialogue, and for all we know he was going for realism since reality is never well written.

They do cite their sources. That's the thing, they actually screencap things. It's the closest you'll get to "citing a source" on the interwebs.

I'll accept a screen shot provided it's not faked (and yes you can tell it just takes effort). Haven't you ever heard of 'Screenshot or it didn't happen"?

Also which 'they' are you referring to here? You seem to be becoming slightly disjointed.

Nice "I don't care" argument. That's not lazy at all. As for Tim being an ass, follow some of the links to other sites. They're right out in the open. Click them.

Once again, click the links. There are nifty little images that address your queries...and no, he wouldn't be arrested. You need quite a bit of proof where Johnny Law is concerned, and images of his nifty stunt and an admission on a website aren't nearly enough.

I very much doubt the credibility of all of this. I mean for one (and I had stayed away from saying this until now but whatever) how do we know that it was Tim Buckley's anatomy? Since I haven't seen and have no wish to see this supposed picture I'll just assume that his face was in the picture. If this is the case then I know people who could take a picture of Tim Buckley in a parka and turn him naked and he HAS posted pictures of himself in the past.

To that last guy, the "Why do we know so much about things we hate." deal? Yeah, we know about it because we dislike it, we dislike it because we know about it. Each and every one of us either read the comic at one point or learned about it and decided to see what all the hype was. As a result, we found something terrible that was being touted as amazing. As for ignoring it, people have already gone into why they don't. It's not a mystery, nor is it complicated.

So why do you continue to dwell on it? I mean this guy has a good point. If you don't like it then write it off as a waste of time and go do something else. You don't HAVE to keep filling up the internet with references to UD and venom. I know this is somewhat hypocritical but then I'm a defensive person and I enjoy intelligent debate. Though I don't think I have EVER made a wall of text saying how horrible something is. I will say why I don't like something and leave it at that.

Oh, and NICE AND CONSTRUCTIVE, HURR HURR HURR! Most of us can be constructive as well, but to be frank, they need not go hand in hand. Even the vitriol filled rant of a Soloman has constructive criticism. Just because someone is calling you an asshat doesn't mean their point isn't valid, it just means you're a namby pamby pussy. Suck it up and see if there's a point to be found, and if there is try to see what they're saying.

Actually in my experience anyone who needs to insult me as part of their argument had a weak argument to begin with. Which really doesn't help your argument since you've managed to be fairly civil up to this point.

 

[Tempdude0]

Holy shit, someone responded! Wall 'o Text man powers AAAACTIVATE!

Someone referenced Dominic Deegan. I have an intense hatred of that comic that perhaps even exceeds what I feel for CAD, so if I wasn't actually referencing the content of the post, I apologize.

Nifty, but since it's a logical fallacy, that means you're incorrect. That's WHY it's a fallacy. Going on, if I got a free meal and that meal was shit on a plate and everyone else was just lapping it up, yes, I would blow up. Free or not (another fallacy) everything should be held to standards. If you're making a "SERIOUS BZNESS!1!" comic, you should be forced to adhere to what you're promoting. If a five star chef is handing out shit sandwiches for free, it's still a shit sandwich. For the record, I don't care how hard it is to do something. It's hard to make a movie, but Uwe Boll still manages to fail horribly. The amount of effort into a project doesn't denote its worth. I don't care how free it is, how much time it takes them, or how hard it is. I care about results, and in the end, both comics fail hard and fast.

Ha ha, yeah...She's still an emotional train wreck. She has yet to change in any way aside from having the suppression abilities of the hardiest of nerds. Also, people don't take YEARS to change, at least not all the time. When someone is subject to, oh, let's say multiple near death experiences or, perhaps, multiple life changing events that effect someone in a positive manner, then yeah, they change just a TEENSY bit faster. Each incident forces someone to evaluate their life, and since she's still rocking the water works, I don't see the development....Well, now she goes manic at times, but that isn't all that out of the blue either. So, still no development.

