|
Post by zzz on Jun 23, 2009 2:05:50 GMT -5
Spellchecking isn't much of a problem on the site from what I've seen. I think HG101's contributors are competent enough writers to not misspell stuff that much, and most word processing programs instantly notify you of a mistake (or even correct them automatically). It's things like repeated words, dropped words, wrong tenses, and grammar mistakes that show up far more often and you generally can't avoid them short of going over a piece with a fine-toothed comb. I'll admit that I do not care in the least about proper grammar (and actually think that worrying about it can only make articles seem stiff), but I don't repeat words, I don't drop words, and I get my tenses right. And yet some of my articles still have these kinds of typos in them. Believe it or not, it happens somewhere in the editing process. But like Succubus said, when I see these on the site my brain "fixes them for me" - for lack of another way to say it - so it's really no big deal. It's not like the articles are ever hard to read, or anything.
|
|
|
Post by Scylla on Jun 23, 2009 2:09:59 GMT -5
Proper grammar != writing a term paper
There's a big difference between intentionally using partial fragments and stuff like "ain't" and just flat out making mistakes.
But I'm not sure we should be opening this can o' worms. :P
|
|
|
Post by zzz on Jun 23, 2009 2:18:42 GMT -5
But people don't talk with proper grammar, and conversational writing is always preferable to formal writing. I'm not saying the articles should be hard to read. What I'm advocating is writing the way that people talk.
|
|
|
Post by kal on Jun 23, 2009 9:21:44 GMT -5
I will point out that Final Fantasy is a series that has plenty of coverage where as these two titles (and...Ninja Clowns) don't have quite that level hence my concern. I don't really like that the debate keeps going but I guess that's because this isn't just about this particular article but more what we all expect from hg101 and this is one of the first articles to really bring out an obvious divide.
|
|
|
Post by Garamoth on Jun 23, 2009 10:42:39 GMT -5
If the Final Fantasy articles (which at times are even more off topic) can stay in the main section then so can this. The difference is that the Final Fantasy articles are really good and that this one is well, you know...
|
|
|
Post by Scylla on Jun 23, 2009 13:17:50 GMT -5
But people don't talk with proper grammar, and conversational writing is always preferable to formal writing. I'm not saying the articles should be hard to read. What I'm advocating is writing the way that people talk. That's basically what I just said, dude. o_O There's a big difference between intentional conversational writing and making mistakes. Casual writing and grammar aren't mutually exclusive. If they were, casual writing would be incomprehensible, like trying to read a foreign language. Breaking some of the rules intentionally is being creative; breaking ALL of the rules means you don't know what you're doing. And if someone is familiar enough with writing, you can generally tell when someone broke a grammar rule intentionally or on accident. Even Mark Twain followed grammar rules when he wasn't intentionally breaking them (and even the portions of incorrect grammar followed other rules). Without any proper grammar, you'd have a sentence like: fishing me monkey screwdriver to walking running lip balm
|
|
|
Post by YourAverageJoe on Jun 23, 2009 21:59:17 GMT -5
Each article has its own unique combination of the presence and lack of flaws, but usually I find myself pointing out when an article comes off as too dry, meandering, or redundant. Redundancy makes my mind explode far more than simple typos, as I start mentally slicing and dicing a paragraph, removing all the phrases that essentially repeat what's already been said. I had to come a long way to get to that point, though. When I read my old reviews from around 5 years ago, I want to go into a conniption over my own redundancy. But of course I'm too lazy to actually improve them. :P So I fully understand if writers here accept and realize their mistakes without taking the effort to remedy them. As long as future pieces show improvement, I'm a happy camper. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA I can only speak for myself (and one or two of the people I've collaborated with), but I have NEVER sent in an article with a typo or spelling mistake. I don't know what he does to them, but somehow the mistakes get added in during the editing process. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
|
|
|
Post by zzz on Jun 23, 2009 23:44:11 GMT -5
What the fuck, dude?
|
|
|
Post by mercatfat on Jun 24, 2009 1:27:28 GMT -5
But people don't talk with proper grammar, and conversational writing is always preferable to formal writing. I'm not saying the articles should be hard to read. What I'm advocating is writing the way that people talk. So if I told you that my articles are written the way that I talk, would you advocate them for that alone? Because frankly, I do write very much like I talk in real life. Some obvious changes are made due to it being, you know, a piece that needs some sort of ending as opposed to a free form conversation. But if you were to ever have a conversation with me being expository at length in real life, you'd find it much the same and with as many terrible jokes... if not more. Also, for the record- Ninja Clowns bit is likely going away. It just does not work on this site as opposed to my own.
|
|
|
Post by zzz on Jun 24, 2009 2:17:36 GMT -5
The conversational quality of your writing has never bothered me. Now I can't say I'm all that crazy about the pop culture references or the toilet humor (the latter especially), but I do think the tone of the writing works just fine.
And I've said this before, but I do actually like the intro and Time Killers parts (overall). I think what's bugged most people is that the Bloodstorm part just seems like it's lacking in direction or purpose, and the Ninja Clowns part is just pure crappola. Personally, I would leave the intro and Time Killers parts exactly as is. I don't necessarily like 100% of the jokes, but I do think that first third of the article does exactly what it needs to do. If you're going to change anything (which apparently you are) then I'd focus more on making the Bloodstorm part seem more coherent. Cause as it is there's perhaps a bit too much rambling in that section.
And if I could make a request: Leave that last joke in the Time Killers part alone. That's the best damn thing in the entire piece.
|
|
|
Post by mercatfat on Jun 24, 2009 4:15:30 GMT -5
The conversational quality of your writing has never bothered me. Now I can't say I'm all that crazy about the pop culture references or the toilet humor (the latter especially), but I do think the tone of the writing works just fine. And I've said this before, but I do actually like the intro and Time Killers parts (overall). I think what's bugged most people is that the Bloodstorm part just seems like it's lacking in direction or purpose, and the Ninja Clowns part is just pure crappola. Personally, I would leave the intro and Time Killers parts exactly as is. I don't necessarily like 100% of the jokes, but I do think that first third of the article does exactly what it needs to do. If you're going to change anything (which apparently you are) then I'd focus more on making the Bloodstorm part seem more coherent. Cause as it is there's perhaps a bit too much rambling in that section. And if I could make a request: Leave that last joke in the Time Killers part alone. That's the best damn thing in the entire piece. Do you really think I'd remove a joke involving AIDS? I mean, come on. For the record, Ninja Clowns in particular was an ultimate troll piece, meant merely to enrage people who care way too much about the games as art subject. It was written to be a literary equivalent of kusoge, so "shitty" is probably the best American description it can get.
|
|
|
Post by YourAverageJoe on Jun 24, 2009 9:06:23 GMT -5
So, in order to spite people you view as pretentious, you wrote your article in a way that anyone who doesn't take games seriously anyway would call pretentious.
ART!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2009 9:58:00 GMT -5
Yeah, your justifications all sound like reasons that were made up after the fact. For something that was written the way it turned out, I'd find it very hard to believe that there was any over-arching goal beyond "t3h funnayz".
|
|
|
Post by TheGunheart on Jun 24, 2009 15:16:17 GMT -5
And don't listen zzz. You really need to go more in depth on Time Killers. Seriously, the game had buttons for every limb and the head, and you could actually cut off your opponents limbs. And that's just the start.
I don't mind the intro, but I want to know more about the game then just the experience of a kid playing it at the arcade.
|
|
|
Post by Scylla on Jun 24, 2009 16:09:37 GMT -5
I actually thought the Bloodstorm section was the strongest portion of the article.
|
|