| @DodgeOffset I'm not hoping these childish arguments to go on forever so I'm not answering what you are saying here. This kind of threads pop up every now and then and I'm pretty tired of them to be honest. I assume you are a clever person and you are not trying to misunderstand what I'm trying to tell you despite the way you're talking. |
| there's a disconnected between people that's why we're individuals. now go off and find someone that confirms your bais |
| N.etorare T.echnical R.esearcher |
| You answered your own question with your own question. The very definitions of a casual or a critic (or some who watches anime casually v. someone who watches anime critically) tell you why the show has a higher score for casuals than critics. |
 |
| I guess it just depends on what way you're looking at it. Neither is exactly a monolith of same-think, even on even the most fundamental levels, so my impression is that the dissonance can usually work on more narrow levels relating to certain aspects rather than a broad, straight up "critic versus casual" thing like people seem to want to make it sometimes. Speaking from my own standpoint, the only time I truly get frustrated with the critical analysis sec itself when the criticisms feel cheap and surface level yet feel worded in a way that is implying assertion of truth or objectivity, which by "cheap and surface level" I'm specifically referring to asserting possessing an aspect or quality as an inherent negative type shit - I really hate how often I can go to a H&E series or something and just see people bitching about it being pandering otaku bait. Like, that's not looking at how a show works or trying to assess the quality of it, that's just straight up dismissal of a type of product as being beneath them for being what it is and then treating it as inherently bad because of as much. Of course that comes across as pretentious. It's not a matter of "Oh, what I like is not good enough for you" as much as "Oh, this isn't even good enough for you to actually try to substantiate and look at in a balanced way and instead you're just going to give it a 3/10 and apply some vague fucking labels that you're assuming the reader should treat as an inherent negative." I hate stuff like that, it feels so disingenuous to actually writing a good review and instead just comes across as masking subjectivity under objective wording. Might as well go full on with it and begin spouting off "it's all just an opinion" if your assertions about a show being bad are in relation to the target audience or the elements it possesses and not why these elements work or not. If more people would try to substantiate these criticisms "why being pandering otaku bait is bad in this case" rather than just tossing out this shit like it's an inherent negative and calling it a day, which is how it usually is with a lot of reviews I read, then I wouldn't feel like the reviews like so weren't just outright rigged from the start and I would be more willing to hear out their viewpoint rather than viewing it as this sloggy mess than I am now. And of course nobody's going to be perfect, but christ, why does shit like this, shit that's doing nothing to look into the mechanics of a show and pick it apart to determine what this show is and whether or not it's good at what it does just not being taken into consideration here? Why are even this site's top reviewers complacent enough to just sit there and throw out vapid shit like "bleh this is otaku bait" as if it's a meaningful criticism? Why do people just accept that as a meaningful criticism without thinking more of how this is usually just being treated as a vague negative being applied to series where there's the audacity to possess moe elements or shit like that? Like, goddamn. When I skulk about reviews I almost always have the biting impression that critical analysis in this community isn't about looking at the show on a deeper level but trying to justify the reviewer's personal tastes and distastes in a way that's blatantly subjective while wording those things in a way that's obviously asserting their stance as the correct one and nothing more. That focus on "what" and not "why" seems like a huge disservice to critical analysis to me and I just despise it. That's probably where I splinter most with the critical analysis sect, given I feel like I usually tend to lean on the other side of things. I really do instantly despise any review that starts tossing out shit like that as if they're assuming that I'll agree with them on it. At least try to substantiate that shit, like why it doesn't work in the confines of the show itself if you're going to toss it out. Give it some fucking purpose because otherwise it's just trite as fuck and it comes off as pretentious and arrogant. --------- I went on a venting rant, but that's kind of illustrating the point of my first paragraph, I guess. I believe dissonance exists more