"Sonic Dissected" Dissected: (LEGO) Sonic Dimensions As You Truly Imagined It

[TearForFear]

Listen Double A, maybe I expressed myself with the wrong words.

 

So I'll riformulate my question:

 

does Roger actually believe in the things he said in the list, or was he just kidding?

[Diogenes]

Then I suspect you never entirely watched his videos since he does specify it's his own interpretation of things often.

Then doesn't it only make sense that some of his conclusions are criticized as being biased?

It's not because of this that i'm mad. You imply he's dishonest and does what he does in bad faith,

No, I imply that he is, consciously or unconsciously, distorting the facts due to his own biases. That's not some horrible slander, that's something most people end up doing out of habit and instinct, and something that good criticism seeks to minimize.

Last I checked SLW's story was badly received. Just saying.

That doesn't actually change the fact that his criticism of it shown in that image (even if it's intended to be exaggerated for comedic effect) is basically entirely made up. If you want to hate something, hate it for reasons that are actually true.

And besides that what's your point? Yes it's opiniated comedy, he's using hyperboles and sarcasm so what? I hope you're as severe with the 3 millions videos that use the same kind of trick for crushing Sonic 06.

1. Most of the talk about '06 isn't hyperbole. It really is that bad. 2. This is not a topic about '06 or anyone's reviews/analysis of '06. I'm not obligated to jump on every other video before I'm allowed to question this one.

And why it wouldn't be legitimate?

My point is that if he intends this purely as comedy and not as any kind of critical analysis, then it should be treated as purely comedy and not as a critical analysis.

[Indigo Rush]

Which isn't to say that critical analysis can't be funny, but if you're going to try to establish yourself as a genuine critic, you need to be ready to back your claims up with solid evidence. This is why comedic entertainers like the Angry Video Game Nerd and the Nostalgia Critic can be funny, but are also taken seriously. Bias or not, their claims have genuine evidence and they give a fair and palpable assessment of what's wrong.

 

Roger's analysis on Sonic, particularly and especially on the story of Lost World, is demonstrably fallacious. It not only spreads disinformation about the narrative of the story for those who are just tuning in and have never played the game, but it's also disingenuous to the actual merit of the game itself and further propagates numerous misconceived notions about how the characters are developed, how the story plays along, and so on. 

 

There's a difference between comedic but constructive criticism and satire, and downright misrepresentation for some cheap laughs.

[Kuzu]

I think people are starting to focus a little too much on that image and starting to ignore everything else he's said.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Indigo Rush]

To be fair, it's kind of hard to ignore. 

 

And I think it may be important to reiterate that none of us (I hope) mean any deliberate disrespect to Roger - I understand that he's some kind of national treasure to the fanbase, but he isn't free from criticism any more than the rest of us fans. If he says something that we either disagree with or find to be incorrect, we have every right to call him out on it.

[Kuzu]

I never said that, but rather you're doing the exact thing everyone is accusing him off; ignoring facts to support your own argument. Yes, that image is incredibly facetious and fallacious, but people have gone out of their way of saying that they haven't even bothered to watch any of his vids and just accuse him of speaking of his ass. Roger, for all of his obnoxiousness, at the very least played every single game he's critiqued to form an opinion of them, as unpopular as it is on this board.  

 

The least you guys could do is do the same before crying foul about it.

[Indigo Rush]

I've watched most of his videos as well. Everyone's criticisms are valid; from what I've seen, they haven't said anything that isn't true. That image sums up perfectly what the problem is with his videos, so its hardly unwarranted.

 

If they watched through his videos all the way, their opinions would barely change.

[Kuzu]

But you can't say that for sure, opinions change and its pretty unfounded to base an opinion if you haven't even bothered to researched what your stating.

[Indigo Rush]

For the record, I think they should watch more of his videos in order to get a bigger view of the situation as well; I'm just saying that in the long run, it won't change much. 

 

It's like watching someone review Sonic 06 instead of playing it yourself. You can harp on all day that you don't know what you're talking about until you play the game for yourself, but the fact of the matter is that even if you do play it, more likely than not, you'll end up with the same opinion of it.

 

And for that matter, his "Dissected" videos are genuinely difficult to sit through. (And with all due respect, understand, for that matter) All the power to those who could finish them. I can't count myself among those that could finish them. I've seen enough, though.

