|
Post by Reiji-kun on Jun 3, 2009 16:24:04 GMT -5
P.S. Reiji, you owe 30 buckazoids now. CURSES!! I'll have to get them from that space janitor.
|
|
|
Post by YourAverageJoe on Jun 3, 2009 16:49:34 GMT -5
For the record, I did very much enjoy the final fantasy articles, they were funny. This, not so much. The major difference between the Final Fantasy and Bloodstorm articles is that EVERYONE here has played Final Fantasy and know most of its mechanics inside and out...as well as the fact that said expert knowledge of its mechanics is reflected in the Final Fantasy article while in the Bloodstorm it's...not so much. The style is much the same if not much more mature and I would very much like to see another article as freeform as the one on the Final Fantasy series.
|
|
|
Post by Haz on Jun 3, 2009 19:55:38 GMT -5
I know I'm late to this thread, but I liked the article. It's a complete joke of a series, so the writing style fit it completely.
I love random humor, but that's me.
|
|
|
Post by kal on Jun 4, 2009 2:04:49 GMT -5
As I said previously the author said he now intends to fill out the details he's skimmed over. Once that's done the article should hopefully be random pop culture references AND the trivia tidbits we usually expect from a hg101 article.
|
|
|
Post by zzz on Jun 4, 2009 2:11:31 GMT -5
Maybe you expect trivia, but that has never been a part of the criteria for a HG101 article.
Y'know, I really don't mean to still be on this, but it just strikes me as odd that so many posters seem to have come to expect the most common writing style used on the site to be the only writing style used on the site.
|
|
|
Post by Shellshock on Jun 4, 2009 9:00:02 GMT -5
<sigh>
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2009 10:17:39 GMT -5
Maybe you expect trivia, but that has never been a part of the criteria for a HG101 article. Y'know, I really don't mean to still be on this, but it just strikes me as odd that so many posters seem to have come to expect the most common writing style used on the site to be the only writing style used on the site. I know I'm going to regret saying this, but... If the people on this forum are so beneath you, why do you even bother coming here?
|
|
|
Post by Gendo Ikari on Jun 4, 2009 16:07:50 GMT -5
At first, the introduction put me off from reading, then I decided to give the article a second chance, and read all three pages from start to end. And it felt like I've read nothing. There should be something about three arcade games made by Incredibile Technologies in the first half of the '90s, but it's lost between ramblings, and countless references to American pop culture of the time (of which, being Italian, and not too obsessed about remembering all pop culture of when I was an high school student), I grasped next to nothing, way to reach a wide audience. Not to speak of the crude humour, with the horrible Rwanda joke being the lowest point.
The purpose of such "experiment" is beyond me. The fact these games are quite bad and stupid is not a way to dismiss any criticism. As already pointed out, and shown by some reviews on HG101, you can make detailed, interesting articles on bad games too - maybe even more interesting than with good games, especially when pointing out interesting features they possess despite the overall low quality. If the intention was to make something entertaining, well, total failure. Since the Final Fantasy article was mentioned: I hated the intro, and some attempts at humour throughout, but it was still very complete and informative, which the article we are discussing is not.
Sorry to sound so harsh, but I really can't find anything good about this piece; I'd rather stick to the "usual" style of HG101 articles, if this is the quality of an alternative.
|
|
|
Post by Garamoth on Jun 4, 2009 17:31:41 GMT -5
I think this is more than a simple question of accepting a different "style". It's a matter of many people finding that the article isn't on par with the quality standard of the other articles on HG101 (whatever that may be). It doesn't seem like a bad point, considering the amount of negative comments the article has already received. Of course, it's nothing a little bit of reworking can't solve. But I'm not the police around here so I'm just suggesting. EDIT: ...and umm, the author already said he's working on it, so yeah.
|
|
|
Post by YourAverageJoe on Jun 5, 2009 14:53:52 GMT -5
Of course, it's nothing a little bit of reworking can't solve. Not exactly pointed at garamoth in particular, but this attitude is common with a few posters here and I don't see why. I don't really see how anything short of a complete rewrite could save this article. Hell, I don't usually post in the Article Discussion section here, I think I posted a few lists of spelling corrections but that's it. This article though...it just infuriates me so much. It's not the style but the complete LACK OF CONTENT swarmed by near-endless masturbation that bugs me.
