TorilMUD Forums

In case you haven't seen the light yet here it is:
http://www.xkcd.com

some highlights:)

You probably think cad is good too.

IF you cant differentiate between the two you are beyond hope.

They're both bad, Fuckley's is just the worse of the two. Here: allow me to improve upon the first comic you posted.

If you have no artistic skills like Munroe, then you had damn well better be able to execute a proper joke. Its a comic based on wordswordswordswords and he's a poor writer.

Zero Punctuation has a good review of webcomics in general that applies here.

Here is the miscarriage comic that is referenced in that video for edification on how bad Buckley is:

Gormal wrote:If you have no artistic skills like Munroe, then you had damn well better be able to execute a proper joke. Its a comic based on wordswordswordswords and he's a poor writer.

Zero Punctuation has a good review of webcomics in general that applies here.

Hehe. Gotta love yahtzee but I do not agree it applies to this case. Other than obvious lack of drawing skills.


Stop ruining my work:P

Ok here's how it works. A comic is a medium for visual art. If you cannot draw, your comic by definition is a pile of shit. If all you (think) you can do is write, then you should be writing, not drawing.

http://www.isxkcdshittytoday.com/

http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/

Gormal wrote:
http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/

The link is just amazing. Making a blog just to bash every comic strip published on some other guy's page? That dude has SOME issues. Does he visit xkcd daily to torture himself?

Gormal wrote:Ok here's how it works. A comic is a medium for visual art. If you cannot draw, your comic by definition is a pile of shit. If all you (think) you can do is write, then you should be writing, not drawing.

How did you end up in XIX century?

Kazimir Severinovich Malevich oil on canvas 1915.

Yes there are many people who enjoy mocking the shit that some people produce and yes we read most of the new shitty webcomics to point out why its crap. I'll concede that on occasion, xkcd has turned out a decent joke. But hey, a thousand monkeys...

Edit: I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say with that painting. I believe what you should have titled the image "strawman.jpg".

Lol, I always find it funny when "art" elitists try their hardest to insult somebody else's creations. Seriously, I bet you listen to some pretty shitty music sometimes. Hell, I'm positive I can thumb through half of your ipod and find shit that I wouldn't touch with Teflor's ears. The fact is, some people don't read comics for awesome art. Some people read comics for the joke telling. Some people read comics because they enjoy looking at things that are colored within the lines.

Also, in the art world you will hear a constant saying, "They learned the rules, and then they learned how to break them." Because something does not follow the conventions of excellent drawing, does not necessarily mean it is bad. I'll bet in every single book you've read, the writer had an editor because the writer was horrible at grammar. Did this make him a bad writer? Probably not.

And if you've made it this far, Gormal, I will let you in on a little secret: jokes hardly ever follow the adage of KISS. Those extra frames are called, wait for it, suspense. Sometimes the use of extra words/frames/whatever are meant to purposefully annoy the reader -- and that's the funny part. Look at Kaufman or Twain. Those guys made a name for themselves because they drew their jokes out longer than they "should" have gone.

tl;dr: you're wrong.

The jokes would have to be funny for that to be true. You don't build suspense by arbitrarily adding in more words. Less is more, is pretty much the first rule of writing. Its unoriginal, visually unappealing, and just plain lazy.

You might not like all of the music I listen to, but at least they all know how to play a guitar and carry a tune before they cut a fucking record.

Edit: I think I just got trolled so hard. You just compared xkcd to Mark Twain.

Gormal wrote:Edit: I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say with that painting. I believe what you should have titled the image "strawman.jpg".

I was mocking your concept of visual art. Sorry if it wasn't obvious enough.

Any comic who feels that they have to explain their joke is a poor comic. See: the first comic Oteb put up. "The Base Metaphor Explained" Its the same hack garbage that Buckley does with his yellow summary boxes.

Also: The creator is a furry.

Smug self-importance: the webcomic





I'm so random, clever, and wacky!

