Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

The main negative reviews I don't like are the ones complaining that a show isn't something that it was never intended to be.

e.g. slamming a more-or-less episodic anime for not having much of an over-arching plot. That's not a flaw. It's just something the author decided not to focus on. Cover how well each episode was structured in it's mini-stories, for these, not the lack of something that was never intended to be there.

Or slamming something like Sekirei for having too many big-boob girls. That's not a flaw, because that's what the show is basically about. Just watch something else, the show wasn't targeted at you. Nobody needs a review to decide whether a show like that is for them or not, just watch the opening credits.

[Neonivek]

That is 50% fair I guess.

Slamming a, horror, for example... for not being a Comedy is unfair. Or slamming a horror for being a horror is also unfair.

Slamming a horror for having too many Jump Scares... Not unfair.

So... Sekirei is still within fair enough territory. Even Cheesecake can lay it on too thick or distract from what could have been a competent story.

Then again... There is merit in saying "Yes this movie is a horror... but if it wasn't and instead focused on the drama... it would have been a great movie" as well. This argument line is more common in videogames mind you, because games can stretch themselves thin. For example Resident Evil 6.

---

Though we hit the double standard once again.

It is ok for someone to like something for merits that aren't intentional to the series... It isn't ok for someone to dislike it.

----

Nobody needs a review to decide whether a show like that is for them or not, just watch the opening credits

Ok now THIS... Is perfect double standard material.

Positive reviews are just... expressing how much you like the series.

Negative reviews are bashing the series.

[Tack]

That's an interesting point. But then you'd have all bad reviews be 'I don't like it because it is X, but if you like X then great, enjoy.'

"Poor graphics could be a design choice. Poor level design could also have been something they weren't focusing on, along with character development and plot... But if you like... whatever's left, then this game will suit you just fine"

[Neonivek]

That's an interesting point. But then you'd have all bad reviews be 'I don't like it because it is X, but if you like X then great, enjoy.'

Isn't that what... All negative reviews are? Like... period?

They are giving their opinions and views based on their own metrics. It is up to the reader to decide what applies and doesn't apply to them. Whether they say "If you like X you will enjoy" or not isn't it kind of implied given you are reading this review for their opinion?

One review of Katamari Damacacy I once read that I go back to make a point... Was a 0/10 review... and basically boiled down to "I hate the music! it is so annoying and repetitive". Yet if this was on Steam I am sure it would be a 0% unhelpful review with about 100 posts about how "Unfair" and "wrong" the person making it is (Unless... of course... it was universally panned on Steam... In which case the opposite would occur... Steam is weird)

Even though... yeah... if you don't like the music I can't imagine you liking the game. It really would be a 0/10 for you.

---

Ultimately... I just wish people would judge reviews less on what they say (and how much they say)... and more on how clear they say it.

Also no harping on score... score is the least important part of a review... It is intangible and wishy washy meaninglessness anyway... ESPECIALLY the 7/10 standard. Which is so dreadful because people are taking the 7/10 standard as "THE STANDARD".

[Reelya]

Nobody needs a review to decide whether a show like that is for them or not, just watch the opening credits

Ok now THIS... Is perfect double standard material.

Positive reviews are just... expressing how much you like the series.

Negative reviews are bashing the series.

I don't think it's a double standard at all. Glowing fanboy reviews are just as shitty.

The equivalent would be glossing over the genre-specific things and claiming the show will be great for everyone, when clearly Sekirei is for a fairly specific target audience. That's just as stupid as saying nobody should watch it because it has da boobies, or saying it sucks because the plot has too many comedy elements. It's an ecchi battle comedy, it's not meant to be Ghost in the Shell.