[Kuzu]

Fair enough. Just most of the responses in this thread seem a little less like actual critique of his work, and more like being against the fact that he "dared" to have an unpopular opinion.

[TheHeatSeeker0]

Well, if I can be allowed to butt in here.

Then doesn't it only make sense that some of his conclusions are criticized as being biased?

 

I kinda said this in another comment but if we go by this case, then you could easily call everyone bias. The fact of the matter is that certain game from certain time periods had better content to him and other people, while other didn't. You're basically saying the guy is bias for liking one game over the other.
 

No, I imply that he is, consciously or unconsciously, distorting the facts due to his own biases. That's not some horrible slander, that's something most people end up doing out of habit and instinct, and something that good criticism seeks to minimize.

 

You're really just sugar coating this. If this is the case though, mind actually listing which facts are distorted, to bring an actual argument then just making a statement?
 

That doesn't actually change the fact that his criticism of it shown in that image (even if it's intended to be exaggerated for comedic effect) is basically entirely made up. If you want to hate something, hate it for reasons that are actually true.

 

Again, I'd have to ask you give us some examples, cause you're really one of the very few people I see saying this, the rest being on this board as well.
 

1. Most of the talk about '06 isn't hyperbole. It really is that bad. 2. This is not a topic about '06 or anyone's reviews/analysis of '06. I'm not obligated to jump on every other video before I'm allowed to question this one.

 

1. While much of 06 criticisms are fact, how bad they are is what really hyperbole. It's as if any little thing that happens is deal breaker(like that kiss, I find many reactions to it to be childish), and yet, the story actually puts more effort in itself then stuff like Colors and Lost World.

2. While you aren't obligated to jump on every other video, it's the point that there are many more videos that do a far worse job then Dissected, yet met under constant praise. Also, in no way at all am I saying the guys from Dissected are free of criticism BECAUSE of those many other videos, but your comments alone with no backop statements aren't really enough to convince people of your own claims.

 

My point is that if he intends this purely as comedy and not as any kind of critical analysis, then it should be treated as purely comedy and not as a critical analysis.

 

You're basically saying the guy is not allowed to use comedy during his own video for the sake of him getting his points across better. If that is so, it's a moot point seeing as he gets his points across better compared to the average fanboys and drones of the interent. I mean, I've seen a guy say Sonic was in multiple relationships with human girls and no one commented on it, so excuse me if I see you trying to be critical of the guys from disscted by making judegemental claims of one of the few Sonic Fans who aren't Nintendo drones.

[Indigo Rush]

Fair enough. Just most of the responses in this thread seem a little less like actual critique of his work, and more like being against the fact that he "dared" to have an unpopular opinion.

 

I can't really fault you for saying what you did, though. It does seem hypocritical. The thing is though that his unpopular opinion is being backed by demonstrably false accusations. That's probably why they're reacting the way they are.

 

And to be fair to Diogenes, even though he hasn't seen the videos, he probably has the most constructive criticism to offer out of all of us, though I think he should still watch some of them in order to avoid being called a hypocrite. 

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

Fair enough. Just most of the responses in this thread seem a little less like actual critique of his work, and more like being against the fact that he "dared" to have an unpopular opinion.

I think once more of his videos make it here to this thread, it'll become much more elucidated.

I speak as one who's seen the lion's full experience share.

[Celestia]

I mean, I've seen a guy say Sonic was in multiple relationships with human girls and no one commented on it, so excuse me if I see you trying to be critical of the guys from disscted by making judegemental claims of one of the few Sonic Fans who aren't Nintendo drones.

Well, god forbid anyone says anything judgmental. Like if, say, they called people who disagreed with them "drones" of some kind. That'd be just too far, you know?

 

I never even knew Roger made these sort-of-but-not-really serious videos about Sonic. I knew about those animations from back in the day, including the "game in [x] minutes" videos, but figured he kinda just disappeared since I hadn't heard about him in years. I did hear about Sonic Dissected here and there, but had no idea he had anything to do with it. I can't say I'm particularly interested in watching them since I'm not really entertained by this sort of thing, but eh. 

[Diogenes]

I kinda said this in another comment but if we go by this case, then you could easily call everyone bias.

Yes. But again, my point is that to provide a more accurate analysis you should try to suppress your biases. I don't feel he's very good at doing that.