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Jun 5, 2009 17:21:59 GMT -5
I understand the concern about fleshing out the mechanics and such, but I'm not really understanding how people take this style of writing as "masturbation". If you look at a non-game themed humor piece - say, something by Dave Barry - is that masturbation too?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2009 17:59:28 GMT -5
I understand the concern about fleshing out the mechanics and such, but I'm not really understanding how people take this style of writing as "masturbation". If you look at a non-game themed humor piece - say, something by Dave Barry - is that masturbation too? I don't want to sound like a broken record (or hater, which I am), but Tim Rogers is the gold standard for "self-abuse" writing. While I find him occasionally amusing and knowledgeable about the subject matter, he wastes most of his time talking about how great his band is, how expensive his glasses were, what he ate, the shade of brown and composition of a bolus of feces he just left was, or other facets of his life that have nothing to do with the subject matter. Maybe it's interesting to some people, but it smacks of narcissism, and is kind of beyond the point of REVIEWING A GAME. Anyway, whatever, to each his own. While I can't say I LOVE the way the author of the Time Killers article writes, I wouldn't say it was masturbatory, just not very informative. He didn't go into his personal life aside from an anecdote about playing it, which is fine; I just thought there were a couple of areas where he didn't talk about things he could have, which irked me more than the writing style. If you're gonna bash the game, fine, but at least be thorough.
|
|
|
Post by zzz on Jun 5, 2009 18:57:55 GMT -5
It occurs to me that most of the people complaining about the style (and/or content) of the article are either not from America or too young to remember what American pop culture was like when the game was released. Cause if you were old enough (and American) then you'd know that the reason the author wrote the article the way that they did was to demonstrate how the culture of the time led to these games to begin with.
Did he go a bit overboard in the process? Maybe. Did he veer off topic in a few places? Definitely. But the point was to provide context for how the games came about. And there's no better way to help the reader understand the games than to contextualize them.
And it may seem hard to believe, but that's really what America was like circa 1990-ish.
|
|
|
Post by Garamoth on Jun 5, 2009 19:00:55 GMT -5
Of course, it's nothing a little bit of reworking can't solve. Not exactly pointed at garamoth in particular, but this attitude is common with a few posters here and I don't see why. I don't really see how anything short of a complete rewrite could save this article.. Yeah, I can't say I disagree with you completely... I'm just trying to be diplomatic, that's all. It's not like this site is under attack by a flood of such articles either. If that's the case, then Kurt can always "tighten" the standards later on. The site is his baby, after all. Anyway, it looks like this text has been touching the limit of how much trivia/humor/goofiness most of the habituals around here find relevant in an article. I have to admit some of it was hilarious but some of it was... not.
|
|
|
Post by ryochan on Jun 5, 2009 19:28:29 GMT -5
It occurs to me that most of the people complaining about the style (and/or content) of the article are either not from America or too young to remember what American pop culture was like when the game was released. Cause if you were old enough (and American) then you'd know that the reason the author wrote the article the way that they did was to demonstrate how the culture of the time led to these games to begin with. Coming from an American who was very well alive in the 90s, and gets pop culture pretty well, I still dislike much of the style of writing for the article, as well as a portion of the content. And before it gets called on, I may be a female but I've played games all my life, and have a far more masculine mindset than many of the girls I know. That said, although I don't totally disagree with the writing style, as everyone has their own particular way to write, I found the article quite boring for what I've COME TO EXPECT here at HG101. I don't mind jokes (even ones that are wrong in many ways like the Rwanda thing or the picture of the JFK in the scope), and even some extremely gross commentary (some portions of the Contra thing), but I would like to know more ABOUT THE GAMES. And before THAT gets attacked, I don't want to hear "There's nothing to know about them." If that's the case, then don't write about them here. There must have been something interesting to them for the author to write about it, or for others to remember it. Many people have pointed out interesting things they did remember, and it sounds like the game actually helped to advance (in some ways) certain things we have now. Maybe I should just accept what comes about, but the reason I've read every article on HG101 and continued to read, even thinking about an article, is because I like learning about the games, good or bad, and having actual information. No, I DON'T need to know that X+Y+R1=OMGAWESOMEMOVE, I'd look elsewhere from that, but I'd like to know did it play well for what it was? Was it unique in some way? And so on and so forth. All that said... TO THE AUTHOR: I look forward to seeing your revision with some extra information added in. You seem to be finding your feel in your writing style, and I respect that and wish you luck with it. Since you said you want constructive criticism, I hope you will accept a bit of advice I learned the hard way: What you think is funny, and may be funny to some, isn't funny to all. You can't ever say, definitively, that you know your jokes are funny because some people just won't get it/don't like that style of humor. It's nothing to be mad at, it's just a difference in people.
|
|