No, I wouldn't. His problems are always fairly easy to overcome. Since everything in that universe seems to work according to just how hard someone is trying, all you have to do is be a "good guy" and try hard and you'll succeed. In a world where everything pretty much presents no obstacle, especially with the seeing into the future, I think most would be more laid back. That's not the point though. The point is that, regardless of those incidents, he's still an asshat. He's always been a "caring" asshat in that he doesn't like seeing people hurt. However, psychological torment seems to be no problem for him considering how many people he's mind fucked. Back on track, even if he's CARIN' AND LORVIN' DEEP DOWN IN HIS HART! he's still an ass on the surface. You know, the part that most people have to deal with. He is in no way different from when he first appeared.

It will never be explained, and I just used him as an example of how everything is static. Yes, not everyone needs to change over time, but there has to be a reason for them not to change. Sparks can get out on the "stupid animal" clause, so he was really just there to add to the static nature of the other characters.

Eh, he still counts as being the only person to have developed at all. Yes, he's no longer a murdering bastard, fair enough. That went hand in hand with the gay thing though. I probably shouldn't have lumped them together, but exaggeration for the sake of a point is a time honored tradition. Ah well, I admit he's had SLIGHTLY more development. Considering it comprised of "Murder Death Kill, Murder Death Kill!" to "Nooooooo...I shall be good from now on. Also, I like penis." I can't really say there was much in the way of fleshing out. That little guest comic thing did a fair attempt at it, but it was still a little on the flat side. Yes, we get it, you did bad things. Another in a long list doesn't mean much.

Uh, well, dead. My ass isn't up for grabs, and since there is an established afterlife for good people that YOU CAN VISIT, I think death sounds even better. No raping and eternal bliss, what's not to love. Considering her parents were just killed, I'd think heaven (or their equivalent) would be nice. Also, the fact is that while the rape saved her life, it's not something you come to terms with over the course of a couple days. Further you DO NOT FALL IN LOVE WITH YOUR RAPIST! DON'T EVEN TRY TO CALL STOCKHOLM SYNDROME THAT ISN'T HOW IT WORKS! GOD I HATE THAT DAMN STORY!...Uh, yeah. God damn I hate that hack writer.

Yeah, Rillian or whatever the zombie is called. He gave him a rather long lecture on...Oh wait, it was never said what was discussed between those two, just that Jacob lost his nifty skeletal arm. Also, please don't reference "homebrew D&D" It further points out how amateurish this all looks, but what the hell, I'll run with it. Why is the necromantic golem made from evil magic and evil parts good? If there's a quirk, what is it? Why is he stupid when Jacob supplied him with knowledge? Why is he the way he is contrary to his creation? All these add up to more than a "quirk" It adds up to bad writing. It's deus ex machina of the highest order. I shouldn't be surprised though considering that hack of a writer uses it so often.

Uh, first, He was evil. He showed he was evil. Remember the whole "Murder Zorro, the gay blade? thing? You know, killing Deegans father to claim his wife as his own. Yeah, not a good guy. Oh, and in D&D, not all demons are evil. There are neutral ones, and even a good one here and there. Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

STOP REFERENCING D&D, IT'S NOT RELATED! Oye, one trick pony we've got here. Anyway, yes, it has been shown that necromancy is evil. The actual acts performed have been referred to as evil. With the exception of Lardo, every practicing necromancer, even Rillian, has been shown to subvert the laws of nature. It's been said that bringing the dead, or yourself, back to life is an evil act. Reference the evil *****. It was said when they were talking about her coming back from having her neck broken.

The difference is that we're not talking about a single people here like ZE GERMANS! The human country, you know, the one with an entire species contained within it, went to war against OTHER SPECIES! The two are not a good parallel, and Godwin wags his finger at you. Further, it wouldn't be hypocritical to contain them and limit their power further to keep them from doing the same thing again, kind of like the aftermath of WWII. You know, taking away the Japanese's ability to wage war and all that? Incidentally, those other species, which also have inherently different thought processes than humans, seem to all be on the same page. How odd, multiple intelligent species all behaving EXACTLY THE SAME? He's shown that each has some sort of distinct culture. He never goes into it, but they've got it. How is it then, that all these varying species manage to think EXACTLY ALIKE? What are the odds? Oh, I know the answer to this. 100% because Mookie is a terrible writer.