Munroe wrote:“I’m just this guy, you know? I’m a CNU graduate with a degree in physics. Before starting xkcd, I worked on robots at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Virginia. As of June 2007 I live in Massachusetts. In my spare time I climb things, open strange doors, and go to goth clubs dressed as a frat guy so I can stand around and look terribly uncomfortable. At frat parties I do the same thing, but the other way around.“

Me < gormal

Fans sometimes can get bored or disilussioned < antifans will get it all just to prove their point.

Oh and just for you Gormal one more strip:

Look, an incredibly unfunny strip to prove another of the points in the Yahtzee webcomic video. Valid criticism is valid.

criticism - the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc.
bash - informal To criticize (another) harshly, accusatorially, and threateningly

One thing I've seen is that webcomic fans are very devoted to their particular comic. That being said: lets examine 3 other webcomics and you explain to me what makes each good/bad.

I am not devoted to one particular comic. I am more devoted to a particular kind of humor.
I like Garfield, Dilbert, xkcd, OOTS. It doesn't mean I am fond of every single stripe from them. Just on avarage the appeal to my kind of humor.
Those above well... they don't. Tho there are a couple PA or CAD strips I found amusing yet they are rare and far apart. Probably I also cant tell you exactly why. It's way easier to define what is funny (tho still hard) than define what is not. If you don't get the joke its hard to say what was the pun. If you don't know what pun was its hard to critcise.
In case of above I can only say the joke in fire one is too slapstick for my taste. I don't understand the third a slightest bit and second one I just find unfunny tho I can't define reason.

As for your diagram of bashing and criticism I do not agree.
| bashing |
------------------------------------------------------
.......| criticism |
Criticism requires evaluation, bashing does not.

OOTS amused me for the early strips, but now its such a self-fellating piece of trash that's so full of words and pretentiousness that I can't stand it. Its like he's writing a fucking Robert Jordan novel in comic form... nothing ever happens.

Jake, xkcd is the best comic strip on the web.

Any comic who feels that they have to explain their joke is a poor comic.

I've been a fan of Penny Arcade since their first year, and I'm going to PAX this year. But one of the biggest criticisms of PA over the years (which I agree with 100%) is that fairly often, the comic strip REQUIRES you to read Tycho's newspost in order to make any sense.

I agree, PA still has its weaknesses and I don't even read it regularly. However, its the original and more importantly they've actually worked to improve the artwork and the jokes a LOT so they get a lot of leeway in my opinion. xkcd steals jokes like Carlos Mencia, shows as much artistic ability as Lil John, and fails to execute his jokes nearly as often as Pril.

Like I said before, it does have some funny sometimes, but all in all its a fast food disposable comic with almost no effort put into it. This guy is making a living on that stuff, and not showing enough pride to learn to draw a straight line or edit himself textually. I'm curious what people think is the worst comic out there.

(10:36:13 AM) Ragorn: so uh... what webcomics DO you like, since you apparently hate all the good ones
(10:36:51 AM) Gormal: more often than not i enjoy a few of them only occasionally
(10:36:53 AM) Gormal: they're a fucking plague
(10:37:04 AM) Ragorn: then just say "I hate all webcomics" and leave the thread alone

Stop tefloring the thread.

Oh man you made a sick burn and had to post it up didn't you Cofen?

Why are web comics 99% shit? Because the web is not the proper medium for a traditional comic.

interesting lecture on comics

God, if one more person links that stupid Scott McCloud rant...

Ragorn wrote:God, if one more person links that stupid Scott McCloud rant...

I know what you mean, you should read this.

Lol, Gormal, go snag your bifocals and the sunday edition of family circus. I think you're just being a crotchety old man here. And I find it hilarious that you're using normative language to describe something that is intrinsically subjective -- art. The closest you can ever come to an objective statement in the field is "I like/I don't like." Any statement that makes the claim "You shouldn't like/You should like" is as against the nature of art as you think these webcomics are.

I'm just waiting for you to compare his stick figures to a legendary painter.

