475 réponses à ce sujet

[Wowky]

Redbelle wrote...

Wowky wrote...

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Wowky wrote...

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but seriously, if this guy hates this game THAT much, why not just not play it and spend time doing something else that he actually enjoys?

Perhaps because some people actually find it enjoyable to deconstruct and analyse a literary?

Deconstructing and analysing a piece of "art" implies actually examining it's themes and what not...this is just nitpicking. Maybe he should write the next ME so we can all nitpick every minor thing he forgot about once it comes out.

Ever read the nitpickers guide to Star Trek TNG? Seven seasons that ran for and the number of mistakes picked up upon like doors that do not open when you walk towards them and dissappearing and reappearing comm badges is pretty darn anal.

That said ME has been around for a shorter amount of time, yet has earned itself nitpickers in that time frame who, it has to be said, have identified elements that deserve nit pickiing. If only to serve as a constant reminder to the developers that fans do have attention spans larger than a grape.

I completely agree with a lot of his points from an objective perspective, and like I posted a couple of pages back, , there were things throughout ME, ME2 and ME3 that I just responded to with "er...what?", but I guess I just wasn't as bothered by them in the long run. By five seconds (slight exaggeration) after I noticed it, something else ultra cool had happened and I couldn't be bothered focusing on the negative I just noticed.

[Redbelle]

It's funny, but from the previous posts those who claim to support ME by saying there was very little wrong, or those they proclaim to be haters that take things out of proportion, seem to be trying to win out, not by discussing the points Smudboy made. But by assassinating his character.

I don't like the fact he started off a vid by saying ME3's ending was a bigger dissapointment than his son. As a father he should suck it up and support his family (just my two cents on that issue), but the son statement is largely irrelevant to the topic he was championing. Where ME3 went wrong. Why it went wrong and how he knew it had gone wrong by showing previous examples of what is largely considered to be right. And what is largely considered to be wrong, from a story telling perspective.

I do not agree with all of his points. I'll give him that issues with ME2 exist, but if it had not been for his ME2 vid I would never have spotted most of them. Regardless, ME2 never had a game breaker moment where my suspension of disbelief was stressed to the point of breaking. ME3 did, but only at the end. Smudboy has gone over the ending, which I agree was truely aweful and should serve as an example of what not to do. But........... he also went after the beginning, and while I concede he has valid points, none of those points when I first played it were game breakers. I see them now, but they still don't break the game for me.

SB doens't pull punches and it's helpful to hear a well presented alternative perspective. But simply because he's right from the POV he presents doens't neccessarily mean I have to agree with him. Except on the ending....... Cause it was terrible........

Modifié par Redbelle, 16 octobre 2012 - 05:51 .

[Ithurael]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Ithurael wrote...

We aren't defending his character, we mostly defend and discuss his points.

You can be an arrogant pr*ck, but that doesn't mean you are wrong.

smudboy is an arrogant pr*ck, but his points are valid.

I only discuss constuctive criticism. Name calling is not constructive. Insults aren't constuctive. Winning your audience over is almost as important as the validity of your points.

If you want to have things sugar-coated and 'nice' that is fine. I am fine with abuse being shouted out, it reminds me of a teacher I use to have that lambasted the class - it was kinda funny, he actually kept asking one kid what i2 was every single day because that kid got it wrong on two quizzes.

However, I do understand what your saying. In the end though, I pay attention to the data presented and not the personality/behavior of the presentor.

[Dark_Caduceus]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...


I only discuss constuctive criticism. Name calling is not constructive. Insults aren't constuctive. Winning your audience over is almost as important as the validity of your points.

They're solid points.
If you choose to ignore them based on that you don't like his attitude then you're an idiot.

If this was something do with him personally then you could argue that, but it isn't

[MegaSovereign]

Ithurael wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Do they also call the creators and fans of the work "retards?"

Quit defending this a-hole.