narrowly than just "this is what critics think" and "this is what casuals think," goes on a much more relative level as to where that dissonance is springing from. I feel a sense of dissonance in that the MAL critical consensus tends to criticize things for "what they are" rather than trying to do "why it's good or bad" in some cases, and does so in a narrow way that's doing little more than giving a negative term to indicate that a show possesses certain elements to it and nothingmore. There's also a focus on things like thematic interpretation and other stuff I'll probably never be able to arse myself to genuinely care about that feel much more pronounced with people trying to be critics. Someone else on the opposite end of things can feel a sense of dissonance between my appreciation for more fanservicey or moe elements and my contempt for the idea of tying everything back into a single, straightforward narrative, etc etc. "Critics versus casuals" is just kind of needlessly narrowing it down into something that sounds closer to a war between two sides as opposed to the giant, uncoordinated clusterfuck that it really is. |
ManabanFeb 26, 2018 1:49 PM
 |
CSKaori said: No, the score of a show is a good indicator if the casual viewer will like it or not, not if the show is actually good to begin with.Deknijff said: Never trust MAL mean score or top 10 list for determining if a show is good or not I don't 100% trust them; I would think there would be shows with high scores here that I dislike, and vice-versa. But it's generally a good indicator to determining if it's a show worth checking out. |
 |
| If you're a "casual" then obviously you should trust other casuals' opinions, otherwise you should listen to critics. The most helpful opinions are the ones from people similar taste to yours. |
CSKaori said: Because from their standpoint the anime is bad? and elaboration is what makes their opinion matter or not. If one aren't ornate enough, then their opinions can be discarded easily. Say like it's shit because it is or it's good because it is, this isn't an argument and doesn't matter for me. you need to explain the factors on what makes it good, and succeeded at encouraging the readers to think so. read their reviews, if it's sounds convincing, then it's a good review.So today I went to read some reviews here regarding an anime I recently finished in Erased, and while it had a fair share of positive reviews, a majority of reviews I saw had scores ranging between 4-6, with the general consensus being "it looks nice, but for dummies". But it's mean score currently is an 8.57, and apparently was in the top 10 anime of all time here as it was airing. That tells me that it's definitely a good show, but why do so many reviewers disagree? Do they think they're better then most anime fans that liked shows like this? |
 |
| ah there it is, the biggest lie in modern thought. You CAN objectively evaluate art, and that IS a different matter than subjective taste. Don't confuse taste for objective evaluation. For instance, this is why I can objectively evaluate/praise the quality of the dialogue, the comedic timing, the animation and sound etc in Konosuba... but still hate the show because it's isekai (a premise I vehemently disapprove of to no end). Don't drink the postmodern kool-aid. |
| There is absolutely no reason why I should accept "turn your brain off" as a valid excuse to defend a poor show. ~ blatant ad: https://myanimelist.net/blog/Crusader_8 I spend the time to write it, so please read it lol |
Crusader_8 said: ah there it is, the biggest lie in modern thought. You CAN objectively evaluate art, and that IS a different matter than subjective taste. Don't confuse taste for objective evaluation. For instance, this is why I can objectively evaluate/praise the quality of the dialogue, the comedic timing, the animation and sound etc in Konosuba... but still hate the show because it's isekai (a premise I vehemently disapprove of to no end). Don't drink the postmodern kool-aid. Nobody can be 100% objective when judging something. There will always be at least a hint of bias. That's why we leave objectivity to the realm of science and fact. Entertainment does not fall into that. Everyone has different standards for what is good and bad, and there is no right or wrong answer. |
 |