I went back to it because I respond in paragraph form to each paragraph presented. That's why my paragraph spacing is so odd. I keep all the thoughts related to a single idea contained within' a single paragraph that comments on a paragraph given by the person I'm responding to. That said, your laziness doesn't mean diddly. Good for you, you deny something because you can't be arsed to check on it, even by hitting a button and looking for another wall of text post. I'm glad your time is so valuable that you can respond to me, but not spend ten minutes reading a few other posts.

Oye, once again, I respond in paragraph format. Everyone else can understand my pacing, why can't you? The "they" is in reference to ED, encyclopedia dramatica. They screencap shit. Also, edited screencaptures aren't worth nearly as much because it takes away from the impact of actually rubbing their face in their own shit. That's what ED does with online personalities, it screws them over with things they've actually done.

He admitted to it. Look at one of the screencaptures on the ED page. That's his screenname. That's about as close as you're going to get online...Listen, I realize you're a little slow, but lets get this straight here. If we go the "Pixels, I know, seen many shops in my time." route, everything online, even things from credible sources can just be explained through the use of photo manipulation. Incidentally, photo manipulation, good photo manipulation, is a pain in the ass to get correct. By that I mean it takes far longer than most people are willing to commit to.

Good, you're a quitter. Nice to know, quitter. That's not debate, for the record, but I won't get into that. Venom and vitriol and hate as an aside, I don't HAVE to do anything. I choose to do it because I see people being idiotic. This occurs mostly over little things, things like B^UCKLEY and his comic, and I take the time to explain why these things are bad in the hope that some people will learn what standards are. I further dwell on it because these little things tend to snowball. Standards are going down the tubes all over the place and all I can hope for is to change a person or two. Now, I'm not saying you shouldn't like CAD. In fact, if you like it, more power to you. You've found something in this world that makes you happy, good for you. However, don't tout it as being good or deserving of praise. Here's where shit gets to me. People think that because they like something, it's good. That's not how it works, that's never been how it works. The reason I dwell and harp and yell and insult and hate is that I want people to understand a concept...What you like doesn't have to be good for you to like it. I know you don't understand this, but it's what I've been attempting to impart. Not that you start to hate the comics you like, but to see them as they are.

I'm only civil while I respect the person I debate with. Your "experience" means dick, dipshit. Look up fallacies again, you just hit another. I don't need, nor do I want to be "nice and proper" with someone who refuses to do ten minute leg work to defend something they like, can't be arsed to come up with arguments outside of fallacies, and takes issue with the language and tone used to convey an idea. Ideas have merit in and of themselves that exist separately from the way in which they are put forth. This is not true of all ideas, but the ideas contained herein are such that they need not be explained in a couth manor for their worth and meaning to become apparent.

There, nice enough for you?...quitter.

 

[Obeliskos]

I respect your work Yahtzee, but it can't be argued that you were mainly picking on CAD. (here come the flames) I don't get why people disrespect Tim and his work so damn much (more flames), I think CAD is great. I enjoy CAD more than Penny Arcade. (I'm asking for it) And it's weird that I can't go anywhere declaring my love for CAD without being insulted, trolled, spammed, or any other negative reaction possible. People really don't respect opinions anymore.

I was worried that CAD would be the target of this video for a bit, but I figured, "No, Yahtzee is bigger than that." Guess I was wrong.

 

[Tempdude0]

I respect your work Yahtzee, but it can't be argued that you were mainly picking on CAD. (here come the flames) I don't get why people disrespect Tim and his work so damn much (more flames), I think CAD is great. I enjoy CAD more than Penny Arcade. (I'm asking for it) And it's weird that I can't go anywhere declaring my love for CAD without being insulted, trolled, spammed, or any other negative reaction possible. People really don't respect opinions anymore.