Again, I'd have to ask you give us some examples, cause you're really one of the very few people I see saying this, the rest being on this board as well.

Again, this image:

While I haven't watched the video it comes from, I can't imagine how basically any of this relates to anything in SLoW.

1. While much of 06 criticisms are fact, how bad they are is what really hyperbole. It's as if any little thing that happens is deal breaker(like that kiss, I find many reactions to it to be childish), and yet, the story actually puts more effort in itself then stuff like Colors and Lost World.

First, it's not that any one thing is the deal breaker, it's that '06 is so loaded with shitty things that it'd take an hour just to explain it, so people tend to point to some of the worst things. It's also so draining that people become hypersensitive; by the time you get to the kiss, it's the shit cherry on the diarrhea sundae, and if the game hasn't broken you yet it's bound to break you there.

Second, I don't agree that there's more effort in '06's story than in SLoW's (maybe Colors, but I'm not 100% convinced there either). SLoW is not as much of a big, complex epic as '06 tried to be, but for the most part it gets its points down effectively and it's a more character-based story than any other Sonic game has dared to try. '06 is mostly just a mass of "cool ideas" that don't really come together coherently; it's like a rough draft that never got polished. It's a mistake to think of '06's greater "mass" as being due to more effort or skill.

2. While you aren't obligated to jump on every other video, it's the point that there are many more videos that do a far worse job then Dissected, yet met under constant praise.

I'm not the one praising them, though. I don't know what people that I don't even know, talking about videos we aren't even talking about, has to do with this guy's videos and my responses to them.

You're basically saying the guy is not allowed to use comedy during his own video

Wrong. My point, once again, was that if it was intended entirely as comedy, then it shouldn't be treated like serious criticism, and I would no longer attempt to do so. I was hedging my bets against Roger's intentions on the possibility that he was not making a serious argument. I never once said that if he is that he is not allowed to also use comedy. Hell I like when criticism is wrapped in a funny package.

so excuse me if I see you trying to be critical of the guys from disscted by making judegemental claims of one of the few Sonic Fans who aren't Nintendo drones.

Please don't bring dumb fanboy shit into this. No one here is a "Nintendo drone", and Roger not being one has nothing to do with anything.

[Wittymations]

In the case of that image, and I'm not defending Roger for doing so, but I think it was an immediate reaction when you already have a bias. As in, he may have had some points he liked, but it fell entirely flat when you got to the ending. It didn't have time to sink in and mull over before he made the video, and was still quite irritated with it.

I was like that. For a few good weeks, I was just thinking (well, when I thought about Sonic anyway) about how disappointed I was in the end.

Eventually, I got over it and had time to reflect. I don't think Roger gave himself time. Which means he skewed and curved some details, didn't go back on it, etc.

That's only a guess though. And again, that's not a defense for him. He should've given himself time, he should have reflected, and he should have gone back and watched the material again.

[Rusty Spy]

I can't really fault you for saying what you did, though. It does seem hypocritical. The thing is though that his unpopular opinion is being backed by demonstrably false accusations. That's probably why they're reacting the way they are.

Well if that's the case, then the only major offense would be Lost World then, which he made into it's own dedicated video. In the actual dissected series he only talks about the stories directly for the first couple videos, the rest are entirely about characters, and eventually moves on to level design.

 

It's actually quite surprising, I had assumed that people here had already watched all the videos for the amount of bold condemnations being made against him. Not that it isn't unwarrented in the subjects he talks about, but he states very clearly (can't remember when EDIT: Here) that he openly encourages people to take apart his analysis and discuss his observations. It isn't about making a statement on what he believes, it's about pointing out things about the games and analyzing why they are the way they are.

 

In here, it feels more like people are shooting the messanger, rather than the message.

[Rusty Spy]

*accidental repost*

 

[TheHeatSeeker0]

Well, god forbid anyone says anything judgmental. Like if, say, they called people who disagreed with them "drones" of some kind. That'd be just too far, you know?

The point I was making was about Dissected coming under fire when it just so happens the ones with the popular opinion often being die-hard Nintendo fans in the process, which has quite often been teh case.

 

And yes, my spelling was off.

 

 

Yes. But again, my point is that to provide a more accurate analysis you should try to suppress your biases. I don't feel he's very good at doing that.