[Neonivek]

Glowing fanboy reviews are just as shitty

Yes but we hit the same deal with most double standards. Which is

"Yes, technically the standards are both ways... But we will only apply it one way"

A lot like Ducking. TECHNICALLY the punishment is applied to anyone who is a nag, man or woman and that was the letter of the law and all judges would agree to that and that it isn't a gender specific law. Yet it has only been applied to women. So in what way isn't it a double standard even though it "technically" applies both ways? (And believe me... Men can be HUGE nags)

Negative reviews (or positive reviews on reviled series) are the only ones held to that standard. Fanboys are only in the firing line when they become extremely obnoxious (ignoring that... by scouring negative reviews to put them down for not "Meeting your standards of criticism" kind of makes you that obnoxious fanboy)

Edit: By "You" I mean a general you. Not you specifically Reelya. >_<

Edit 2: I think I made my point... I should now make sure to only respond if absolutely necessary and not to repeat points. XD this is the WTF thread not the... Hmm... Only my musing thread would be appropriate for this topic... and the last post on that was some free association nonsense on that Jetson Versus the WWE movie... That was kind of bad in all the predictable ways... yet also good... but still kind of bad.

[Tack]

I've been thinking about free will (I blame CGP Grey and Fallout 4)
It's this persistent itch in the back of my mind which I haven't managed to untangle.


I have this idea of a robot which has been tinkered and tailored and programmed to react with the exactly right proportions of fear and anger at the suggestion that they lack free will.
At some point the robot is invited to introspection and has to dwell on the possibility that it doesn't have free will nor a soul, and then consider the possibility that another part of its personality programming is that self-same internalisation, because I guess regardless of your processing power, the answer to an ambiguous question will never be concrete.

Then you have to entertain the possibility that the 'learning' by this AI might be linear instead of freeform. So at that point you have a robot which has been programmed to believe that it has free will and then taught by society to act like it doesn't. So if you then asked the robot whether or not it had free will, would it lie?

I feel like I could fill a very long and boring book with this. Make the robot a main character. I'd give it a gut-wrenchingly human job like 'grief counsellor' and then see how the wheels spin.

[wobbly]

Russian 'да' means "I agree with what you say, you are right", Russian 'нет' means "I disagree with what you say, you are wrong", while English 'yes' means "What you say reflects the actual state of things" and English 'no' means "What you say does not reflect the actual state of things." On the surface, there may seem to be no difference between the approaches of the two languages, but, actually, that is not so. In Russian, if I ask you, "Ты его не знаешь?" and you answer "Да." it means you do not know the person. But in English, if I ask you, "Don't you know him?" your "Yes" answer would mean you do know the person. Am I right? In Russian one can say "Да, я его не знаю," but in English one cannot say, "Yes, I don't know him," one has to say, "No, I don't know him." This means sometimes Russian 'да' is translated to English as 'yes', but sometimes, when it is the confirmation of a negation, as 'no.'

what
the
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Eh? In English you could answer with either & if it's talking about which is technically correct then the original question is grammatically incorrect. "Do not you know..." instead of "Do you not know..."

[King Kitteh]

I've been thinking about free will (I blame CGP Grey and Fallout 4)
It's this persistent itch in the back of my mind which I haven't managed to untangle.


I have this idea of a robot which has been tinkered and tailored and programmed to react with the exactly right proportions of fear and anger at the suggestion that they lack free will.
At some point the robot is invited to introspection and has to dwell on the possibility that it doesn't have free will nor a soul, and then consider the possibility that another part of its personality programming is that self-same internalisation, because I guess regardless of your processing power, the answer to an ambiguous question will never be concrete.

There have been studies giving evidence that decisions are determined several seconds before we consciously make them. ie our subconcious has already decided on an answer and feeds us this answer, which we then believe we made of free will.

Found this article as the second result on google: http://io9.gizmodo.com/5975778/scientific-evidence-that-you-probably-dont-have-free-will

It's all pretty shaky, but interesting none the less.

[Kot]

Some time ago I've read a short story in which someone invents a "time-travelling" button that shows it has been pressed ten seconds (or so) before it actually is, which sounds like a toy but it had a giant impact on everything - since it always shows with 100% accuracy that the button will be pressed, it implies that there is no free will. I don't remember exact ending, but it wasn't very jolly. While this experiment has nothing to do with time travel, it seemed funilly similar.
I mean, if there truly is no free will then a some sort of dread starts to seep in.

[scriver]

I've been thinking about free will (I blame CGP Grey and Fallout 4)
It's this persistent itch in the back of my mind which I haven't managed to untangle.