Wow. look, I can get some of your points, but directly insulting people for liking something... just... wow.
Lavaros
18 hours ago

There's nothing wrong with calling people what they are.
smudboy
in reply to Lavaros
12 hours ago

We aren't defending his character, we mostly defend and discuss his points.

You can be an arrogant pr*ck, but that doesn't mean you are wrong.

smudboy is an arrogant pr*ck, but his points are valid.

Some of his points are debatable. In fact a lot of them are.

Evidence of this is the fact that most of "his" points were beaten to death on the forums prior to the creation of his "analysis."

There is no new substance. Only insults.

[inko1nsiderate]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...


I only discuss constuctive criticism. Name calling is not constructive. Insults aren't constuctive. Winning your audience over is almost as important as the validity of your points.

They're solid points.
If you choose to ignore them based on that you don't like his attitude then you're an idiot.

If this was something do with him personally then you could argue that, but it isn't

If you tried to make your points like that in any sort of serious academic context, you'd be a pariah if and only if you weren't already doing nobel laurette quality work that everyone was aware of.  If you tried to beahve like that in a political context, you'd get nothing done or be a mindless pundit that will ultiamtely be forgotten by history.  Yes the substance of the points is paramount, but the word choice you use when making a point is part of that substance that should not be ignored.  Obvioulsy there is a difference between sugar coating, pandering, and being tactful when making points. If you expect people to listen to you when outright insulting them and calling them names, then you're an even bigger idiot.  If your goal isn't to potentially communicate your ideas to people who disagree with you, then you're not actually participating in the on-going intellectual discussion and you're really participating in some form of psuedo-intellectual masturbation.

All of this would be blindingly obvious if you ever tried to engage on a serious intellectual level with someone who has fundamental disagreements with your views.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 16 octobre 2012 - 11:17 .

[MegaSovereign]

inko1nsiderate wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...


I only discuss constuctive criticism. Name calling is not constructive. Insults aren't constuctive. Winning your audience over is almost as important as the validity of your points.

They're solid points.
If you choose to ignore them based on that you don't like his attitude then you're an idiot.

If this was something do with him personally then you could argue that, but it isn't

If you tried to make your points like that in any sort of serious academic context, you'd be a pariah if and only if you weren't already doing nobel laurette quality work that everyone was aware of.  If you tried to beahve like that in a political context, you'd get nothing done or be a mindless pundit that will ultiamtely be forgotten by history.  Yes the substance of the points is paramount, but the word choice you use when making a point is part of that substance that should not be ignored.  Obvioulsy there is a difference between sugar coating, pandering, and being tactful when making points. If you expect people to listen to you when outright insulting them and calling them names, then you're an even bigger idiot.  If your goal isn't to potentially communicate your ideas to people who disagree with you, then you're not actually participating in the on-going intellectual discussion and you're really participating in some form of psuedo-intellectual masturbation.

All of this would be blindingly obvious if you ever tried to engage on a serious intellectual level with someone who has fundamental disagreements with your views.

You have such a way with words.

[NightAntilli]

I used to like smudboy, but, his complaints have grown from legit to over-analysis.

[Dark_Caduceus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

inko1nsiderate wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...


I only discuss constuctive criticism. Name calling is not constructive. Insults aren't constuctive. Winning your audience over is almost as important as the validity of your points.

They're solid points.
If you choose to ignore them based on that you don't like his attitude then you're an idiot.

If this was something do with him personally then you could argue that, but it isn't

If you tried to make your points like that in any sort of serious academic context, you'd be a pariah if and only if you weren't already doing nobel laurette quality work that everyone was aware of.  If you tried to beahve like that in a political context, you'd get nothing done or be a mindless pundit that will ultiamtely be forgotten by history.  Yes the substance of the points is paramount, but the word choice you use when making a point is part of that substance that should not be ignored.  Obvioulsy there is a difference between sugar coating, pandering, and being tactful when making points. If you expect people to listen to you when outright insulting them and calling them names, then you're an even bigger idiot.  If your goal isn't to potentially communicate your ideas to people who disagree with you, then you're not actually participating in the on-going intellectual discussion and you're really participating in some form of psuedo-intellectual masturbation.

