Just started the reading the review. The title seems promising.
Still reading, the reviewer is a bit of a douche.
Poor analogy, it lacks a real sting or maybe I'm just spoiled by Yahtzee.
Doesn't know who Asimov is. I guess he doesn't know what wikipedia is either. It's one thing to criticize a comic for bad jokes. But to complain that he doesn't get the jokes, so they must be bad isn't a criticism of this comic. Either get informed or realize that you might not be the intended audience (as if the title wasn't a bit enough clue for him) or both!
Criticizing someone's drawing ability on a webcomic is the lowest form of critique. I'm spending too much time on this guy.
I see someone in the comments made my same one about wikipedia.
Lori, honestly, I think your comic needs a lot of work. But I also think it's great that you're out there doing it. Your comic is far better than this guy's critiquing ability. He's writing a review to trash comics. That's fair. A lot of people generate interest by being mean-spirited, see Yahtzee. However, there are two important components that are necessary to write a clever critique tearing up someone's hard work: 1. You're comments generally should be true and readily accepted by your audience, 2. And I can't stress this enough, you have to be funny. No one really cares about these minor webcomics that much to begin with. They are reading these kinds of reviews more for entertainment than they are for deciding whether they will follow the comic or not.
You know what, **** you Lori, for making me waste my time reading that.
Still reading, the reviewer is a bit of a douche.
Poor analogy, it lacks a real sting or maybe I'm just spoiled by Yahtzee.
Doesn't know who Asimov is. I guess he doesn't know what wikipedia is either. It's one thing to criticize a comic for bad jokes. But to complain that he doesn't get the jokes, so they must be bad isn't a criticism of this comic. Either get informed or realize that you might not be the intended audience (as if the title wasn't a bit enough clue for him) or both!
Criticizing someone's drawing ability on a webcomic is the lowest form of critique. I'm spending too much time on this guy.
I see someone in the comments made my same one about wikipedia.

Lori, honestly, I think your comic needs a lot of work. But I also think it's great that you're out there doing it. Your comic is far better than this guy's critiquing ability. He's writing a review to trash comics. That's fair. A lot of people generate interest by being mean-spirited, see Yahtzee. However, there are two important components that are necessary to write a clever critique tearing up someone's hard work: 1. You're comments generally should be true and readily accepted by your audience, 2. And I can't stress this enough, you have to be funny. No one really cares about these minor webcomics that much to begin with. They are reading these kinds of reviews more for entertainment than they are for deciding whether they will follow the comic or not.
You know what, **** you Lori, for making me waste my time reading that.
Comment