 

So someone is suppose to suppress their like for one game over another simply because you don't want them to sound bias? Added to the fact that this is an analysis from 2 guys and why THEY ALONE like and dislike certain games? Don't really know how you expect 100% objectivity here, but hey, by any chance, can you find a better example of someone doing what you're saying here?

 

Again, this image:

While I haven't watched the video it comes from, I can't imagine how basically any of this relates to anything in SLoW.

If that's the case, give me some info of HOW it doesn't relate to Lost World.

 

 

First, it's not that any one thing is the deal breaker, it's that '06 is so loaded with shitty things that it'd take an hour just to explain it, so people tend to point to some of the worst things. It's also so draining that people become hypersensitive; by the time you get to the kiss, it's the shit cherry on the diarrhea sundae, and if the game hasn't broken you yet it's bound to break you there.

I meant every little thing being a deal breaker, and the fact of people getting so sensitive in the first place, to the point of their claims becoming hyperbole later on.

 

 

Second, I don't agree that there's more effort in '06's story than in SLoW's (maybe Colors, but I'm not 100% convinced there either). SLoW is not as much of a big, complex epic as '06 tried to be, but for the most part it gets its points down effectively and it's a more character-based story than any other Sonic game has dared to try. '06 is mostly just a mass of "cool ideas" that don't really come together coherently; it's like a rough draft that never got polished. It's a mistake to think of '06's greater "mass" as being due to more effort or skill.

So Lost World gets points for getting it's points across despite them being moronic as all hell? It's not that 06 is big and complexed, it's about actually having serious moments that you don't have to try to convince people is actually there(like people tried to do with Lost World), having more action, and better dialogue rather then bad attempts at being funny, which plays down the good point of being character-based when you can barely tolorate them.

 

 

I'm not the one praising them, though. I don't know what people that I don't even know, talking about videos we aren't even talking about, has to do with this guy's videos and my responses to them.

Not saying you are praising them, I'm skeptical of Dissected all of a sudden coming under fire with statements that can be attributed to many other fans across the internet but aren't. While I need to look more into how this forum, it's too conviniant for opinions(as well as fact) being met with these complaints when it just so happens to NOT be the popular ones. Can't call bias but it's going towards that rought, especially if that list for Lost World bothers you so much.

 

 

Wrong. My point, once again, was that if it was intended entirely as comedy, then it shouldn't be treated like serious criticism, and I would no longer attempt to do so. I was hedging my bets against Roger's intentions on the possibility that he was not making a serious argument. I never once said that if he is that he is not allowed to also use comedy. Hell I like when criticism is wrapped in a funny package.

You're making that hard to believe, it's as if a show like The Daily Show with John Stewert sucks because it's a comedy show that actually has criticism in it.(or had, haven't watched in a long time)

 

 

Please don't bring dumb fanboy shit into this. No one here is a "Nintendo drone", and Roger not being one has nothing to do with anything.

You're being a bit too defensive if me saying "Nintendo drone" bothers you when you aren't one. Point is, like said, most people with the popular opinion(that you claim to not see videos of) happen to end up being die-hard Nintendo fans(2 of the biggest Sonic trolls just happen to be Nitnendo fans, Mariotehplumber and Gligar13vids of sorts), and seems to be a constant within the Sonic fandom, even the guy writing for TSSZ who tried to damage control about the uproar over that Pontac interview by making poor potshots at random content from Sonic games(mainly from the adventure era), who even admitted to me tat he was a Nintendo fan. Sorry if I seem to be jumping the gun on this, but even then, I wasn't saying you or anyone here was a Nintendo drone, I'm saying Roger is one of the few people who criticizes Sonic games who isn't a drone, but is now being met with flames because he actually criticizes the modern games.

 

On another note, I'm not asking you to explain all the details, but it would warrent more credibility to actually state why he's wrong rather then just saying so. 1 or 2 examples.

[Vertekins]

If that's the case, give me some info of HOW it doesn't relate to Lost World.

 

- Sonic never blamed what he did on anyone else. Bullshit debunked #1

- Sonic never mocked anyone except for Dr Eggman, which is understandable given that Eggman mocked him and considering that they don't even like each other. His mocking of the villains was in-character. Bullshit debunked #2

- Sonic never trivialized Tails' 'worries' (Which he never had to start with) by "one-upping" him. Bullshit debunked #3

- Sonic never once joked about the mistake he made in an effort to deflect his guilt. In fact, Sonic even acknowledges his wrongdoing, that he did something stupid and admits how much it 'bites'. Bullshit debunked #4

- Sonic was never hypocritical in SLW's narrative. Bullshit debunked #5

- I assume this one pertains to how Sonic went for the trap capsule when Tails had noted that there wasn't something right about it. Watching this scene again, I'm more of the mind that Sonic simply didn't hear what Tails said instead of him consciously ignoring him

[Celestia]

And yes, my spelling was off.

