Print

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

[Mongrel]

I've probably been guilty of that one. I.E., this post.

[Thad]

There are a number of people at the service desk at my company who seem to think "N/A" stands for "I don't know."

[Classic]

Wh- What? How do you? I don't- even.

Yeah, fuck it. N/A how is that possible?

"I.E." and "E.G." are not interchangeable.

Idiot's latin lookup says that
i.e.== id est == That is.
e.g. == exempli gratia == for example.

[Thad]

Wh- What? How do you? I don't- even.

Yeah, fuck it. N/A how is that possible?

Well, I mean, they don't LITERALLY think it stands for "I don't know", but they use them interchangeably.  Like, there's a computer coming back, and under "model" they'll put "N/A".  That computer has a goddamn model, jackass; don't say it's N/A just because you couldn't figure out what it was.

It bears noting that the default image for every computer we ship out puts a list of stats on the user's wallpaper, INCLUDING THE MODEL.  Granted, we'll often get computers back which won't boot, in which case the wallpaper's not going to be any help, but then there's the fallback of LOOKING AT THE LABEL.  I'll grant it can be very difficult to walk a luser through finding a goddamn product label, but if you're a level-2 tech you should have that ability.

[Brentai]

N/A is often misinterpreted as an obscure abbreviation of "unknown".

[Lottel]

I used to think it was No Answer

[Classic]

It... It means "Not Applicable" right? Is that what it means? I- I'm not sure anymore.

[JDigital]

It does mean "Not Applicable". You use it when no answer applies, as opposed to when you just don't know the answer and can't be bothered finding out.

Another thing that bothers me is misuse of "basically". It originally meant, "I'm going to make an imprecise description for the sake of brevity and simplicity." Now it's used to mean, "I disclaim all responsibility for the accuracy of my own text, on a topic which I barely understand myself," or, "I needed a way to start a sentence and didn't feel confident just telling you the facts on their own - here's a qualifier to cover my ass in case I'm wrong."

[Büge]

Using "if you don't like it, don't watch/play it" and "I'd like to see you do better" as reactions to criticism.

[Mongrel]

Have you been reading webcomics?

[Büge]

Have you been reading webcomics?

No, gimmicky internet reviewers.

Actually, add "Gimmicky Internet Reviewers" to the list. I can think of maybe two exceptions I wouldn't want to trip down a manhole.

[TA]

Yeah, the majority of them just have no sense of pacing, or comedic timing, or when a joke is taking too long to tell.

[Royal☭]

On the flip side, I hate people who just state "I like it" or "I didn't like it" and call that a review.  "Why didn't you like it?" "I just didn't."

[Romosome]

Have you been reading webcomics?

No, gimmicky internet reviewers.

Actually, add "Gimmicky Internet Reviewers" to the list. I can think of maybe two exceptions I wouldn't want to trip down a manhole.

Yeah, the majority of them just have no sense of pacing, or comedic timing, or when a joke is taking too long to tell.

I don't know why these people cause me to react like a vampire before the cross but I think TA put his finger on it.

There's an important "Unwarranted self importance" component to it though. My golden rule currently is if someone thinks they are important and entertaining enough to speak directly into a camera for more than 5 seconds, the opposite is true.

[Brentai]

Very, very, very few people can do a decent review outside of the text medium.  That is why Siskel and Ebert made so much bank, even if they were basically douchebags in every other sense.

[Romosome]

Siskel and Ebert also usually at least cut to different angles so that the entire review was not LOOK DIRECTLY INTO MY FUCKING FACE AS I SIT AT THE COMPUTER AREN'T I CUTE AND POPULAR

[Friday]

or when a joke is taking too long to tell.

If I was God I would make it so when this happens like there is a cutoff point and suddenly a flock of geese attack the person speaking and then carry him/her away several miles

[Saturn]

or when a joke is taking too long to tell.

If I was God I would make it so when this happens like there is a cutoff point and suddenly a flock of geese attack the person speaking and then carry him/her away several miles

Tim Buckley was never seen again

[TA]

Part of it might be that style of review, where the reviewer spends a pretty lengthy period going through the entire subject - be that movie, or game, or whatever - cutting between themselves and the material itself.  Less of a review and more of a teardown, really, and it works a lot better when you're mocking something anyway.  It's a good format, if you can do it right.  I don't know who first popularized it, but it's also got to be really hard to do right - you don't just need to have good things to say, you have to be good at saying 'em, good at editing, good at timing jokes and cuts, and you really need to know the material inside and out to put it all together.  And to not have that slightly high-pitched, mildly lispy nerd voice that so so many have.

Noah Antwiler's the first I can remember seeing that format from, though I'm sure he wasn't the first to do it, and he does a damn good job of it.  So does the Nostalgia Critic.  And sometimes the Angry Video Game Nerd, when he doesn't get caught up in schtick.  But honestly I can't think of any others who rise above "eh", and more often they are just painful to sit through.

[teg]

James Rolfe (the AVGN) and Plinkett (RedLetterMedia guy) both generally excel at reviewing films because they actually understand how films are made. Even if the films they actually make aren't always that great, they know more than enough to actually break something down in an entertaining way.

Off the top of my head, Plinkett's review of Star Wars Episode One displayed a great deal of competency in...

-Pacing: Not one bit of the review feels rushed or drawn-out, despite the fact that it's deliberately divided into ten-minute chunks (often EXACTLY ten minutes) to be compatible with Youtube's formatting policies.
-Characterization and Set Design: Plinkett's character never really talks about himself, but we have a good idea of how he acts and how he lives from the brief glimpses we see of his home (no way is the guy's living room actually that messy) and the general manner he puts on. We know very little that's quantifiable or concrete, but we know who he is fairly quickly and we never question any of his actions as being out of character.
Basic Acting Ability: Plinkett's gravelly monotone delivery doesn't come across as nearly as smug or grating as, say, Yahtzee or Spoony, which is pretty impressive considering that they use what are arguably their real voices whereas Plinkett's voice is straight-up taken from a cartoon character.
-Editing: Goes hand-in-hand with pacing, really. Worth noting, though: I'm pretty sure that not once has he ever done the tired "repeated zoom on stupid thing for effect" gag.
-Cinematography and Screenwriting: Just worth noting: given how much attention he pays to this sort of thing in the films he tears apart. He addresses a lot of plot holes, dialogue issues, characterization issues, and make heavy notes addressing things like framing a shot (remember the bit about the Imperial Star Destroyer?) and the limitations of CG in filmmaking. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he has a formal specialization in something of this sort.



The Nostalgia Critic, on the other hand, has terrible acting skills and a sense of comedic timing so bad that it makes me physically cringe.* By the time he "reviewed" The Room despite it being the exact opposite of nostalgic (it's not old and nobody has fond memories of it), I gave up on the guy ever doing anything other than taking cheap potshots at films the audience already knows are terrible.

*Also, is that supposed to be a hospital, or is there a doctor and a nurse just chillin' in his hallway?