Gormal wrote:I'm just waiting for you to compare his stick figures to a legendary painter.

It's sad to see you use Sarvisesque argument tactics. I'll break this down for you oldschool style:

1. You argue that extra words = bad all the time.

2. I give example of two people who used this style and became greats.

So, please, tell me where in my comments I said that any creator of a webcomic was as good as Mark Twain? Where in my comments did I say any webcomic creator was a great author or humorist? You argued that the style is not artistic or funny. I argue that it was and used examples to prove my point; therefore, you, sir, are wrong on both accounts. Also, before you borrow from Sarvis' book on how to strawman an argument and lose, I am in no way saying these web comics are good or funny in my opinion; however, I am stating that your current criteria of what makes a webcomic good is horribly innacurate in any objective sense.

Kifle wrote:

Gormal wrote:I'm just waiting for you to compare his stick figures to a legendary painter.

It's sad to see you use Sarvisesque argument tactics. I'll break this down for you oldschool style:

1. You argue that extra words = bad all the time.

2. I give example of two people who used this style and became greats.

So, please, tell me where in my comments I said that any creator of a webcomic was as good as Mark Twain? Where in my comments did I say any webcomic creator was a great author or humorist? You argued that the style is not artistic or funny. I argue that it was and used examples to prove my point; therefore, you, sir, are wrong on both accounts. Also, before you borrow from Sarvis' book on how to strawman an argument and lose, I am in no way saying these web comics are good or funny in my opinion; however, I am stating that your current criteria of what makes a webcomic good is horribly innacurate in any objective sense.

So are the constant disparaging references to me some attempt to get me into an argument so I can be blamed for "Sarvising" a thread?

Or are you just being a dick?

Now you're just putting words into my mouth. You compared him to Mark Twain, holding what you are crediting to his writing style up against someone else's is the definition of "comparing". I can't believe that you'd really believe that a literary technique used by actual writers in short stories and novels should be a common tool in a 3-panel graphical short. Comic strips are short and to the point. If one were to use such a technique a couple of times then good on him, but using that argument to support his constant failure to be concise? Yeah I don't think so, he's just a hack.

Go back and really read the strip at the top and where this argument came from. The panel I removed, and the text was wasted space. That joke isn't building up to a single punchline, the idea of the other panels to to create a context for the giant panel below.

If I want to get into an argument over the attachment Oteb posted by Kazimir Severinovich Malevich as not really being art, but a design (or an attempt to make money imo), should I hijack this thread or start another one. Hmm...

XKCD is superb. Gormal, you are wrong. There, let that be an end to it.

Sarvis wrote:

Kifle wrote:

Gormal wrote:I'm just waiting for you to compare his stick figures to a legendary painter.

It's sad to see you use Sarvisesque argument tactics. I'll break this down for you oldschool style:

1. You argue that extra words = bad all the time.

2. I give example of two people who used this style and became greats.

So, please, tell me where in my comments I said that any creator of a webcomic was as good as Mark Twain? Where in my comments did I say any webcomic creator was a great author or humorist? You argued that the style is not artistic or funny. I argue that it was and used examples to prove my point; therefore, you, sir, are wrong on both accounts. Also, before you borrow from Sarvis' book on how to strawman an argument and lose, I am in no way saying these web comics are good or funny in my opinion; however, I am stating that your current criteria of what makes a webcomic good is horribly innacurate in any objective sense.

So are the constant disparaging references to me some attempt to get me into an argument so I can be blamed for "Sarvising" a thread?

Or are you just being a dick?

Just being a dick. Do not ever assume I'm wanting you to argue.

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:If I want to get into an argument over the attachment Oteb posted by Kazimir Severinovich Malevich as not really being art, but a design (or an attempt to make money imo), should I hijack this thread or start another one. Hmm...

I'm still not sure which point Oteb was trying to make. I just let it go.