Kittens-kun said: So it's impossible for any animation to be poor quality in the history of ... Ever? Are you basically saying I can fling poop on a wall, claim it's fanart of an anime character, then say no one is allowed to say that's objectively incorrect because I called it art? Don't be so disingenuous. If youre an artist and you ever told yourself you needed to practice or get better at doing X, congratulations you objectively evaluated an aspect of art. Don't bring your "nobody can possibly be wrong" schtick here please.Crusader_8 said: ah there it is, the biggest lie in modern thought. You CAN objectively evaluate art, and that IS a different matter than subjective taste. Don't confuse taste for objective evaluation. For instance, this is why I can objectively evaluate/praise the quality of the dialogue, the comedic timing, the animation and sound etc in Konosuba... but still hate the show because it's isekai (a premise I vehemently disapprove of to no end). Don't drink the postmodern kool-aid. Nobody can be 100% objective when judging something. There will always be at least a hint of bias. That's why we leave objectivity to the realm of science and fact. Entertainment does not fall into that. Everyone has different standards for what is good and bad, and there is no right or wrong answer. |
| There is absolutely no reason why I should accept "turn your brain off" as a valid excuse to defend a poor show. ~ blatant ad: https://myanimelist.net/blog/Crusader_8 I spend the time to write it, so please read it lol |
Crusader_8 said: Kittens-kun said: So it's impossible for any animation to be poor quality in the history of ... Ever? Are you basically saying I can fling poop on a wall, claim it's fanart of an anime character, then say no one is allowed to say that's objectively incorrect because I called it art? Don't be so disingenuous. If youre an artist and you ever told yourself you needed to practice or get better at doing X, congratulations you objectively evaluated an aspect of art. Don't bring your "nobody can possibly be wrong" schtick here please.Nobody can be 100% objective when judging something. There will always be at least a hint of bias. That's why we leave objectivity to the realm of science and fact. Entertainment does not fall into that. Everyone has different standards for what is good and bad, and there is no right or wrong answer. That's not what I said. People can be wrong, if they go against a fact. If I say that One Piece is the best romance anime ever, that's obviously wrong since it's not a romance anime. But if I just say that it's the best anime in general, that's my opinion, and you can't prove it wrong when there's no anime that is objectively the best. |
|
| it is, more spesificaly, it's elitism... while not apply generaly, it is there... |
 "If taking responsibility for a mistake that cannot be undone means death, it's not that hard to die. At least, not as hard as to live on." |
| It's a "serious" show that doesn't work like a typical anime and it was a darling of last year. Of course it has a high mean score. But it's pretty bland and yeah, for dummies. Everything in the anime is pretty surface level. |
 |
Kittens-kun said: That's an opinion and it's subjective so it's not wrong. Leave objectivity to the realm of science and fact. Genre does not fall into that because it is an arbitrary categorization. Everyone has different standards for what is romance or not, and there is no right or wrong answer.Crusader_8 said: So it's impossible for any animation to be poor quality in the history of ... Ever? Are you basically saying I can fling poop on a wall, claim it's fanart of an anime character, then say no one is allowed to say that's objectively incorrect because I called it art? Don't be so disingenuous. If youre an artist and you ever told yourself you needed to practice or get better at doing X, congratulations you objectively evaluated an aspect of art. Don't bring your "nobody can possibly be wrong" schtick here please. If I say that One Piece is the best romance anime ever, that's obviously wrong since it's not a romance anime. |
zalFeb 27, 2018 7:15 AM
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
CSKaori said: So today I went to read some reviews here regarding an anime I recently finished in Erased, and while it had a fair share of positive reviews, a majority of reviews I saw had scores ranging between 4-6, with the general consensus being "it looks nice, but for dummies". But it's mean score currently is an 8.57, and apparently was in the top 10 anime of all time here as it was airing. That tells me that it's definitely a good show, but why do so many reviewers disagree? Do they think they're better then most anime fans that liked shows like this? I never trust mal scores. The mean scores of toradora and the pet girl of whatever are like between 8-8.5 and I hated toradora (minus ami cause she was the best thing in the entire show by far) and i dropped pet girl. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
zal said: Kittens-kun said: That's an opinion and it's subjective so it's not wrong. Leave objectivity to the realm of science and fact. Genre does not fall into that because it is an arbitrary categorization. Everyone has different standards for what is romance or not, and there is no right or wrong answer.If I say that One Piece is the best romance anime ever, that's obviously wrong since it's not a romance anime. Except it IS wrong. You can't call a show with no romance a romance. You tried to counter what I said by using my logic, but it doesn't work. |
