History DethroningMoment / Moviebob

10th Apr '17 10:28:00 AM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* SuperLuigu: This goes back a ways, but Bob having his followers join the ScrewAttack forum to vote in the "My Vids Don't Suck" contest in 2008 or so, ensuring that ''The Game Overthinker'' was the winner, regardless of what the actual ScrewAttack g1 audience would have voted for (this was years before ''WebAnimation/DeathBattle'', when SA content was confined to the site and ''Game Trailers'').

to:

* SuperLuigu: This goes back a ways, but Bob having his followers join the ScrewAttack Website/ScrewAttack forum to vote in the "My Vids Don't Suck" contest in 2008 or so, ensuring that ''The Game Overthinker'' was the winner, regardless of what the actual ScrewAttack [=ScrewAttack=] g1 audience would have voted for (this was years before ''WebAnimation/DeathBattle'', when SA content was confined to the site and ''Game Trailers'').
18th Mar '17 12:05:05 PM JulianLapostat
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** ImpudentInfidel: It also revealed an almost complete ignorance of how video games, and RPGs in particular, are written. His argument was based on a film-specific variant of auteur theory and completely ignored the main complaint: that the ending was clearly written without the input of the main writing team, introduced massive changes to the mythology in the final minutes, and revealed a complete failure to grasp both the themes of the story and the mechanics of the setting.

to:

** ImpudentInfidel: It also revealed an almost complete ignorance of how video games, and RPGs in particular, are written. His argument was based on a film-specific variant of [[UsefulNotes/TheAuteurTheory auteur theory theory]] and completely ignored the main complaint: that the ending was clearly written without the input of the main writing team, introduced massive changes to the mythology in the final minutes, and revealed a complete failure to grasp both the themes of the story and the mechanics of the setting.
6th Mar '17 10:00:41 AM Bartzv
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will typically: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core arguments of the other side. 3. Ignore any inconvenient facts that weaken his arguments. 4. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that ''[[VideoGame/MetroidOtherM Other M's]]'' detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated what fans assumed she was like this whole time, as Samus didn't have any characterization until now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that Samus was written as weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. In other words, it's not so much that her characterization differed from Fanon like Bob claims, it's that said characterization was bad. Not only that, his claim that Samus didn't have any characterization before ''Other M'' [[CriticalResearchFailure ignores]] the huge elephant in the room that is ''[[VideoGame/MetroidFusion Metroid Fusion]]'' and how it gave her inner monologues that provided some insight into her character. [[note]]While it's possible that Bob hadn't played Fusion at the time, there's no excuse for not at least researching it before making a claim like that.[[/note]] Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school narrative mechanic with the weapon authorization that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in unintended narrative oddities that are being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. While the narrative and game mechanics not gelling well is a valid point, he acts like this alone is what's causing all the problems and writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads. Once again he fails to address the actual issue of how Samus was written as a character, choosing instead to blame it entirely on the authorization mechanic. Bob then accuses anyone criticizing Sakamoto for being sexist (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. This is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of ''Other M's'' detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. There's more hypocrisy when you take into account that he's a very vocal feminist and frequently criticizes the depiction of women in video games, and yet gave a pass to this game- a game that portrays its female protagonist in a way that many consider to be sexist. Considering he made no secret that he liked the game, it comes off like he's purposely going easy on it because he likes it. All of this indicates that Bob can be very ignorant and intellectually dishonest when it comes to defending stuff that he likes.

to:

* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will typically: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core arguments of the other side. 3. Ignore any inconvenient facts that weaken his arguments. 4. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that ''[[VideoGame/MetroidOtherM Other M's]]'' detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated what fans assumed she was like this whole time, as Samus didn't have any characterization until now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that Samus was written as weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. In other words, it's not so much that her characterization differed from Fanon like Bob claims, it's that said characterization was bad. Not only that, his claim that Samus didn't have any characterization before ''Other M'' [[CriticalResearchFailure ignores]] the huge elephant in the room that is ''[[VideoGame/MetroidFusion Metroid Fusion]]'' and how it gave her inner monologues that provided some insight into her character. [[note]]While it's possible that Bob hadn't played Fusion at the time, there's no excuse for not at least researching it before making a claim like that.[[/note]] Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school narrative mechanic with the weapon authorization that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in unintended narrative oddities that are being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. While the narrative and game mechanics not gelling well is a valid point, he acts like this alone is what's causing all the problems and writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads. Once again he fails to address the actual issue of how Samus was written as a character, choosing instead to blame it entirely on the authorization mechanic. Bob then accuses anyone criticizing Sakamoto for being sexist (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. This is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of ''Other M's'' detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. There's more hypocrisy when you take into account that he's a very vocal feminist and frequently criticizes the depiction of women in (especially when it comes to video games, games) and yet gave a pass to this game- a game that portrays its female protagonist in a way that many consider to be sexist. Considering he made no secret that he liked the game, it comes off like he's purposely going easy on it because he likes it. All of this indicates that Bob can be very ignorant and intellectually dishonest when it comes to defending stuff that he likes.
3rd Mar '17 1:43:14 PM Bartzv
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will typically: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core arguments of the other side. 3. Ignore any inconvenient facts that weaken his arguments. 4. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that ''[[VideoGame/MetroidOtherM Other M's]]'' detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated what fans assumed she was like this whole time, as Samus didn't have any characterization until now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that Samus was written as weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. In other words, it's not so much that her characterization differed from Fanon like Bob claims, it's that said characterization was bad. Not only that, his claim that Samus didn't have any characterization before ''Other M'' [[CriticalResearchFailure ignores]] the huge elephant in the room that is ''[[VideoGame/MetroidFusion Metroid Fusion]]'' and how it gave her inner monologues that provided some insight into her character. [[note]]While it's possible that Bob hadn't played Fusion at the time, there's no excuse for not at least researching it before making a claim like that.[[/note]] Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school narrative mechanic with the weapon authorization that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in unintended narrative oddities that are being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. While the narrative and game mechanics not gelling well is a valid point, he acts like this alone is what's causing all the problems and writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads. Once again he fails to address the actual issue of how Samus was written as a character, choosing instead to blame it entirely on the authorization mechanic. Bob then accuses anyone criticizing Sakamoto for being sexist (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. This is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of ''Other M's'' detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. This kind of behavior is baffling coming from someone with a reputation for being very analytical.