All of this would be blindingly obvious if you ever tried to engage on a serious intellectual level with someone who has fundamental disagreements with your views.

You have such a way with words.

Except that this isn't accurate. A point stands and falls on its own, regardless of the attitude the person aguing said point takes. Ultimately, whether or not one's points were taken seriously in an academic or political context is irrelevant, again, because objective observations exist independent of how one percieves the person that voices them.

This is tantamount to saying- "The first modern anti-smoking campaign was initiated by the ****'s; the ****s are immoral, if the ****'s are incapable of expressing a view without having a bad attitude, there's no point in listening to the anti-smoking message".

Your perception of truth is going to be warped if you're unable to seperate a message from its speaker.

Edit: Naz.i is a bad word?

Modifié par Dark_Caduceus, 17 octobre 2012 - 01:50 .

[Grubas]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...
...snip..
Edit: Naz.i is a bad word?

Because if everything that could have been said, has been said, you can stil use the Fuhrer to stress your opinion. Godwins law applies.

[Ninja Stan]

Warning: if the thread continues with the name-calling and insults, it will be locked.

[Redbelle]

Arcian wrote...

Grubas wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...
...snip..
Edit: Naz.i is a bad word?

Because if everything that could have been said, has been said, you can stil use the Fuhrer to stress your opinion. Godwins law applies.

Adenoid Hynkel liked Smudboy, therefore Smudboy is bad.

If I take your meaning, you have just said that a fictional character played by Charlie Chaplin, who died on December 23, 1977, somehow knew of the individual whose online handle is Smudboy. Further, you have then implied that for reasons unknown, He knew of Smudboy's work's on youtube and appreciated them for what they conveyed.

Now given that it is possible to age at a slower rate of time relative to what we consider normal time, by traveling closer to the speed of light it is not impossible for Chaplin to have somehow made it to the 21st century to view Smudboy's vids, but where this scenario breaks down is the method in which he traveled backwards in time to make it to his own demise. I can only postulate that perhaps Chaplin hired an actor to take on his role, both in life and in cinema before he left for his journey into his future.

What Chaplin is doing at the present time is anyones guess. But I hope he returns to cinema as his brand of physical comedy is a delight to behold. (Unless it was the actor he hired who did all the comedy in which case we should ask Chaplin what his real name was for due credit for his work). But before I put further time and effort into this, and put forward the premise that Arcian and Chaplin know each other for him to confide that he likes Smudboy, common sense is prodding me to ask............

Are you absolutely sure that guy you think is Chaplin is who you think he is? Cause when you stop considering the implications and focus on the statement, is does sound a bit silly.

Modifié par Redbelle, 20 octobre 2012 - 12:49 .

[tanisha__unknown]

Parts are valid, others are just nitpicking.

[Fixers0]

All the hate.

[MegaSovereign]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

inko1nsiderate wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...


I only discuss constuctive criticism. Name calling is not constructive. Insults aren't constuctive. Winning your audience over is almost as important as the validity of your points.

They're solid points.
If you choose to ignore them based on that you don't like his attitude then you're an idiot.

If this was something do with him personally then you could argue that, but it isn't

If you tried to make your points like that in any sort of serious academic context, you'd be a pariah if and only if you weren't already doing nobel laurette quality work that everyone was aware of.  If you tried to beahve like that in a political context, you'd get nothing done or be a mindless pundit that will ultiamtely be forgotten by history.  Yes the substance of the points is paramount, but the word choice you use when making a point is part of that substance that should not be ignored.  Obvioulsy there is a difference between sugar coating, pandering, and being tactful when making points. If you expect people to listen to you when outright insulting them and calling them names, then you're an even bigger idiot.  If your goal isn't to potentially communicate your ideas to people who disagree with you, then you're not actually participating in the on-going intellectual discussion and you're really participating in some form of psuedo-intellectual masturbation.

