rpanonmod ([personal profile] rpanonmod) wrote in [community profile] rpanons2016-05-24 12:47 pm

21 days after journal entry

Rundown: [community profile] rpanons is an anonymous community for role-play related topics. This place serves as a forum for game discussions, canon discussions, RP solicitations (ATP, game ads, open memes), and advice. The occasional off topic comment is inevitable, but please keep heated social and political topics to their respective communities. Posting them here will only get them frozen. Subsequent threads made to bypass a freeze will then be deleted.

Rules:

Do not post pornographic or shocking images.
Do not share private entries, plurks, chat logs, etc.
Do not use this community as your social/political/hatespeech soapbox.
Do not be redundant. One page does not need three or more threads on one topic/theme. Your unfunny, forced memes also fall under this rule.
Do not treat this comm like your personal therapist. Threads about nonfictional suicide, self injury, rape, and abuse will be deleted. There are better resources out there for you.
Do not treat this comm like your personal Plurk or Twitter. Off-topic happens, but it should be open for discussion and not just a play-by-play of your life. No one cares.
Shut up about Tumblr. If it's not a discussion about Tumblr RP it will be deleted.


CONCERNS | RESOURCES


Navigate:

LATEST PAGE | GAME DISCUSSIONS | CANON DISCUSSIONS | HTML/GRAPHIC HELP

ATP/ENABLE ME | GAME ADVERTISEMENTS | PB SUGGESTIONS | USERNAME SUGGESTIONS

GAME IDEAS | CHARACTER ADVICE | RP WITH ME | TEST DRIVES

Re: WARCRAFT

(Anonymous) 2016-06-09 08:58 pm (UTC)(link)
can't wait for shitty bandwagoners from a shitty movie

though to be fair this fandom has always been shit so it can't really get much worse

Re: WARCRAFT

(Anonymous) 2016-06-09 10:56 pm (UTC)(link)
who pissed in your cheerios today, anon?

Re: WARCRAFT

(Anonymous) 2016-06-10 04:17 am (UTC)(link)
in this thread, someone who is buttmad that other people are having fun. go back to shipping steve and bucky, anon.

Re: WARCRAFT

(Anonymous) 2016-06-10 04:21 am (UTC)(link)
the movie IS terrible, though. i mean, it's perfectly possible to have fun with terrible things, you do you, but there's really no defending it as anything resembling good. i don't see how being a mcu kidlet relates at all to that.

Re: WARCRAFT

(Anonymous) 2016-06-10 04:31 am (UTC)(link)
but who cares?

da

(Anonymous) 2016-06-10 07:13 am (UTC)(link)
exactly. op is obviously mad their loot didn't drop.

Re: WARCRAFT

(Anonymous) 2016-06-10 05:20 am (UTC)(link)
+1

the trailer got my hopes up, but the film itself is just full of tired nerdboy tropes (the young mage guy is obviously meant for nerdboys to project onto) and bad CGI. like, it had good textures and all, but nothing moved like it had weight, and to add to that there was bad acting from anyone that had to wear or interact with a CG'd object.

Re: WARCRAFT

(Anonymous) 2016-06-10 12:52 pm (UTC)(link)
of course it's made for nerdboys. that's the bulk of their playerbase, so that's who's going to get catered to.

Re: WARCRAFT

(Anonymous) 2016-06-11 02:26 am (UTC)(link)
I'd argue they don't make up near as large a percentage as you, and people who market to WoW's playerbase, seem to think.

Re: WARCRAFT

(Anonymous) 2016-06-11 02:15 pm (UTC)(link)
look, it's not going to be marketed to the tumblr crowd, women, or whatever else you think it should be, because the traditional playerbase has been nerdboys. deal.

also the "young mage guy" is named khadgar.

Re: WARCRAFT

(Anonymous) 2016-06-11 08:33 pm (UTC)(link)
also the "young mage guy" is named khadgar.

oh my god you actually think anyone cares

Re: WARCRAFT

(Anonymous) 2016-06-11 02:25 pm (UTC)(link)
all the time i've spent in PuGs, BGs, Raid Finder, Timewalking events, and Trade Chat has demonstrated otherwise.

if all you interact with in game is your guild of friends it's probably not as obvious, but WoW is still infested with nerdboys. or if not, everyone else is just a big a steaming pile of shit personality-wise as they tend to be.

-1

(Anonymous) 2016-06-10 07:16 am (UTC)(link)
i enjoyed it. different strokes for different folks. doesn't mean that everything is shitty, anon.

Re: -1

(Anonymous) 2016-06-10 08:42 am (UTC)(link)
"different strokes for different folks" doesn't apply when you're talking about quality. you can enjoy something that's not high quality. something can be really high quality and no one enjoys it. you enjoying it doesn't make it not shitty

Re: -1

(Anonymous) 2016-06-10 08:44 am (UTC)(link)
i was talking more in the sense that op was all "this is shitty, fandom is shitty, people who will play from it are shitty" that came across.

Re: -1

(Anonymous) 2016-06-11 02:28 am (UTC)(link)
did you really just try to say "this phrase about shit being subjective doesn't apply to a completely inherently subjective concept"?

film criticism is fucking subjective, you moron, of course it applies. I thought the movie was a dumpster fire, too, so this isn't some misguided attempt at whiteknighting it.

Re: -1

(Anonymous) 2016-06-11 03:01 am (UTC)(link)
production value, technical proficiency, and writing that makes sense are not subjective. hakuna your tatas

Re: -1

(Anonymous) 2016-06-11 05:39 am (UTC)(link)
writing that makes sense

what makes perfect sense to you may not for another person and vice versa.

production value

may or may not actually impact the final look and feel of a film. the original Star Wars was made on a shoestring budget compared to some of the previous Hollywood epics, or even some other sci-fi films of its time, and yet here we are.

technical proficiency

the fuck does that even mean? cinematography? visual effects? sound editing? use actual terms if you're going to pretend you know what you're talking about instead of vague bullshit.


and even then, all of that is still *subjective*. movie criticism is inherently *subjective*. there is no way a statement about anythin that can realistically be started with "in my opinion, ___" is objective. you fucking walnut.

Re: -1

(Anonymous) 2016-06-11 07:16 am (UTC)(link)
i honestly could not give less of a shit about this argument

Re: -1

(Anonymous) 2016-06-12 12:11 am (UTC)(link)
yet you're still here