Criticisms your'e sick of seeing in a film/story

[Johnny Novgorod]

I see allot of old criticisms being brought up whenever someone mentions a favourite story/film. Often, they are valid and well thought out. Other times, they are recycled arguments that have been used by people who cant think of their own one or a better one. Whatever the reason, be it righteous indignation or good old fan boy rage, such repeated criticism can drive me insane.

So I put it to you, oh mighty escapist forum community, to bring forth the ones you hate.

For me? The whole "Lulz why didn't the eagles just fly them to the mountain?" from the hobbit. Of the top of my head? How about smaug (you know, the freaking Dragon that lives there) being one of the few things in universe that would pass for a natural predator for a giant eagle. Cant imagine they want to go anywhere near that thing.

Also, maybe, just maybe, giant birds have different motivations and thought processes to bipedal mammal folk. I don't know Gandalf's relationship with them, beyond his ability to call in a favour from them occasionally if there is no other way for him to accomplish something (Not being dead, saving lives ect)

In all fairness the Eagles turn up as deus ex machinas often enough to merit the question as to why can't they just ferry characters to their ultimate objectives. In The Hobbit they save the Bilbo & co. from the Wargs; then they turn up at the finale to turn the battle around. In LOTR they save Gandalf from Isengard and then repeat The Hobbit finale by saving Frodo and Sam from Mt. Doom.

yes, but think about the criteria for their being able to appear when they do - they can't take Bilbo and co. to onely Mountain because of a dragon. They show up in the Battle of Five Armies because Smaug is gone. One rescues Gandalf because it is night time and they can't be spotted by archers - the same reason why they can't just fly to Mount Doom - Eye of Sauron is not distracted, thus could spot the eagles and with over 100,000 archers ready to fire at a moment's notice, the eagles would be dinner long before getting to the mountain

Then why not just whip a distraction and let the Fellowship steal into Mordor to throw the Ring? In the end it's what they did, kind of. Black Gate was one big distraction while Sam and Mr. Frodo went to Mt. Doom.

 

[DrOswald]

Any JRPG, no matter how good or bad, will always have one ass-wipe reviewer go "It's a JRPG therefore it sucks." And yes, this person is paid to review games this badly.

Are you referring to Yahtzee? lol

Seriously though, I think JRPG's would get less crap if they dropped that horrible turn-based combat system. It's 2013, please update your combat system and join the rest of the world. Keep your crazy male haircuts, giant swords, angsty characters, anime art style, focus on teenagers and children as main characters, bishonen guys, Japanese view of Christianity, and other cultural differences, but please drop the outdated turn-based combat system. The only game I think that gets a pass on this is the Pokemon series, and I say that as someone who hasn't cared about Pokemon since I was 10years old.

You know, they did that already. Do you know how few turn based RPG's we get these days? Almost none. In fact, as a fan of these types of games, I am having a really hard time finding any. It has been years since we have seen a AAA console turn based JRPG. Seriously, if that is your complaint about JRPG's then you just are not paying attention.

In fact, I am naming that as my complaint I am sick of seeing. Because I see it all the time and it is based entirely on ignorant assumption.

At least Yahtzee hates JRPG's for things that are actually in the game.

 

[BNguyen]

I see allot of old criticisms being brought up whenever someone mentions a favourite story/film. Often, they are valid and well thought out. Other times, they are recycled arguments that have been used by people who cant think of their own one or a better one. Whatever the reason, be it righteous indignation or good old fan boy rage, such repeated criticism can drive me insane.

So I put it to you, oh mighty escapist forum community, to bring forth the ones you hate.

For me? The whole "Lulz why didn't the eagles just fly them to the mountain?" from the hobbit. Of the top of my head? How about smaug (you know, the freaking Dragon that lives there) being one of the few things in universe that would pass for a natural predator for a giant eagle. Cant imagine they want to go anywhere near that thing.

Also, maybe, just maybe, giant birds have different motivations and thought processes to bipedal mammal folk. I don't know Gandalf's relationship with them, beyond his ability to call in a favour from them occasionally if there is no other way for him to accomplish something (Not being dead, saving lives ect)

In all fairness the Eagles turn up as deus ex machinas often enough to merit the question as to why can't they just ferry characters to their ultimate objectives. In The Hobbit they save the Bilbo & co. from the Wargs; then they turn up at the finale to turn the battle around. In LOTR they save Gandalf from Isengard and then repeat The Hobbit finale by saving Frodo and Sam from Mt. Doom.

yes, but think about the criteria for their being able to appear when they do - they can't take Bilbo and co. to onely Mountain because of a dragon. They show up in the Battle of Five Armies because Smaug is gone. One rescues Gandalf because it is night time and they can't be spotted by archers - the same reason why they can't just fly to Mount Doom - Eye of Sauron is not distracted, thus could spot the eagles and with over 100,000 archers ready to fire at a moment's notice, the eagles would be dinner long before getting to the mountain

Then why not just whip a distraction and let the Fellowship steal into Mordor to throw the Ring? In the end it's what they did, kind of. Black Gate was one big distraction while Sam and Mr. Frodo went to Mt. Doom.