I was worried that CAD would be the target of this video for a bit, but I figured, "No, Yahtzee is bigger than that." Guess I was wrong.

It's not that people like his work...At least from a personal standpoint, anyway. I feel everyone has a right to like whatever they wish. The problem is in the defending of it. People feel that because they like something, their enjoyment of it somehow makes it good. The fact of the matter is that things can be enjoyed even if they're complete crap. Take CAD, it's badly written, badly drawn/copy pasted to hell and back, and is generally terrible on a number of levels. Despite this, people seem to love the bajeezus out of it. Now, I'm not telling you not to enjoy it. I'm just saying that you should see it for what it is.

Take fans of Batman and Robin. You know they exist, somewhere out there. There's no defense of that movie and I guarantee you they don't try to defend their enjoyment of it. They shrug and go "Yeah, it's terrible...But I like it."

 

[Leon K. Fox]

Most of these comics are funny, do you have a sense of humour?

 

[Epic Wizard]

I don't feel like quoteing posts at this point because I will pick them apart later when I have time.

Mr Wall-of-text (otherwise known as tempdude0) I wish you would supply better quality walls of text. You obviously have never played D&D or at least not in the last 20 years. Also go read through the Dominic Deegan archives so you can get your senseless ranting correct. Also I really do wonder at your definition of Deus Ex Machina since it really is HIS world and so as long as it's consistent it isn't Deus Ex Machina.

Also I don't see you doing much leg work to defend your points and Uncyclopedia counts for less than Wikipedia since at least Wiki has some form of quality control.

Before I get to why I'm asking this I would like an answer: What, if any, Web Comics do you consider good and what do you consider good writing in one?

Also CAD isn't a copy paste webcomic it is hand drawn (on a tablet but still hand drawn).

 

[Tempdude0]

Yes, I've never played D&D, despite having just created a new character for a 3.5 campaign. Though I'm curious, why do you think I've never played. Any reason, or are you just going for the sad, sad, ad hominem attacks?

In what way is my "Senseless ranting" incorrect? Well, come on now, step up to the plate.

Oh, and I don't believe YOU understand deus ex machina. Look it up. It refers to the idea of...You know what, here's the definition.

"a person or thing (as in fiction or drama) that appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly and provides a contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty"

I see nowhere in there that it's THEIR WORLD so it makes it DEEP AND TOTALLY NOT CONTRIVED!!1!

Quality control on wiki...riiiight. Next you'll be telling me pigs fly.

I don't need to justify what I find "good" or "good writing" for my points to be valid.

...No, it's not copy/paste at all. He just has a bar where he keeps different body parts/expressions. It's more of a key, so it's totally not copy and paste, right guys? I mean, even though his youtube videos show him blatantly using this key, it's really not him copy and pasting, it's us not seeing him magically draw the pictures.

Christ you're stupid. You seem to be barking up the fallacy tree today. It's like some sort of divine power smote you with the inability to make anything more than a flimsy argument. At least attempt to make a rebuttal of some kind, not just "Nuh-Uh, 'cause I said so!" I at least took the time to reference specific events, try to do the same. Since you know and love these things so much, it should be MUCH easier for you to point out EXACTLY WHERE I'M WRONG...You know, assuming you can actually manage that.

 

[Obeliskos]

I really have to wonder if people who don't like CAD will shut up about it and let the fans enjoy it. People who say "CAD is ghei lololol B^UCKLEY lololo clever if u liek CAD ur a douche" (and yes, people do say exactly that) are complete retards who don't understand opinions. People that don't like CAD but respect my opinion that it's good and don't insult me because I like it, I generally respect. However, the fact that Yahtzee would make a video just to target poor CAD seems low and he didn't make very good points. Hell, I can argue with everything he said if I wanted. But I really don't want to. I respect his work enough to leave it alone and not start an internets war. After all, I like both CAD and Yahtzee, so I'm trying to be on both sides here, but it's pretty hard when one of your favorite video game critics bashes your favorite comic.