|
| Why does it matter? You liked Eraser, then it's good, ok? Why do you need validation from other people? |
Johan said: http://www.metacritic.com/feature/game-critic-scores-vs-user-reviewsgreymood said: I dunno Johan, i don't really think that the score means anything other than "people like/dislike this". Now if you believe that this automatically equals "quality" or enjoyment or whatsoever is entirely up to you Noone i saying that having a high mean score among users automatically means each show is good. I've pointed out discrepancies I have with the average mean scores, but in general if you rate something high its because you perceive it to be good. So at the very least an 8.57 avg score tells you a high mean perceived quality. Whether you will also perceive it as quality or not is debatable, although In my 8 years of using MAL & over 1800 things watched, there is absolutely a correlation between what tends to have a high mean user score, and what I also perceive to be good. That doesn't mean it's infallible, but the whole thing is moot. OP is saying why does a show have an avg user score of 8.57 and an avg review score of 5.6. That IS pretty unprecedented. If this was the video game medium, then would it make sense to you? Imagine Bloodbourne having a 92 user rating and a 56 Metacritic score. It would be stupid and nearly inconceivable. That's how retarded it is for Erased to have an avg review score of 5.6. It's nearly unfathomable. It happens sometimes though. This is my favorite one  |
| Erased was overrated because the first episode. If you watched it with the brain turned off, yes, is 'good' (except for the NTR that we all hated). If you look at the writing -plot holes, conveniences, bad mystery, bad written characters, nonsense scenes and the ending- yes. Overall, Erased is a bad anime and i agree with that negative reviews. Pd: i rated it 3/10. |
| All weebs creatures of the galaxy, hear this message. Those of you who listen will not be struck by western animation. You will no longer know hunger, nor pain. Your Anime have come to lead you now. Our strength shall serve as a luminous sun toward which all intelligence may blossom. And the impervious shelter beneath which you will prosper. However, for those who refuse our offer and cling to their western animation ways… For you, there will be great wrath. |
| a show can NOT be good or bad for everybody, so it doesn't realy matter technically but still it does, but don't make an opinion because a show has a high score. eromanga seisei has a 6.91. look at it this way:it's a possitive score. |
CSKaori said: So today I went to read some reviews here regarding an anime I recently finished in Erased, and while it had a fair share of positive reviews, a majority of reviews I saw had scores ranging between 4-6, with the general consensus being "it looks nice, but for dummies". But it's mean score currently is an 8.57, and apparently was in the top 10 anime of all time here as it was airing. That tells me that it's definitely a good show, but why do so many reviewers disagree? Do they think they're better then most anime fans that liked shows like this? Congratulations on discovering the eternal truth that critics are people and therefore their opinions and reviews are subjective bullshit just like mine or yours. Best to just cut out the middle man and watch everything to form your own opinion, I say. |
| "Laws exist only for those who cannot live without clinging onto them." -Souske Aizen "Bleach"  |
aliquae said: Here's the thing:Critics aren't people who only rate things low, they are just people who look at flaws in a show and try to view it in a more objective light - analyzing it, sometimes to death, yes. Trying too hard to "be objective" and "analyze something to death" can actually get in the way of enjoying it. So, if one does that, would that really be a fair assessment? Arguably, less so than just letting the chips fall where they may and taking a holistic approach. DodgeOffset said: You'd get a 40% on your Macbeth essay because it is being evaluated against the specific purpose of conveying your point.If everything was subjective I wouldn't get a 40% for my essay on what makes Macbeth a good tragedy. The point of such a school-assigned essay (and the point of grading it) is not about what conclusion you draw, but about how you draw it, and how convincing you are to other people when doing that. You can say Macbeth is a horrible tragedy, but you need to argue that point. You can say Macbeth is an excellent tragedy, but you still need to argue that point. Either way, you need to support your contention, and do it in a way that is convincing to others and not just yourself. Your conclusion about Macbeth is, by itself, not the point of such a school assignment. Crusader_8 said: You can evaluate things against specific purposes, asking the question of whether