I didn't even notice you made a typo, I just used italics to put an emphasis on the word when I used it. 

 

 

So Lost World gets points for getting it's points across despite them being moronic as all hell? It's not that 06 is big and complexed, it's about actually having serious moments that you don't have to try to convince people is actually there(like people tried to do with Lost World), having more action, and better dialogue rather then bad attempts at being funny, which plays down the good point of being character-based when you can barely tolorate them.

Err, what? Who needs to be "convinced" they are serious moments in Lost World when there are very clearly serious moments, especially in the latter half of the game? Hell, there's serious moments in Colours of all games. True enough about more action, I guess. Better dialogue is, um...arguable. '06 having better dialogue is, um, arguably. I'll leave it at that because I'd rather not think about '06 since it's a waste of energy.

 

Point is, like said, most people with the popular opinion(that you claim to not see videos of) happen to end up being die-hard Nintendo fans(2 of the biggest Sonic trolls just happen to be Nitnendo fans, Mariotehplumber and Gligar13vids of sorts), and seems to be a constant within the Sonic fandom, even the guy writing for TSSZ who tried to damage control about the uproar over that Pontac interview by making poor potshots at random content from Sonic games(mainly from the adventure era), who even admitted to me tat he was a Nintendo fan.

Then why did you say it if it doesn't have to do with anybody here?

 

Sorry if I seem to be jumping the gun on this, but even then, I wasn't saying you or anyone here was a Nintendo drone, I'm saying Roger is one of the few people who criticizes Sonic games who isn't a drone, but is now being met with flames because he actually criticizes the modern games.

 

 ...People criticize the Modern games here all the time. For all they'll say Lost World's reception was mixed, most people here absolutely hate it, so it's not "oh you're just mad because he hates the thing you guys like" (though I think it was someone else who said that, not you, so) or whatever. Well, I mean, I liked Lost World, but I'm not all that fussed about someone not liking it, but that infamous list is a bit eyebrow raising. Joke or not, it's clearly supposed to be making a point, but I'm not sure what that point is supposed to be when they're misrepresenting what happens in the game.

 

I was going to elaborate on that, but Verte beat me to it, so there ya go. Though I will point out that Sonic did mock the Deadly Six--in particular, that one scene with Zeena--as well as Eggman, but it never really crossed any lines and it really only made them mad rather than anything else so...whatever.

[Diogenes]

So someone is suppose to suppress their like for one game over another simply because you don't want them to sound bias? Added to the fact that this is an analysis from 2 guys and why THEY ALONE like and dislike certain games? Don't really know how you expect 100% objectivity here, but hey, by any chance, can you find a better example of someone doing what you're saying here?

I'm not expecting 100% objectivity. I think it's impossible, actually. But it's something to strive for, if you want to make a serious argument.

If that's the case, give me some info of HOW it doesn't relate to Lost World.

...none of it is true? Sonic doesn't blame anyone else for his mistakes, he doesn't mock the person he supposedly blames, etc etc.

I meant every little thing being a deal breaker, and the fact of people getting so sensitive in the first place, to the point of their claims becoming hyperbole later on.

And I'm saying that it isn't that everything is treated as a dealbreaker, but that there's so much wrong with the game that something is bound to break the deal.

So Lost World gets points for getting it's points across despite them being moronic as all hell?

Explain what's "moronic" about it.

It's not that 06 is big and complexed, it's about actually having serious moments that you don't have to try to convince people is actually there(like people tried to do with Lost World),

'06's "serious moments" are a joke. It's cliched melodrama from start to finish.

having more action,

There isn't much action in '06's cutscenes besides the openings, and what action it has doesn't drive the story.

and better dialogue

Like what? Practically every line in '06 is wooden and boring as hell.

rather then bad attempts at being funny, which plays down the good point of being character-based when you can barely tolorate them.

There's only a handful of bad jokes in the game, which doesn't even compare to '06 being terrible in basically every cutscene.