 

[Tempdude0]

"Hell, I can argue with everything he said if I wanted. But I really don't want to..."

Lazy, lazy, lazy. Don't make a statement like that. It's pointless and generally makes whomever used it look like an ass, and a stupid one at that.

Also, way to miss the point there chief. The past few pages have been devoted to, aside from the random tard or two, explaining why the comic is bad. Those of us saying that aren't criticizing your love of the comic, we're saying step back and take a look at it for what it is. Just like Super Smash Brothers Brawl and Metal Gear Solid, no one cares if you like it. The problem that arises is that you think your opinion of it somehow gauges it's quality.

It doesn't.

 

[Epic Wizard]

Yes, I've never played D&D, despite having just created a new character for a 3.5 campaign. Though I'm curious, why do you think I've never played. Any reason, or are you just going for the sad, sad, ad hominem attacks?

I say you have never played specifically for your statement here:

... Oh, and in D&D, not all demons are evil. There are neutral ones, and even a good one here and there. Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

Even in the Eberron Campaign Setting which takes away the fixed alignment for some of the most classically evil creatures (dragons for one) Demons are uniformly evil, underhanded, and conniving bastards. That was the specific example that made me think you had never played and I only qualified it with 'in the last 20 years' because I know next to nothing about first edition and very little about second. Oh and FYI D&D can be related to any fantasy setting anywhere.

In what way is my "Senseless ranting" incorrect? Well, come on now, step up to the plate.

You keep saying how bad his comic is but so far you have either told me to go look up why or redirected me to some of the most questionable sources on the internet which merely attacked the character of Tim Buckley (and yes I know you sent me there in relation to the forum incident and not chasing grammar tips). You have yet to give any concrete proof of 'how bad this stuff is' or justify that in any way.

Oh and if you think you are providing a public service by informing the public that CAD is lousy then let me ring up reality and see if they forgot your wake up call this lifetime. No one likes to be told that something they like and enjoy is lousy and they generally enjoy it because they think it is good in some way (or think it is good because they enjoy it). So please give your public service a rest and then shoot it.

Oh, and I don't believe YOU understand deus ex machina. Look it up. It refers to the idea of...You know what, here's the definition.

"a person or thing (as in fiction or drama) that appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly and provides a contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty"

Soooo ... just because this didn't conform to your expectations it's shit? Well well well, I need to call up a few writers and go cuss them out then. Which is a shame because I rather enjoyed their work.

Also here is another wording of the definition which is a little less negative:

a Greek term meaning "god from a machine." In Greek theater, an actor playing a god was often lowered onto the stage to settle worldly affairs. The term is now used to describe any device an author introduces late in a play to resolve plot difficulties.[link]http://www.ket.org/Trips/horsecave/vocab_foreign.htm[/link]

I see nowhere in there that it's THEIR WORLD so it makes it DEEP AND TOTALLY NOT CONTRIVED!!1!

Only if it's a dramatic inconsistency. If he wants to make Necromancy not a black and white discipline then that's fine. The closest he has come to Deus Ex Machina was the story arch with the Elematica (not sure if I spelled that right) where Dominic was saves through what was a REAL contrived and overly convenient solution.

Quality control on wiki...riiiight. Next you'll be telling me pigs fly.

If they start flying then please let me know since I love bacon. Oh, and if you would like I did a report on Wiki and could dig up that study comparing Encyclopedia Britannica to Wikipedia.

I don't need to justify what I find "good" or "good writing" for my points to be valid.

If you are saying that the writing is crap then you DO in fact need to justify that point in some way shape or form of qualify it with something that distinguishes it as your opinion.

...No, it's not copy/paste at all. He just has a bar where he keeps different body parts/expressions. It's more of a key, so it's totally not copy and paste, right guys? I mean, even though his youtube videos show him blatantly using this key, it's really not him copy and pasting, it's us not seeing him magically draw the pictures.