a work achieves those purposes well, and that can indeed be objective.ah there it is, the biggest lie in modern thought. You CAN objectively evaluate art, and that IS a different matter than subjective taste. Don't confuse taste for objective evaluation. For instance, this is why I can objectively evaluate/praise the quality of the dialogue, the comedic timing, the animation and sound etc in Konosuba... but still hate the show because it's isekai (a premise I vehemently disapprove of to no end). Don't drink the postmodern kool-aid. Taste comes into play when asking what purposes each person cares about. Different people care about different purposes -- in other words, different people want to get different things out of a work. It's like in math how you can optimize a function with respect to one dependent variable, but not with respect to several dependent variables at once. |
| Avatar character is Gabriel from Gabriel DropOut. |
GlennMagusHarvey said: yes and it turns out you can do this for most of art and for most aspects of art. You can evaluate things against specific purposes, asking the question of whether a work achieves those purposes well, and that can indeed be objective. Taste comes into play when asking what purposes each person cares about. Different people care about different purposes -- in other words, different people want to get different things out of a work. that analogy doesnt really convey what youre trying to say but i get your meaning - you insist (like the others) that there are aspects of art which must certainly remain mystefied and unqualifiable, right? However you can still objectively look at taste. It's like in math how you can optimize a function with respect to one dependent variable, but not with respect to several dependent variables at once. First, taste usually means you have experienced enough of X to enjoy X whenever X pops up again - for example, romantic comedies. You cannot build taste off a sample size of 1. Since we live in a consumerist entertainment age saturated with derivatives of everything, all uniqueness is comfortably embedded in nuance. Even if you preferred romantic comedies, you can still compare them and see which ones are better or worse. Because of said nuance, it's alnost impossible for an *honest* thinker to sincerely claim two different works are of the EXACT same quality, so how do we determine the difference? The subjectivists would claim comparing two shows is impossible, yet they do it all the time. Characters will be different, dialogue will be different, animation, etc. The subjectivist will then move the goalpost and say "ah, but you cannot compare animation styles!" ... Yet you can, and we do. You can compare animation QUALITY, you can analyze whether a particular animation style suited the narrative or if it hurt the story for being too busy or too bland, and all other sorts of obvious qualifiers. Heck, if animation was impossible to judge the private sector would have no metrics to evaluate animators and hiring time would become a nightmarish process. Yet we see examples of poor animators versus good ones all the time. Art is something you have to get better at via practice and exposure; how could an artist possibly evaluate their progress if we couldnt objectively evaluate these things? Doesnt it strike you the least bit odd that experts and even many laypersons can discern an error from an aesthetic? It seems there is literally only one thing that is subjectively evaluated at that point, which is personal enjoyment - but there's two things to that. 1) objectivists never argued that objective evaluation means you cant subjectively enjoy something which is objectively bad. 2) we can still objectively investigate WHY you subjectively enjoy something, given enpugh data. If i wanted to learn about why Susan likes certain Romantic comedies over others, and i was given a list of what she's seen and what she liked from that, i could collect and analyze the data. Susan may believe it's all down tp taste, but the data is likely able to show exactly what her taste is, enough to the point that one could tailor a show to her tastes. This is EXACTLY how mainstream high-budget box office movies are engineered, not to mention several shows, comics, and books in both the east and west. The blockbuster exists because movies like Jaws and Star Wars gave us enough data to figure out which parts to copy to make the most money. Think music still lives in the nebulous mystical region of the unquantifiable? Nope, data's shown us exactly which arrangements provoke which emotional responses. When theres an exception, we have enough data to know what makes that individual an exception. We simply understand enough about art at this point to evaluate it. The argument should be on why the subjectivists dont recognize the facts and evidence, which leads to the real issue - they dont like being told their favorite show is bad. They dont like being told they didnt put as much thought into their beliefs as the expert and/or professional did (yes, even someone like digibro is technically a professional). My only response to that is, so what? If you are offended then let me say, you already know that opinions arent all equally valid. Some opinions are better informed than others. My opinion of the earth's age is better informed than a creationist's opinion, just like digibro's opinions on animation quality are more qualified than mine. Now if it turns out youre an exception in the subjectivity camp in that you sincerely believe art still lies exclusively in the unquantifiable ÆTher, then by all means provide the evidence. |
