'Huh, that writing really is horrible' or 'Bad Comics Wiki is terrible'

[tacticslion]

So, I recently discovered (well, rediscovered) Bad Webcomics Wiki. Instead of just dismissing it, I decided to actually take the plunge and read a number of articles.

I've yet to find one that I fully agree with.

Some of the articles make good points, a few are even fairly reasoned, and I condone some of what they say.

The majority of most of the articles seem to be attempting to pass themselves off as intellectual criticism that actually comes off as standard internet exaggeration-cum-trolling about a comic the particular article-author doesn't like.

There is no sense of balance or professionalism to the reviews, they're all pretty universally "I hate this, and here's my story as to why", though many do attempt some level of objective criticism, with varying levels of success.

It was a baffling experience. On the one hand, I fully agreed with many points and flaws within various webcomics.

On the other hand it also goes into seemingly random diatribes and over-the-top rejection of comics for... not really much benefit.

I'm aware that I'm just missing the joke to an extent. It seems the website that is doing something like many of the Channel Awesome reviewers or The Spoony Experiment or other reviewers with reviews that are only half-serious or purposefully trumped up for the humor.

The problem with that is, as much as those videos can be over-the-top, too sarcastic, and nit-picking, they also (for the most part) don't engage in personal call-outs and rather unpleasant behavior toward specific people, and it doesn't come off nearly as well in text as it does in person - the tonal emptiness of text in this context comes off (to me) as hostile and honest instead of humorous.

I'd genuinely like to see more honest reviews out of the site, actually comparing what makes a comic work or doesn't.

The current dynamic doesn't seem to work that way, however: from what I can tell, it's basically, post a review on the forum, and if anyone agrees with you at all, you get it posted.

I've read them, but I'm just not getting into them.

Does anyone have any experience with them? Are any of you editors or authors of things there? Is there anything you'd recommend? Anyone else just not like it?

[Bum Bill Bee]

I actually found this fascinating. Its kind of like an Honest Trailers for webcomics, then?

I did me one of those once.

In fact, I'm in the middle of another one right now. :P

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by Bum Bill Bee

I actually found this fascinating. Its kind of like an Honest Trailers for webcomics, then?

It could be, but it comes off as far more biased and condescending, specifically calling out individuals in ways that I'm not comfortable with.

Part of it seems to be the mixed "message" - any given article can fluctuate in its tone which is probably perfectly clear in the author's head ("here's where I do things funny, but over here's where I'm being a tad more serious, while over here's where I'm being straightforward, while over here my sarcastic and subtlety meters are both getting blown out... obviously!") but when read it's less clear and comes across as mean-spirited more than anything else, even when I agree with a fair number of points (which, for some articles I really do, while for others I really do not).

Part of it is the ramble-y semi-organized nature. While they follow a template, being a reaction piece (which is what the writings are) makes it less coherent in terms of tone and obfuscates the points attempting to be made (other than "this is bad and you should feel bad").

The last part is simply that there is a heavy and unfair criticism of anyone - anyone - dealing with money, legally or otherwise, a tendency to accuse things of sexuality regardless of their actual tone, and a seeming disconnect between the tone struck by the webcomic and the tone the author of a given piece thinks the webcomic should strike, regardless of the moral, ethical, or cultural basis for the webcomic itself. As an example, the gist of "This comic is totally sexual, so really the author should just use swear words and show bewbs in all the shots instead of pretending to be all innocent!" is actually something that came across a lot when I was reading the articles... which is, you know, really weird. Lots of libelous statements (probably mixed in with some true or accurate ones) about the sexual perversions, preferences, or financial dispositions of various individuals, their particular morals and ethics, and their individual outlook on things over and beyond what one could reasonably infer from their work... as well as insightful and well-researched points that had citations to back them up.

The problem is when the two are side-by-side presented with an apparent equal weight in a tone-empty text-based format.

So I'd not really say they're similar, though they may well try to be.

[tacticslion]

I think I've figured another thing that bothers me about BCW - whereas most critics review finished products, BCW often reviews products in process and while, yes, you can certainly judge things that have been crafted so far, there are also some elements to the wiki that are just going to be outdated after the fact. There were a few arguments against comics that just aren't true anymore, since the article was written, but it's exceedingly hard to go back and update all of those articles reliably. This spreads disinformation, and can make a solid work seem worse than it is.

[Tev]

There's actually a few comics that I like reading on this list. Reading what the reviewer had to say about them was pretty entertaining.

[tacticslion]

That's cool! If you enjoy things and enjoy the "review" as a piece of entertainment, that's pretty good, I guess. I suppose that my first exposure to it was just trying to take it seriously, before getting the joke, and the humor never quite got across, as I'd started out on the wrong foot. Interesting.

[Tev]

Oh, don't get me wrong. The reviewer is right about several things in his critiques of the comics I read. He just has a very entertaining style of reviewing things that makes it a more pleasant than offensive experience if you happen to like the work he's lambasting.

[Aldurin]

This feels more like a "rant about that comic you don't like" wiki than an actual review site, especially looking at some reviews like the one for Shortpacked! where it's a pretty safe guess that the review author is one of those guys who got banned from the comic's comment section for being an asshole.

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by Tev

Oh, don't get me wrong. The reviewer is right about several things in his critiques of the comics I read. He just has a very entertaining style of reviewing things that makes it a more pleasant than offensive experience if you happen to like the work he's lambasting.

That's cool. I submit that it may well and, in fact, almost certainly does change, based on the reviewer!

While they have different names that are listed, and different styles, however, unlike a visual medium (like the video reviews I view) it's difficult to tell the difference between them.

Even in a forum, you usually have avatars and the posts are shorter with repetition of names to keep people separate.

I think a lot of it comes down to tone and style.

Speaking of...

Originally Posted by Aldurin

This feels more like a "rant about that comic you don't like" wiki than an actual review site, especially looking at some reviews like the one for Shortpacked! where it's a pretty safe guess that the review author is one of those guys who got banned from the comic's comment section for being an asshole.

... this is pretty much the impression I got. It often felt like a self-righteous march of "LOOK AT ME, SMARTER THAN THE AUTHOR" than an honest review, and often seems to focus on local problems rather than the comic as a whole. The few times it does focus on the broader picture, it often comes off as simply incorrect in its assertions... and even when correct assertions are made, they're often made in weird and unpleasant ways.

The link I made at the bottom of my OP up there indicates that they're supposed to be funny, and it certainly does sway my opinion towards the positive, along with BBB's impression and Tev's, but I'm not quite there yet because so many authors just come off as jerks about things.

EDIT: I'm not trying to say that all the authors are alike, and I realize it's kind of coming off that way. Instead, I'm saying that the over-all impression I got from several authors was "here is my ranty-time about something I hate" rather than "here is a funny criticism of something I'd like, except I can't for valid reasons and/or this is funny criticism for funny reasons" - I do suspect the latter two are present (as Tev's experiences suggest), but there were enough of the first that it just gave me a bad taste in my mouth.

It's combined, however, with my own flaws of being pathologically unable to remember names until I've focused on them a bazillion times (faces I'm often pretty good with), and the semi-anonymity of walls of text with your name only seen once.

[POS Industries]

The BWW is one of the few things that generally manages to be even worse than the comics it's reviewing.



I don't think this person understands what the definition of "flaw" is. That right there is Ma3's only redeeming factor.

Originally Posted by Bum Bill Bee

I actually found this fascinating. Its kind of like an Honest Trailers for webcomics, then?

I did me one of those once.

In fact, I'm in the middle of another one right now. :P

Didn't I permaban you?