Not saying you are praising them, I'm skeptical of Dissected all of a sudden coming under fire with statements that can be attributed to many other fans across the internet but aren't.

Maybe people are focusing on Dissected because this is a topic about Dissected. One dude made a topic about the series, and some people don't agree with some of its arguments. That's it. There's no conspiracy.

While I need to look more into how this forum, it's too conviniant for opinions(as well as fact) being met with these complaints when it just so happens to NOT be the popular ones.

If you think ragging on SLoW's story is unpopular around here you really don't know much about this place.

You're making that hard to believe,

Only if you aren't actually listening.

At no point, at all, have I ever said anything against mixing humor and criticism. My point is that humor does not excuse bad criticism.

You're being a bit too defensive if me saying "Nintendo drone" bothers you when you aren't one.

What bothers me is that you seem more interested in turning this into a clash of fanboy bullshit than actually addressing the issues by bringing it up. It has nothing to do with anything. Let's keep it the fuck out of this topic.

I'm saying Roger is one of the few people who criticizes Sonic games who isn't a drone, but is now being met with flames because he actually criticizes the modern games.

Dude around here every game gets criticized. There is not a single Sonic game that doesn't get gone over with a fine-toothed comb.

On another note, I'm not asking you to explain all the details, but it would warrent more credibility to actually state why he's wrong rather then just saying so. 1 or 2 examples.

What more is there to say when something he stated is simply fabricated? What proof can I give beyond, go back and look at the game, and see how what he said happened, didn't?

[Double A]

Wait, you're going to ask Roger to do this?

 

Shit, I'd actually like to be on one of his videos to offer a different perspective if I can. Although that's mainly up to him. Frankly, I disagree with some of Rogers points, but I think he goes far more indepth that I can't help but agree with the guy at times.

 

Listen Double A, maybe I expressed myself with the wrong words.

 

So I'll riformulate my question:

 

does Roger actually believe in the things he said in the list, or was he just kidding?

 

Here's his official statement:

 

Hey everyone, Roger here.

 

I looked over the list again, and I have to admit, it's a very flawed list.

Perfect example why I shouldn't make a video so soon after playing the game.

Looking over the scenes again, I realize I never paid attention to sonic's "I should have listened to you, tails" because I was too irritated by Tails weird snarky response, and I neglected to observe Sonic's behaviour in the next scene where he's awfully quiet and hurt after Eggman's first accusation.

 

Reason why I failed to notice the second part was because right after that, Sonic get's frustrated at Eggman (Which is perfectly understandable and in-character) but weirdly, Tails and Especailly orbott and Cubott join in, even later wanting to join Sonic because Eggman screws up too much (Wha?)

 

I should have focused more on the fact that Sonic is never put in a situation where he has to prove that he learned his lesson and is less rash, or listens to Tails. Everything that happens afterwards is out of Sonic's control.

"Hey,but that isn't Sonic's fault!"

Jup, but remember, the list is not about Sonic, it's about the writers setting up a character arc."

 

 Heck, he even makes the same mistake again when he knocks tails into the cannister, altough at least he stops mocking Eggman and becomes more grumpy later. Oh hey! There's a new list for ya!

 

 

"How to deal with responsibility according to mr. Pontac"

 

-Be frustrated with yourself.

 

-take out frustration on others. Don't worry, your friends will join!

 

-make the exact same mistake again

 

-Be more grumpy.

 

 

There we go.

 

Oh right, you don't get my sense of humor. That second list was also hyperbole.

The point is that the ultimate outcome of the whole character arc is just a toned down Sonic.

So being grumpy is not the intended conclusion, but the thing that happens..Get it? It's a joke? 

 

Looking forward to reading the new complains!

 

Oh and ChaosSupremeSonic, you're welcome to become a guest on the show. Here's my email: Rogertheman@msn.com

My two cents: Funny that nobody made a fuss of Shadow being emo in the Doomed Shadow Show even if the joke is absolutely random (Shadow is not emo at all in his game). Double standards in logic then.

 

Double A, what's Rogers inspirations behind these series? I see a lot of TGWTG and AVGN in this. Hopes "Shadow" gets the same treatment as NC did with "Commando".