| There is absolutely no reason why I should accept "turn your brain off" as a valid excuse to defend a poor show. ~ blatant ad: https://myanimelist.net/blog/Crusader_8 I spend the time to write it, so please read it lol |
Crusader_8 said: You're misunderstanding me. There's nothing "mystefied" [sic] or "unqualifiable" about taste. It's basically analogous to a set of priorities. For example, if you have a taste for stories where every detail is meaningfully used, then a story with lots of extraneous details is not going to be to your liking, but if someone else's taste is for stories that have lots of loose threads that can be tied into a much larger story setting, then they'll enjoy this story more.GlennMagusHarvey said: that analogy doesnt really convey what youre trying to say but i get your meaning - you insist (like the others) that there are aspects of art which must certainly remain mystefied and unqualifiable, right? However you can still objectively look at taste. Taste comes into play when asking what purposes each person cares about. Different people care about different purposes -- in other words, different people want to get different things out of a work. It's like in math how you can optimize a function with respect to one dependent variable, but not with respect to several dependent variables at once. Crusader_8 said: Not sure how this statement is relevant. Also, one can have a taste without having data to indicate that taste detectably ("I never knew I had a taste for ___!", though I guess one could argue that that is functionally indistinguishable from growing a new taste). It's just that it's not possible to rigorously conclude that one has a given taste off of a sample size of 1 (or 0).First, taste usually means you have experienced enough of X to enjoy X whenever X pops up again - for example, romantic comedies. You cannot build taste off a sample size of 1. Crusader_8 said: By each person's set of "taste priorities".Since we live in a consumerist entertainment age saturated with derivatives of everything, all uniqueness is comfortably embedded in nuance. Even if you preferred romantic comedies, you can still compare them and see which ones are better or worse. Because of said nuance, it's alnost impossible for an *honest* thinker to sincerely claim two different works are of the EXACT same quality, so how do we determine the difference? Crusader_8 said: Indeed, we all do personally judge these things, except we frequently disagree on what is good (e.g. is 1990s anime animation better or 2010s anime animation better?). That's because each of us may want something different from our work.The subjectivists would claim comparing two shows is impossible, yet they do it all the time. Characters will be different, dialogue will be different, animation, etc. The subjectivist will then move the goalpost and say "ah, but you cannot compare animation styles!" ... Yet you can, and we do. You can compare animation QUALITY, you can analyze whether a particular animation style suited the narrative or if it hurt the story for being too busy or too bland, and all other sorts of obvious qualifiers. Heck, if animation was impossible to judge the private sector would have no metrics to evaluate animators and hiring time would become a nightmarish process. Yet we see examples of poor animators versus good ones all the time. Art is something you have to get better at via practice and exposure; how could an artist possibly evaluate their progress if we couldnt objectively evaluate these things? The private sector basically looks less at what any individual specific person wants (except for people like directors or executives), and more at what tastes are most popular. One could call these "consensus tastes". For example, cute girls are popular in anime because a lot of fans have a taste for this. Not everyone does, but enough people do that it's commercially viable. Crusader_8 said: Indeed. At any given time, any given person has their own set of priorities with regards to what they wants to get out of a show. Not necessarily a conscious thing they think about -- could be subconscious. But it's what drives people to say "I don't like this" or "I'm not in the mood for that". If