I have this idea of a robot which has been tinkered and tailored and programmed to react with the exactly right proportions of fear and anger at the suggestion that they lack free will.
At some point the robot is invited to introspection and has to dwell on the possibility that it doesn't have free will nor a soul, and then consider the possibility that another part of its personality programming is that self-same internalisation, because I guess regardless of your processing power, the answer to an ambiguous question will never be concrete.

There have been studies giving evidence that decisions are determined several seconds before we consciously make them. ie our subconcious has already decided on an answer and feeds us this answer, which we then believe we made of free will.

Found this article as the second result on google: http://io9.gizmodo.com/5975778/scientific-evidence-that-you-probably-dont-have-free-will

It's all pretty shaky, but interesting none the less.

Even if so, why would my subconscious decisions be less free willed than my conscious decisions?

[Yoink]

Any language you don't understand is going to look like a jumble of random letters.

Nah, I disagree there. Generally words look like... well, words, even if you have no clue what they mean.
Finnish is just weird as heck to look at, despite sounding really nice when spoken. All those dots and double vowels everywhere. You wouldn't expect those strange assortments of letters and accents to actually form anything approximating words, but somehow they do.

"And wraps tighter to Boss' boosters." It's a subordinate clause, meaning it should have a main clause right before it to give it an actor and maybe some context. Otherwise it's a non-sequitur even in Finnish.

'Tis a line from a song, so I wouldn't be surprised if they prioritised rhythm/metre over correct sentence structure.   
Thanks for the translation, though, it's probably closer than what Google told me, haha.   

[Lord Shonus]

I've been thinking about free will (I blame CGP Grey and Fallout 4)
It's this persistent itch in the back of my mind which I haven't managed to untangle.


I have this idea of a robot which has been tinkered and tailored and programmed to react with the exactly right proportions of fear and anger at the suggestion that they lack free will.
At some point the robot is invited to introspection and has to dwell on the possibility that it doesn't have free will nor a soul, and then consider the possibility that another part of its personality programming is that self-same internalisation, because I guess regardless of your processing power, the answer to an ambiguous question will never be concrete.

There have been studies giving evidence that decisions are determined several seconds before we consciously make them. ie our subconcious has already decided on an answer and feeds us this answer, which we then believe we made of free will.

Found this article as the second result on google: http://io9.gizmodo.com/5975778/scientific-evidence-that-you-probably-dont-have-free-will

It's all pretty shaky, but interesting none the less.

Even if so, why would my subconscious decisions be less free willed than my conscious decisions?

Not only that, but the experiments involved very simple decisions - not quite at the level of "drop the hot potato", but still very basic. I'd very much like to see such an experiment run with a VR driving simulator or open-world game, as I strongly suspect that such would not substantiate their findings.

[IcyTea31]

'Tis a line from a song, so I wouldn't be surprised if they prioritised rhythm/metre over correct sentence structure.   
Thanks for the translation, though, it's probably closer than what Google told me, haha.   

Ah, it makes more sense if you take the context of the song and the full verse:

"Siltojen alla onnettomat / polttaa rahaa tynnyreissä / ja kääriytyy tiukemmin Bossin buustereihin"

"Under the bridges, the unlucky/unhappy ones / burn money in barrels / and wrap tighter in their Boss(-branded) boosters"

This is a more valid sentence, though the idea of homeless people who have money to burn and expensive goods to sleep in is a bit silly.

The song's title is also a pun: "maailman kallein kaupunki" can mean either "world's most expensive city" or "world's dearest city". The latter is more common in use, but the lyrics joke around with the former.

[Frumple]

... it's almost amazing how quickly alcohol starts screwing with someone's ability to play video games. Been watching a zelda stream... part way through, guy cracked open a beer, and within minutes you could see their competence begin to degrade. Reactions became notably erratic, previous attentiveness to detail got less so. By the time that one was finished and a second started, it was like they had lost their ability to comprehend stuff like basic target leading, the ability to count, when to change tactics... just a bunch of stuff they had been managing went out the window. Wasn't hard drink, either, just fairly normal shit.

Really drives home how little it takes for the stuff to screw with someone. Avoid it enough I don't get reminded very often, and even then it's rare there's also steady and fairly constant activities that make it rather quite noticeable. Been a while since I saw an example that striking.