Knightmare Article*

HStorm · Post by **HStorm** » 18 Jan 2004, 15:13

Well, I'm afraid you've made an enemy you didn't need there, andy_w. I actually liked your article and agreed with much of it, and unlike some people I DO know the distinction between insulting something you dislike and teasing something you're fond of - my own KM website does little else.

However, the sheer unmitigated arrogance of some of your remarks here is outrageous. If you want to mount a defence of yourselves, by all means do so, but the condescending insults that you've bandied around here are not defence, just aggressive and self-righteous.

As for some of the later remarks in this thread, if you look carefully, you'll discover that they weren't aimed at you at all, but a flamer who joined the forum just to aggravate everyone.

Oh and as for the graphics, you CAN'T compare the graphics of two completely separate eras. It's an unfair assessment, and Ms Ellison didn't acknowledge the timescale involved when making her "badly-animated" remarks. Why not ask her to rewrite that bit, rather than having a go at your audience for not fitting themselves around a weakly-written sub-clause?

Fidjit · Post by **Fidjit** » 18 Jan 2004, 15:15

Can we please resolve this, nicely! We're sorry, I'm sorry...

Skarkill · Post by **Skarkill** » 18 Jan 2004, 15:36

I Apolagise as well for any offence I might have caused.

Emii · Post by **Emii** » 18 Jan 2004, 18:15

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.

Skarkill · Post by **Skarkill** » 18 Jan 2004, 18:40

Your right Emii.

We have the right to express our oppinions freely on this forum. If we dissagre with an artical we can say so.

GrimaldineGrimwold · Post by **GrimaldineGrimwold** » 18 Jan 2004, 18:53

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?

HStorm · Post by **HStorm** » 18 Jan 2004, 19:00

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.

Elita · Post by **Elita** » 19 Jan 2004, 02:22

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.

Lord_Bob · Post by **Lord_Bob** » 19 Jan 2004, 10:13

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.

Fidjit · Post by **Fidjit** » 19 Jan 2004, 11:03

I suppose...

Just because this guy doesn't like Knightmare doesn't mean to say he can't have a go at us for doing the same...

Err... Did I say that right? :(

Fidjit · Post by **Fidjit** » 19 Jan 2004, 11:04

Looks like the page is inactive now! This link doesn't work!

HStorm · Post by **HStorm** » 19 Jan 2004, 11:33

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

Fidjit · Post by **Fidjit** » 19 Jan 2004, 11:37

Grrrrr!

Skarkill · Post by **Skarkill** » 19 Jan 2004, 12:50

I Wounder why thwy moved the page.

Fidjit · Post by **Fidjit** » 19 Jan 2004, 13:05

Good question!

Knightmare Article*

Re: Knightmare Article*

Re: Knightmare Article*

Re: Knightmare Article*

Re: Knightmare Article*

Re: Knightmare Article*

Re: Knightmare Article*

Re: Knightmare Article*

Re: Knightmare Article*

Re: Knightmare Article*

Re: Knightmare Article*

Re: Knightmare Article*

Re: Knightmare Article*

Re: Knightmare Article*

Re: Knightmare Article*

Re: Knightmare Article*

Who is online