you could replicate that moment in time, and give that person different works every time, it would be possible to work out exactly what that person's tastes are at that moment.2) we can still objectively investigate WHY you subjectively enjoy something, given enpugh data. If i wanted to learn about why Susan likes certain Romantic comedies over others, and i was given a list of what she's seen and what she liked from that, i could collect and analyze the data. Susan may believe it's all down tp taste, but the data is likely able to show exactly what her taste is, enough to the point that one could tailor a show to her tastes. FWIW, with the term "tastes", we don't just have to stop at "likes romantic comedies" -- we can go a lot more specific with this, depending on how fine we want our exact elements to be. For example, "likes romantic comedies where the girl has a hot-and-cold personality and the guy is gradually grows from being oblivious to being perceptive". Crusader_8 said: The industry doesn't necessarily have enough data to know this. The person who is said exception may (consciously) know more, in fact -- and I'm an example of this, with regards to music. I've taken a lot of time to understand why I like/dislike certain music, and for example why my enjoyment of American pop music is seemingly strangely spotty. Gradually I've figured out some answers. And these happen to be things that are rarely, but occasionally and often by accident, catered to by American pop artists and recording companies.When theres an exception, we have enough data to know what makes that individual an exception. Crusader_8 said: Not to a specificity of understanding the mental responses to experiencing a piece of media. We know enough, on a purely cognitive basis, to say that action movies are generally popular in the west, for example, but we don't know enough to be able to guarantee avoiding making an action movie that gets panned by western audiences.We simply understand enough about art at this point to evaluate it. Crusader_8 said: Actually, that's not an opinion; that's a statement of fact, and all statements of fact are true (e.g. the Earth is (nearly) round), false (e.g. the Earth is a flat disc), or essentially unverifiable (e.g. the Earth was created by the will of [insert divine being here]). An opinion would be something like "I like the Earth" or "the Earth sucks".If you are offended then let me say, you already know that opinions arent all equally valid. Some opinions are better informed than others. My opinion of the earth's age is better informed than a creationist's opinion, just like digibro's opinions on animation quality are more qualified than mine. |
| Avatar character is Gabriel from Gabriel DropOut. |
Nostalgik said: CSKaori said: No, the score of a show is a good indicator if the casual viewer will like it or not, not if the show is actually good to begin with.I don't 100% trust them; I would think there would be shows with high scores here that I dislike, and vice-versa. But it's generally a good indicator to determining if it's a show worth checking out. Yeah especiall for those thousands of entries in the DB that casuals never even heard about... |
| I probably regret this post by now. |
GlennMagusHarvey said: aliquae said: Here's the thing:Critics aren't people who only rate things low, they are just people who look at flaws in a show and try to view it in a more objective light - analyzing it, sometimes to death, yes. Trying too hard to "be objective" and "analyze something to death" can actually get in the way of enjoying it. So, if one does that, would that really be a fair assessment? Arguably, less so than just letting the chips fall where they may and taking a holistic approach. Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean with 'letting the chips fall'. But other then that, I agree that analyzing can get in the way of enjoyment. However, this doesn't always have to be the case. If the anime is complex, then I can imagine that analyzing it actually makes room for more enjoyment. In the end however, it's up to the type of watcher what they do in the end, of course. |
  “If you live for yourself you’ve only got yourself to blame. So I can’t really blame anyone else and I don’t have any regrets.” list |
Pullman said: And because the casuals never heard about them, the scores tend to be a lot lower than the usual, because the people who DO watch those shows use the ranking system properly! Nostalgik said: No, the score of a show is a good indicator if the casual viewer will like it or not, not if the show is actually good to begin with. Yeah especiall for those thousands of entries in the DB that casuals never even heard about... Haibane Renmei - low 8 Utena - 8.2 Perfect Blue / Millenium Actress - 8.3 etc. etc. There are also the controversial ones, like Evangelion. |
|