but then they couldn't be sure that Sam and Frodo were still alive now could they? and besides, how are you going to whip up an alliance large enough to storm the black gates for a distraction when Rohan almost decided to not go to Gondor's aid in the third movie? Most if not all major Elf powers were gone, the Dwarves were isolated to the Blue Mountains and Lonely Mountain (and according to a book I have, during the third movie, Sauron launched a second large force from Dol Guldur, to attack Isengard, Galadriel's kingdom and Lonely Mountain at the same time), so you're dealing with vastly overwhelming odds where people are so split apart that before the Fellowship was formed, the Free Peoples would barely be able to have a council, so, all in all, I think they way Tolkien and Peter Jackson portrayed it was about as logically sound as you could get

 

[Gromril]

I see allot of old criticisms being brought up whenever someone mentions a favourite story/film. Often, they are valid and well thought out. Other times, they are recycled arguments that have been used by people who cant think of their own one or a better one. Whatever the reason, be it righteous indignation or good old fan boy rage, such repeated criticism can drive me insane.

So I put it to you, oh mighty escapist forum community, to bring forth the ones you hate.

For me? The whole "Lulz why didn't the eagles just fly them to the mountain?" from the hobbit. Of the top of my head? How about smaug (you know, the freaking Dragon that lives there) being one of the few things in universe that would pass for a natural predator for a giant eagle. Cant imagine they want to go anywhere near that thing.

Also, maybe, just maybe, giant birds have different motivations and thought processes to bipedal mammal folk. I don't know Gandalf's relationship with them, beyond his ability to call in a favour from them occasionally if there is no other way for him to accomplish something (Not being dead, saving lives ect)

In all fairness the Eagles turn up as deus ex machinas often enough to merit the question as to why can't they just ferry characters to their ultimate objectives. In The Hobbit they save the Bilbo & co. from the Wargs; then they turn up at the finale to turn the battle around. In LOTR they save Gandalf from Isengard and then repeat The Hobbit finale by saving Frodo and Sam from Mt. Doom.

yes, but think about the criteria for their being able to appear when they do - they can't take Bilbo and co. to onely Mountain because of a dragon. They show up in the Battle of Five Armies because Smaug is gone. One rescues Gandalf because it is night time and they can't be spotted by archers - the same reason why they can't just fly to Mount Doom - Eye of Sauron is not distracted, thus could spot the eagles and with over 100,000 archers ready to fire at a moment's notice, the eagles would be dinner long before getting to the mountain

Then why not just whip a distraction and let the Fellowship steal into Mordor to throw the Ring? In the end it's what they did, kind of. Black Gate was one big distraction while Sam and Mr. Frodo went to Mt. Doom.

but then they couldn't be sure that Sam and Frodo were still alive now could they? and besides, how are you going to whip up an alliance large enough to storm the black gates for a distraction when Rohan almost decided to not go to Gondor's aid in the third movie? Most if not all major Elf powers were gone, the Dwarves were isolated to the Blue Mountains and Lonely Mountain (and according to a book I have, during the third movie, Sauron launched a second large force from Dol Guldur, to attack Isengard, Galadriel's kingdom and Lonely Mountain at the same time), so you're dealing with vastly overwhelming odds where people are so split apart that before the Fellowship was formed, the Free Peoples would barely be able to have a council, so, all in all, I think they way Tolkien and Peter Jackson portrayed it was about as logically sound as you could get

And yeah, eventually this boils down to a rule of cool debate I think. The back story is there to explain why the eagles don't just solve all the problems alone, and it would suck if they did.

Complaints about games that are "buggy" when the only examples are either bugs that people find almost solely because someone else told them it was there, or you have to go out of your way to find the bug.

Another one is; complaints about a game being too easy when the person complaining is using some kind of exploit that makes the game easy.

Yeah, GTAV Online is pretty much fucked because the people whining that it was all too easy were the ones farming exploits for cash, and using said exploits to fund the use of heavy ordnance for everything.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Complaints about games that are "buggy" when the only examples are either bugs that people find almost solely because someone else told them it was there, or you have to go out of your way to find the bug.

Bethesda gets hit with this often. I don't know if it's because of insanely good luck or what, but I have NEVER encountered any bugs of any real significance myself, but I'm always hearing about it.

The whole hate against linearity in games are starting to go on my fucking nerves. So fucking what if a game is linear? That doesn't mean it will be bad. As long the game and the story is good, I don't give two flying fucks.

Agreed. In fact, the best games I have ever played have all been largely linear, maybe with a morality system thrown in. Wide open games like Skyrim are good, but they tend to come up short in the story department because the developers expect the players to make up their own stories, rather than bothering to craft a particularly good one themselves.

OT: I hate it when everybody whines about characters that are being emotionless... that are actually supposed to be. These complainers seem to want every character to act in a hyperemotional fashion to EVERYTHING or it's the result of bad acting, directing, etc. It doesn't matter that said character is SUPPOSED to be that way and has every justification for it, that's what they want.