First of all he still drew the bits in the first place. Second I really wonder if others don't do the same thing. I mean it's a rather efficient way to do things when you are making a Web Comic around a career of some sort. Plus, having a selection of eyeballs doesn't come anywhere NEAR the sprite comics where EVERYTHING is literally copy/paste. (don't get me wrong I love some of those comics too)

Christ you're stupid.

Actually I feel I'm rather intelligent and you probably are too. So far I've just held my temper better.

... You seem to be barking up the fallacy tree today. It's like some sort of divine power smote you with the inability to make anything more than a flimsy argument. At least attempt to make a rebuttal of some kind, not just "Nuh-Uh, 'cause I said so!" I at least took the time to reference specific events, try to do the same. Since you know and love these things so much, it should be MUCH easier for you to point out EXACTLY WHERE I'M WRONG...You know, assuming you can actually manage that.

I would love to tell you where you're wrong but so far you won't even tell me what you think is right. I mean I could always give you a page from CAD or Dominic Deegan and a picture of feces but I doubt that would help anyways. As for the length of my last post I was headed off to the movies with family in about ten minutes and didn't have time for a fifteen or twenty minute post.

You are entitled to your opinion but you don't need to try and force it on the rest of us.

Now unless you are going to get specific enough for us to have anything more than a shouting match I suggest we let this thread die.

 

[Tempdude0]

Whoops, thinking of extra planar beings. That'd be my bad. I was under the impression that the things I was thinking of were demons...They weren't. On that point I back down...Though now I have to go scour the damn fiend folio to see if anything in there isn't evil.

I stated flat out why both Buckley and Terracino are bad writers/artists. Did you even see the giant wall of text going into the lack of dimension in their characters? Also, BAAAAAAAWWWW....Listen junior, people are stupid. They think that because they enjoy something or they think a certain way about something that it instantly means that they're right because "It's opinion, maaaaaaan.". This irks me. Also, I don't care if people like what I'm saying. I doubt people like being told they wasted money, or are in an abusive relationship, or are bad at something. Reality bites, suck it up and deal with it.

Uh, Derp derp derp...That's what you've got going there. I never said it had to conform to my expectations. I said it had to follow the standards of writing. Also, don't get into the entomology of a word with me, I know it's origins. If you looked a little harder, it meant the same back then as it did now. An "act of god" resolving all conflict. It was bad writing then and it's bad writing now, you asshat. If you're going to play at being a literary fag, at least do it well.

The elemecca, the infernomancer returning, the battle for Barthis, the chosen. All were won through sheer deus ex machina. I never said the necromancy was deus ex machina, and the term doesn't even apply. God, you're a special kind of lackwit aren't you. You attempt to "correct" me when it comes to the usage of the word and not one paragraph later you use it wrong. How can you even be this stupid?

Pull it up then. Wikipedia is only good for the sources mentioned in the articles. The articles themselves are nice but are so open to change that you may catch them on the day someone wants to be an ass, or the article may not have been revised recently. These are typical issues with it that render it somewhat useless as a serious source of information.

I'm saying it's crap based on the rules of WHAT NOT TO DO WHEN WRITING! Deus ex machina is never good in a serious story, inconsistencies aren't good unless you use them as the basis for a future story and incorporate them intentionally (Like Emoboy Prime punching reality, but well done and not a retcon), static characters aren't good if you're attempting to inject human emotion and character into them. Also, just because I loves me some cheap shots, on the art side, snouts.

Oh, so it's not bad because others do it? Yeah, it's still lazy. It's still copy/paste. Regardless of drawing them the first time, he didn't draw them the next two hundred times. That's slipshod at best. Also, if you want a good example of art/writing, fine, Dr. McNinja. There, it's consistently well written and the art is dynamic. Also, he has more than a pallet of eyes. He has full "expressions" B^U, arms, torsos, legs, heads, the whole shebang.