| A critic looks at technical aspects, artistic aspects, They look at their own personal enjoyment but mostly of the more technique based things. How detailed are the backgrounds, are the characters always on model. Does the style of this show match up with what it is trying to say? Can it be good with dissonance if there is any? Is the music good or repetitive. Does the cast have chemistry? Were you engaged with what was going to happen next? Critics will also follow what the rating system is on the platform. A critic usually watches more than the average person. Average person on my anime list has seen 50-200 anime. Someone who has seen more than 200 anime usually start becoming more critical. This is only if they haven't seen a lot of movies and tv shows or took a film class though. If you take a film class or two.... you will be naturally more critical of anime. My husband took fiction writing classes. Poetry classes, script writing classes. And he says that ruins a lot of anime for him. I know that one anime fan said that poorly done cars ruin anime for him because he is a mechanic. |
The anime community in a nutshell.  |
Nostalgik said: Pullman said: And because the casuals never heard about them, the scores tend to be a lot lower than the usual, because the people who DO watch those shows use the ranking system properly! Yeah especiall for those thousands of entries in the DB that casuals never even heard about... Haibane Renmei - low 8 Utena - 8.2 Perfect Blue / Millenium Actress - 8.3 etc. etc. There are also the controversial ones, like Evangelion. Trusting shows that are currently airing and that a high score means anything more than hype? lol. The score doesn't usually be where it is going to be for at least the first two years after it comes out. If a show is from before 2006, stays above 8, the show is a classic and very loved. If the show is from the 70's or 80's and has a 7 or higher? Probably a masterpiece equivocal to the 9's on this platform. I call 6's the Niche 6 zone. They were very hit and miss like Samurai Flamenco. And SamFlam is fantastic. |
| The anime community in a nutshell. |
| All I know, is that I hate critics. I also hate people who think you shouldn't rate an Anime based on enjoyment. What else would you base the ratings on? I also hate people who rate things based on "Historical Significance." The "Daicon Opening Animations" are nothing special, sorry. |
 |
| This debate will end when everyone will realize critics are bullshit. So, I guess it's not for today. |
aliquae said: The phrase "letting the chips fall" is what I'm contrasting to a more intentionally judgemental view of a work. The latter is looking at a work with the mindset of trying to critique it (in a nitpicky sort of way), which I see some people doing on the internet, to the point of picking on the smallest/most superficial/most inconsequential little things and saying that they're major drawbacks of the work. The opposite would be to take the work uncritically at first, then go back afterwards and re-evaluate it only when you've more "candidly" experienced the work.GlennMagusHarvey said: Here's the thing: Trying too hard to "be objective" and "analyze something to death" can actually get in the way of enjoying it. So, if one does that, would that really be a fair assessment? Arguably, less so than just letting the chips fall where they may and taking a holistic approach. Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean with 'letting the chips fall'. But other then that, I agree that analyzing can get in the way of enjoyment. However, this doesn't always have to be the case. If the anime is complex, then I can imagine that analyzing it actually makes room for more enjoyment. In the end however, it's up to the type of watcher what they do in the end, of course. That said, you have a point in that some works actually become more enjoyable when one takes a heavily analytical approach. There's no single approach that really fits all works. |
| Avatar character is Gabriel from Gabriel DropOut. |
| Yes there is. Anyone who says there isn't is lying. |
The word elitist is stupid since it's just used by people who can't defend their favorite shows and use it on people who criticize their favorite shows.  |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Would you be in favor of tipping Crunchyroll for every anime you complete on their platform?Dije - Apr 16 |
39 |
by Sigma-
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
» What is your most re-watched anime? ( 1 2 )Alpha_1_Zero - Apr 15 |
86 |
by Sigma-
»»
11 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Which one do you prefer?MillerEvans23 - Yesterday |
23 |
by Recprocate
»»
26 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Do you tend to watch newer seasonal shows, or older shows?Akuya - 8 hours ago |
29 |
by redorzo
»»
31 minutes ago |
|
» Do you find how the anime community finds something to be edgy annoying?vasipi4946 - 7 hours ago |
13 |
by alshu
»»
34 minutes ago |