 

Roger's official statement 2: 

 

Inspiration is threefold:

 

1) Being tired of most sonic fans just screaming simple arguments. I had a desire to open up discussions and explore the Sonic universe a bit more

 

2) Collection of observations gathered in my head after years of making parodies

 

3) The internet shows that inspired the tone and feel I'm trying to go for are Red Letter Media's Mr. Plinkett and Ego Raptor's Sequelatis.

 

 

Then doesn't it only make sense that some of his conclusions are criticized as being biased?

 

It's not because the matter of talking about taste is subjective by definition. What you do is claiming it's bad to have an orientation. You cannot criticize he's biais and counter-arguing with more biais arguments, just admit you're mad because it doesn't fit with your taste that'd be more honest.

 

No, I imply that he is, consciously or unconsciously, distorting the facts due to his own biases. That's not some horrible slander, that's something most people end up doing out of habit and instinct, and something that good criticism seeks to minimize.

 

Ok speaking about honesty. You have the bad habit to only quote what does suit you and totally ignore the rest. I ignored that the first time but now you're exaggerating. Jeez you just took the intro and totally ignored my explanation; that's called ''taking something out of context''. I'm just gonna repeat what I said then: It's not because of this that i'm mad. You imply he's dishonest and does what he does in bad faith, that's why I felt the need to interfere. Heck some people litterally said he interviewed Pontac to trick him, at this point you just try to demonise him because he's not supporting your faction of the fandom.

 

That doesn't actually change the fact that his criticism of it shown in that image (even if it's intended to be exaggerated for comedic effect) is basically entirely made up. If you want to hate something, hate it for reasons that are actually true.

 

According to what he said in his official statement. Roger basically used wrong words for the right problem. So this isn't in bad faith. His SLW parody is popular because many fans recognize there's a lack of proper resolution with the story.

 

1. Most of the talk about '06 isn't hyperbole. It really is that bad. 2. This is not a topic about '06 or anyone's reviews/analysis of '06. 

I'm not obligated to jump on every other video before I'm allowed to question this one.

My point is that if he intends this purely as comedy and not as any kind of critical analysis, then it should be treated as purely comedy and not as a critical analysis.

 

1- No ''you're being biais'' . 90% of the rants about 06 are made of pure hysteria. 2. Yes because you are questioning a method not the content of the rant.

It's not always about having pure comedy or pure drama, you can play with many aspects. If you're too clueless about how Roger thinks you're not the right audience for dissected.

 

Which isn't to say that critical analysis can't be funny, but if you're going to try to establish yourself as a genuine critic, you need to be ready to back your claims up with solid evidence. This is why comedic entertainers like the Angry Video Game Nerd and the Nostalgia Critic can be funny, but are also taken seriously. Bias or not, their claims have genuine evidence and they give a fair and palpable assessment of what's wrong.

 

Roger's analysis on Sonic, particularly and especially on the story of Lost World, is demonstrably fallacious. It not only spreads disinformation about the narrative of the story for those who are just tuning in and have never played the game, but it's also disingenuous to the actual merit of the game itself and further propagates numerous misconceived notions about how the characters are developed, how the story plays along, and so on. 

 

There's a difference between comedic but constructive criticism and satire, and downright misrepresentation for some cheap laughs.

 

AVGN specifically stated that in the first half of his career he faked game footage, purposefully dying to make the game look worse than it was and the critic also has tendencies to jump into one opinion he has. Especailly when talking about something he hates, like Harry Potter or Goof Troop Quack Pack in his recent disney special.

If Roger gets attention with his rant about SLW's story is because other people see the same problems. I think blaming Roger for SLW's faillure is highly exaggerated, people don't need Roger's opinion to find SLW not appealing.

 

I never said that, but rather you're doing the exact thing everyone is accusing him off; ignoring facts to support your own argument. Yes, that image is incredibly facetious and fallacious, but people have gone out of their way of saying that they haven't even bothered to watch any of his vids and just accuse him of speaking of his ass. Roger, for all of his obnoxiousness, at the very least played every single game he's critiqued to form an opinion of them, as unpopular as it is on this board.  

 

The least you guys could do is do the same before crying foul about it.

 

There's still hope.

[Komodin]

Here's his official statement:

 

*snip*

 

... Holy crap, fair points made or not, this guy is an obnoxious wiseass.

[Rusty Spy]

... Holy crap, fair points made or not, this guy is an obnoxious wiseass.

He wouldn't be the first.