All of this would be blindingly obvious if you ever tried to engage on a serious intellectual level with someone who has fundamental disagreements with your views.

You have such a way with words.

Except that this isn't accurate. A point stands and falls on its own, regardless of the attitude the person aguing said point takes. Ultimately, whether or not one's points were taken seriously in an academic or political context is irrelevant, again, because objective observations exist independent of how one percieves the person that voices them.

This is tantamount to saying- "The first modern anti-smoking campaign was initiated by the ****'s; the ****s are immoral, if the ****'s are incapable of expressing a view without having a bad attitude, there's no point in listening to the anti-smoking message".

Your perception of truth is going to be warped if you're unable to seperate a message from its speaker.

Edit: Naz.i is a bad word?

You've missed inko1nsiderate's point entirely.

And oh please...I'm not running away from any of the points he brings up. I've been debating either for or against (depending on which point specifically---I have mixed feelings about the EC) "his" points months before he uploaded the videos.That's because most of his points are either obvious as hell or ridiculously nitpick-y.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 17 octobre 2012 - 07:19 .

[dorktainian]

just watch it. if you love ME3 you'll hate smudboy, if you hate it you'll love smudboy.

jeez there are more important things in this world than getting all worked up over someone elses 'opinion'





take the humour.  enjoy.

Modifié par dorktainian, 17 octobre 2012 - 07:19 .

[MegaSovereign]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

I guess the conclusion we can come to is that Smud makes good points from time to time, he's just not good at presenting them.

That's the text-book definition of understating...

[sammysoso]

Well, he's a complete a**hole, but I can't deny he consistently makes good points in his videos.

[Dark_Caduceus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

inko1nsiderate wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...


I only discuss constuctive criticism. Name calling is not constructive. Insults aren't constuctive. Winning your audience over is almost as important as the validity of your points.

They're solid points.
If you choose to ignore them based on that you don't like his attitude then you're an idiot.

If this was something do with him personally then you could argue that, but it isn't

If you tried to make your points like that in any sort of serious academic context, you'd be a pariah if and only if you weren't already doing nobel laurette quality work that everyone was aware of.  If you tried to beahve like that in a political context, you'd get nothing done or be a mindless pundit that will ultiamtely be forgotten by history.  Yes the substance of the points is paramount, but the word choice you use when making a point is part of that substance that should not be ignored.  Obvioulsy there is a difference between sugar coating, pandering, and being tactful when making points. If you expect people to listen to you when outright insulting them and calling them names, then you're an even bigger idiot.  If your goal isn't to potentially communicate your ideas to people who disagree with you, then you're not actually participating in the on-going intellectual discussion and you're really participating in some form of psuedo-intellectual masturbation.

All of this would be blindingly obvious if you ever tried to engage on a serious intellectual level with someone who has fundamental disagreements with your views.

You have such a way with words.

Except that this isn't accurate. A point stands and falls on its own, regardless of the attitude the person aguing said point takes. Ultimately, whether or not one's points were taken seriously in an academic or political context is irrelevant, again, because objective observations exist independent of how one percieves the person that voices them.

This is tantamount to saying- "The first modern anti-smoking campaign was initiated by the ****'s; the ****s are immoral, if the ****'s are incapable of expressing a view without having a bad attitude, there's no point in listening to the anti-smoking message".

Your perception of truth is going to be warped if you're unable to seperate a message from its speaker.

Edit: Naz.i is a bad word?

You've missed inko1nsiderate's point entirely.

And oh please...I'm not running away from any of the points he brings up. I've been debating either for or against (depending on which point specifically---I have mixed feelings about the EC) "his" points months before he uploaded the videos.That's because most of his points are either obvious as hell or ridiculously nitpick-y.

Oh please, I never claimed you were running away from any points brought up, and kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth. Thank you.

[Sicarius N7]

I hate how everybody is hating this guy, His points are valid and too much pointless hate is against him.