My temper has nothing to do with it, and my insults aren't related to my temper. They're related directly to the amount of respect I have for you. Right now, you're somewhere in the realm of ****....and no, you're not intelligent. You consistently misuse terms, are unable to form a cohesive argument, and are generally just sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALA YOU'RE NOT RIGHT CAUSE I SAID SO LALALALALA"

I've told you the issues with both comics. Go back two or three posts and check out the giant wall of text on what's wrong with the comics. I broke down why each character was flat as paper and why the setting was ludicrous. As for my opinion, it's not opinion in this case. They're both bad writers. I don't care if you like them, but recognize them for what they are. I happen to like Eragon and Eldest, but I recognize them as fantasy star wars. Why can't you get it through your thick skull that your enjoyment of something is in no way related to it's quality?

 

[Epic Wizard]

I got everything I got wrong the same way you got Demons wrong. I read what you write wrong or you make a grammatical mistake which changes the meaning of a sentence in my eyes. It's a simple mistake.

I do wonder though where you thought that this was in any way comparable to an abusive relationship or someone who is bad at (lets pick a fairly infallible example here) walking through a door. Those are things with concrete definitions and at least in the case of an abusive relationship are serious issues. So far I haven't heard of anyone dieing in connection with bad writing.

I will fully admit that I am a lousy judge of poor writing since I didn't see Star Wars 1-3 as particularly bad writing without having it spelled out for me (with examples) which is the problem I have with your argument. I (in my opinion) refuted your initial round of arguments and if there isn't anything past this then I don't see a reason to do anything other than agree to disagree.

 

[Tempdude0]

Whoa, time out. I don't make grammatical mistakes. I'm far too anal retentive for those to slip through. Don't blame your poor reading skills on me or make excuses. The line you're looking for is "I occasionally misunderstand what you're writing due to not reading it thoroughly/too quickly and not checking back while writing my rebuttals." See, it's easy.

"I do wonder though where you thought that this was in any way comparable to an abusive relationship or someone who is bad at (lets pick a fairly infallible example here) walking through a door. Those are things with concrete definitions and at least in the case of an abusive relationship are serious issues. So far I haven't heard of anyone dieing in connection with bad writing."

Okay, what are you even getting at here? This paragraph has no flow at all. Work on that and get back to me...Wait, I just got it. Oye, the idea was that people don't like to hear things that conflict with what they believe, especially when it conflicts in a way they view as negative. As for the definitions aspect, I'm guessing that refers to my spiel over Deus Ex Machina, in which case you're usage of it is still wrong across the board. One of us here consistently checks the dictionary when unsure of word usage, and it ain't you. Incidentally, writing also has strict definitions for what is right and wrong. Just throwing that out there.

As for "Refuting" my earlier points, I brought more up you never addressed. The Deus Ex Machina for example. I pointed out that most, if not all story lines involve the use of it. I pointed out that there were major inconsistencies, but lets get more specific there. Deegan's wildly fluctuating power level, Luna bouncing around from inept to master, among other things. Further, I fail to see where you even responded to what I had written, such as Terracinos use of stark black and white in relation to acts/motivations that seem to change for no reason other than the writer feels like it's totally fine now. You also skipped over the things I put up in my last post as well. What, are we now just ignoring things we don't feel like answering because it would be hard? Well, I can't say WE, what with me having a fairly smooth time with responding to all your points. I guess it'd just be YOU then.

Also, going back to your own post, a few things confused me. Why do I need to qualify what I see as good? If I see a shit sandwich, I don't need to say I enjoy ham on rye bread to say it's a shit sandwich. As such, I see no reason why it's needed here, though I humored you and tossed up an example. You also mention that D&D can be related to any fantasy setting. This only confuses me in that I referenced Tolkien earlier and the way in which all fantasy for the past thirty years or so has been primarily influenced by his writing, after which you decide to say that line about D&D, a game BASED ON HIS WRITING. It just seems odd.

All in all, you seemed to have skipped over the majority of what I've written and wanked off into the middle of nowhere...and you needed to have the issues with Star Wars 1-3 pointed out to you? What the, just how did you miss them?

 

[whiskeywolf]

BRILLIANT! *knocks back a Guinness*

 

[Geamo]

Nice review.
Agreed on most counts, particularly the bit copying Penny Arcade.