Gormal wrote:Now you're just putting words into my mouth. You compared him to Mark Twain, holding what you are crediting to his writing style up against someone else's is the definition of "comparing". I can't believe that you'd really believe that a literary technique used by actual writers in short stories and novels should be a common tool in a 3-panel graphical short. Comic strips are short and to the point. If one were to use such a technique a couple of times then good on him, but using that argument to support his constant failure to be concise? Yeah I don't think so, he's just a hack.

Go back and really read the strip at the top and where this argument came from. The panel I removed, and the text was wasted space. That joke isn't building up to a single punchline, the idea of the other panels to to create a context for the giant panel below.

Taking out the 3rd panel removes part of the context for the big panel. Remove the last panel, and I see your point. However, concise =/= good, nor is it ever a necessary quality for good.

Gormal wrote:

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:If I want to get into an argument over the attachment Oteb posted by Kazimir Severinovich Malevich as not really being art, but a design (or an attempt to make money imo), should I hijack this thread or start another one. Hmm...

I'm still not sure which point Oteb was trying to make. I just let it go.

I'm pretty sure he was trying to say that "good" artists don't have to be able to draw well as a prerequisit to create art or be successful in the art world. In short, he was trying to tell you that the comic author's inability to draw anything beyond a stickfigure is pretty much irrelevent to how good or bad the comic is.

Kifle wrote:

Gormal wrote:

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:If I want to get into an argument over the attachment Oteb posted by Kazimir Severinovich Malevich as not really being art, but a design (or an attempt to make money imo), should I hijack this thread or start another one. Hmm...

I'm still not sure which point Oteb was trying to make. I just let it go.

I'm pretty sure he was trying to say that "good" artists don't have to be able to draw well as a prerequisit to create art or be successful in the art world. In short, he was trying to tell you that the comic author's inability to draw anything beyond a stickfigure is pretty much irrelevent to how good or bad the comic is.

Thanks Kife. It was exactly my thought behind posting it after

Gormal wrote:A comic is a medium for visual art. If you cannot draw, your comic by definition is a pile of shit. If all you (think) you can do is write, then you should be writing, not drawing.

Adriorn wrote:If I want to get into an argument over the attachment Oteb posted by Kazimir Severinovich Malevich as not really being art, but a design (or an attempt to make money imo), should I hijack this thread or start another one. Hmm...

Hearing arguments backing up a notion a graphical design is not art would be quite amusing. Tho treating that painting as just graphical design (which it is by current standards) would mean disregarding the whole context.

oteb wrote:Hearing arguments backing up a notion a graphical design is not art would be quite amusing. Tho treating that painting as just graphical design (which it is by current standards) would mean disregarding the whole context.

A graphical design has a commercial purpose or origin to it, with 'it' being usually a type of simplistic decoration or color(s). It tends to be made to have a use.

Art is the creative expression of emotion and/or it is made in an attempt (I stress attempt) to (re)create something beautiful.

In attempting to draw a beautiful representation of still life, a design might be used on a vase on the canvas. That design is not art. A random assortment of hues of the color brown might make for a nice background for a painting, but art it is not.

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:A graphical design has a commercial purpose or origin to it...

I was watching part of The Colbert Report (I think) the other day, and they had some art dude on it. He said something was art if the person who made it intended for it to be art.

Kind of goes along with your statement. Basically if you're making it to be sold and mass produced, it's not art. If you're making it to be art... it's art even if it's mass produced.

That's a good point Sarvis. I should have added something that dealt with "skill" to the art definition as well. But definately, as mass produced as some of Dali's works are, for instance, the majority of it (not all) IS art, and fine art in most cases.

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:That's a good point Sarvis. I should have added something that dealt with "skill" to the art definition as well. But definately, as mass produced as some of Dali's works are, for instance, the majority of it (not all) IS art, and fine art in most cases.

Skill doesn't really need to be part of the definition. Again going back to the art dude on Colbert... he said something like: "If it fails to express anything meaningful it's just _bad_ art."

The attempt was all that really mattered.