Knightmare Article*
-
Motely, Skarkill, don't you two DARE back down.
This guy decided to skim over a couple of replies in this thread without reading all replies and therefore missed completely that we were branding flamers 'Morons' and not him or Kate. Apologies for the misinterpretation, but please read whole threads in future.
As for the article itself, we were not hurling abuse at your style of writing, as you seem to think due to your comments on the various degrees you have (well done on those though - I'm doing a similar degree ). What we were doing was voicing our opinions, and yes some of them can be a little out of order at times. You can voice an opinion as you have done in the form of an article, and so can we in the form of a heated discussion on this messageboard.
To back up HStorm, you cannot compare graphics from two different eras. What you CAN do is refer us to something of the same era that used better animation. We wait with bated breath.
-
Yes, people have the right to express their views here. If you don't like them, don't read them, I guess.
I too can appreciate jest on a subject, and we all often jest about things we like a lot. Actually, I think if that article had been better written, its greatest fans would be among this community.
While I'm sure it was meant to be funny, I just didn't think it was. I'm not suggesting that's representative of the rest of your website or other writers, or even other items written by the same person, but that article didn't achieve that, for me. As I said before, a lot of websites who write similar material are hugely funny, but they're funny for picking appropriate targets. As the front of your website seems to say, it's about saying the things you (and others) have been thinking all along. There's so much about KM she could have had a good joke about, but in my view she failed to hit the mark. That Life Force Skull still gets a lot of positive mentions, and it seems an odd target when there were so many obviously poorer animations and effects she could have mentioned! Some of her other targets are just a bit cheap and obvious, in my personal opinion. Yes, some of the actors won't win Oscars, but is that really a hugely funny or original statement to make about a children's programme?
-
Couldn't have put it better myself, GG.
(If you want to aim a swipe at the life force clock, why not go for the two later versions, both of which were lame beyond reason?)
I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say the article wasn't good, but it lacked a certain polish, with a careless feel of skimped research. There were elements missing from it that should've been included, and numerous errors that should've been corrected e.g. the aim of the game is not just to keep your life-force clock healthy, but to retrieve a quest object or rescue someone, and there's no such thing as "The Helmet of Truth." And the overall tone of the piece resounds with an air of someone trying a little too hard to sound clever, as though they're scared that if they sound uncritical people will mock them for liking it.
As you two are s'posed to be the editors, jobs for which you so pompously assure us you are very well qualified, you should have asked her for a careful redraft. I think you should put a good, hard, wake-up slap across each other's faces.
-
Oh my, this person has an Eng Lit degree! Quake in terror people, quake in terror! Since I also have an Eng Lit degree, I can certainly say that I remain completely unimpressed.
Motley: Chill out, you're fine. Only a completely anally retentive twat would take legal action over something as trivial as an article on an internet 'publication'. Plus you cited where it was from, so you weren't plagiarizing, which is the most serious thing you could be hit with.
I didn't think the article was funny. To me it reeked of someone who'd seen maybe one or two episodes. After all, claiming Smirkenorff was a rip-off of The Neverending Story? That was a "WTF?!" more than anything else.
And to concur with HStorm, how on earth can you compare computer graphics made on a humble Amiga in the late 80's to Pixar's state-of-the-art CGI? That's like comparing Kingdom Hearts on the PS2 to Pong. In other words, stupid.
-
I agree wholeheartedly, I have been a writer for various websites, small publications in my time and I hope to go into big time journalism some day. If your article was meant as a jest then it wasn't a very good jest. I also point out we were only given a link to the review itself. The fact is accept the critism, it's one of the first things I had to learn. Don't be so pathetic and threaten Motley with legal action when you clearly have absolutly no case against him.
-
No the page is still there. The link isn't working but the page is still there. It's now been moved to http://crystinkingfish.com/aug2003/retroshow.htm
-
Yes, they have a right to say what they like, but if you're going to react so badly when people don't like it, it's not a good sign.
-
Dear All,
I am sorry for the message we wrote - we were a little stressed out about various other things at the time of writing and sort of took it out on you. We really aren't that evil or nasty...or often that arragont... and didn't mean to cause too much offense. The point we were trying to get across is that the site isn't meant to be serious, and what we stick up there is written because people want to write it. It was our first edition and yes, okay, we don't have too much practical experience, despite our various university qualifications, in editing and stuff, but we try our best. Most of the people who write for us have had little or no previous writing experience, so we want to give them a chance to get something 'published'...if that means not ripping it to shreds and rewriting it totally then so be it - therefore with this approach what we upload may not be a beautifully written piece that could win awards and change lives. Also, as we mentioned, the opinions of the author's who write for us are not the opinions of the society as a whole, so please don't take CryStinkingFish us as a Knightmare hating people. ( even if it was not meant as a Knightmare flame).
Yes, the animation comment was a cheap dig - I fully appreciate how much graphics have evolved over the last twenty years, and yes, Nemo and the skull are incomparable. The graphics at the time were pretty effective and certainly were good enough for the purpose. The point was that today, when viewed on Challenge TV, it is a little difficult not to chuckle (without malice I might add) at the way it looks. And Finally, to be fair, the kids that did go on the show weren't exactly your stereotypical 'cool kid' were they? I think its sad that kids shows these days aren't anywhere near as challenging as Knightmare, and so attract less intelligent contestants. The show's players were geeks, but I don't think thats a bad thing - those are the ones who will have gone on to get firsts at Cambridge, no doubt, while Funhouse contestants are probably reading the Sun.
Anyway, hope this clears things up and you don't hate us utterly, we don't want to make enemies...well, not too many anyway
Kate + Andy.
-
...The show's players were geeks...
Oi some of those contestants come around here sometimes. (Okay yes talk about living in a glass house, so i'll stop throwing stones now and start boarding up my glass windows!) To be serious though I think articles like that need to be specified that they are a fun poking jibe, and should certainly not be taken seriously.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login