to:

* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will typically: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core arguments of the other side. 3. Ignore any inconvenient facts that weaken his arguments. 4. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that ''[[VideoGame/MetroidOtherM Other M's]]'' detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated what fans assumed she was like this whole time, as Samus didn't have any characterization until now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that Samus was written as weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. In other words, it's not so much that her characterization differed from Fanon like Bob claims, it's that said characterization was bad. Not only that, his claim that Samus didn't have any characterization before ''Other M'' [[CriticalResearchFailure ignores]] the huge elephant in the room that is ''[[VideoGame/MetroidFusion Metroid Fusion]]'' and how it gave her inner monologues that provided some insight into her character. [[note]]While it's possible that Bob hadn't played Fusion at the time, there's no excuse for not at least researching it before making a claim like that.[[/note]] Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school narrative mechanic with the weapon authorization that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in unintended narrative oddities that are being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. While the narrative and game mechanics not gelling well is a valid point, he acts like this alone is what's causing all the problems and writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads. Once again he fails to address the actual issue of how Samus was written as a character, choosing instead to blame it entirely on the authorization mechanic. Bob then accuses anyone criticizing Sakamoto for being sexist (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. This is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of ''Other M's'' detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. This kind of behavior is baffling coming from someone with There's more hypocrisy when you take into account that he's a reputation for being very analytical.vocal feminist and frequently criticizes the depiction of women in video games, and yet gave a pass to this game- a game that portrays its female protagonist in a way that many consider to be sexist. Considering he made no secret that he liked the game, it comes off like he's purposely going easy on it because he likes it. All of this indicates that Bob can be very ignorant and intellectually dishonest when it comes to defending stuff that he likes.
3rd Mar '17 6:39:02 AM Bartzv
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will typically: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core arguments of the other side. 3. Ignore any inconvenient facts that weaken his arguments. 4. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that ''[[VideoGame/MetroidOtherM Other M's]]'' detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated what fans assumed she was like this whole time, as Samus didn't have any characterization until now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that Samus was written as weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. In other words, it's not so much that her characterization differed from Fanon like Bob claims, it's that said characterization was bad. Not only that, his claim that Samus didn't have any characterization before ''Other M'' [[CriticalResearchFailure ignores]] the huge elephant in the room that is ''[[VideoGame/MetroidFusion Metroid Fusion]]'' and how it gave her inner monologues that provided some insight into her character. [[note]]While it's possible that Bob hadn't played Fusion at the time, there's no excuse for not at least researching it before making a claim like that.[[/note]] Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school narrative mechanic with the weapon authorization that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in unintended narrative oddities that are being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. While the narrative and game mechanics not gelling well is a valid point, he acts like this alone is what's causing all the problems and writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads. Once again he fails to address the actual issue of how Samus was written as a character, choosing instead to blame it entirely on the authorization mechanic and then accuse anyone criticizing Sakamoto for being sexist (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. That last one in particular is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of ''Other M's'' detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. This kind of behavior is baffling coming from someone with a reputation for being very analytical.

to:

* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will typically: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core arguments of the other side. 3. Ignore any inconvenient facts that weaken his arguments. 4. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that ''[[VideoGame/MetroidOtherM Other M's]]'' detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated what fans assumed she was like this whole time, as Samus didn't have any characterization until now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that Samus was written as weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. In other words, it's not so much that her characterization differed from Fanon like Bob claims, it's that said characterization was bad. Not only that, his claim that Samus didn't have any characterization before ''Other M'' [[CriticalResearchFailure ignores]] the huge elephant in the room that is ''[[VideoGame/MetroidFusion Metroid Fusion]]'' and how it gave her inner monologues that provided some insight into her character. [[note]]While it's possible that Bob hadn't played Fusion at the time, there's no excuse for not at least researching it before making a claim like that.[[/note]] Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school narrative mechanic with the weapon authorization that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in unintended narrative oddities that are being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. While the narrative and game mechanics not gelling well is a valid point, he acts like this alone is what's causing all the problems and writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads. Once again he fails to address the actual issue of how Samus was written as a character, choosing instead to blame it entirely on the authorization mechanic and mechanic. Bob then accuse accuses anyone criticizing Sakamoto for being sexist (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. That last one in particular This is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of ''Other M's'' detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. This kind of behavior is baffling coming from someone with a reputation for being very analytical.
2nd Mar '17 5:39:55 PM Bartzv
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will typically: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core arguments of the other side. 3. Ignore any inconvenient facts that weaken his arguments. 4. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that ''[[VideoGame/MetroidOtherM Other M's]]'' detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated what fans assumed she was like this whole time, as Samus didn't have any characterization until now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that Samus was written as weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. In other words, it's not so much that her characterization differed from Fanon like Bob claims, it's that said characterization was bad. Not only that, his claim that Samus didn't have any characterization before ''Other M'' [[CriticalResearchFailure ignores]] the huge elephant in the room that is ''[[VideoGame/MetroidFusion Metroid Fusion]]'' and how it gave her inner monologues that provided some insight into her character. [[note]]While it's possible that Bob hadn't played Fusion at the time, there's no excuse for not at least researching it before making a claim like that.[[/note]] Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school narrative mechanic with the weapon authorization that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in unintended narrative oddities that are being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. Not only does this sound like someone using mental gymnastics to justify liking something many people have issues with, but once again he fails to address the actual criticisms of how Samus was written as a character. He just blames it entirely on the authorization mechanic, writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads, and then accuses anyone criticizing Sakamoto for being sexist (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. That last one in particular is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of ''Other M's'' detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. This kind of behavior is baffling coming from someone with a reputation for being very analytical.

to:

* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will typically: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core arguments of the other side. 3. Ignore any inconvenient facts that weaken his arguments. 4. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that ''[[VideoGame/MetroidOtherM Other M's]]'' detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated what fans assumed she was like this whole time, as Samus didn't have any characterization until now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that Samus was written as weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. In other words, it's not so much that her characterization differed from Fanon like Bob claims, it's that said characterization was bad. Not only that, his claim that Samus didn't have any characterization before ''Other M'' [[CriticalResearchFailure ignores]] the huge elephant in the room that is ''[[VideoGame/MetroidFusion Metroid Fusion]]'' and how it gave her inner monologues that provided some insight into her character. [[note]]While it's possible that Bob hadn't played Fusion at the time, there's no excuse for not at least researching it before making a claim like that.[[/note]] Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school narrative mechanic with the weapon authorization that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in unintended narrative oddities that are being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. Not only does While the narrative and game mechanics not gelling well is a valid point, he acts like this sound like someone using mental gymnastics to justify liking something many people have issues with, but once again he fails to address alone is what's causing all the actual criticisms of how Samus was written as a character. He just blames it entirely on the authorization mechanic, problems and writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads, heads. Once again he fails to address the actual issue of how Samus was written as a character, choosing instead to blame it entirely on the authorization mechanic and then accuses accuse anyone criticizing Sakamoto for being sexist (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. That last one in particular is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of ''Other M's'' detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. This kind of behavior is baffling coming from someone with a reputation for being very analytical.
2nd Mar '17 4:52:39 PM Bartzv
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will typically: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core arguments of the other side. 3. Ignore any inconvenient facts that weaken his arguments. 4. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that ''[[VideoGame/MetroidOtherM Other M's]]'' detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated what fans assumed she was like this whole time, as Samus didn't have any characterization until now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that Samus was written as weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. In other words, it's not so much that her characterization differed from Fanon like Bob claims, it's that said characterization was bad. Not only that, his claim that Samus didn't have any characterization before ''Other M'' [[CriticalResearchFailure ignores]] the huge elephant in the room that is ''[[VideoGame/MetroidFusion Metroid Fusion]]'' and how it gave her inner monologues that provided some insight into her character. [[note]]While it's possible that Bob hadn't played Fusion at the time, there's no excuse for not at least researching it before making a claim like that.[[/note]] Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school narrative mechanic with the weapon authorization that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in unintended narrative oddities that are being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. Not only does this sound like someone using mental gymnastics to justify liking something many people have issues with, but once again he fails to address the actual criticisms of how Samus was written as a character. He just blames it entirely on the authorization mechanic, writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads, and then accuses anyone criticizing Sakamoto for being sexist (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. That last one in particular is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of Other M's detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. This kind of behavior is baffling coming from someone with a reputation for being very analytical.

to:

* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will typically: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core arguments of the other side. 3. Ignore any inconvenient facts that weaken his arguments. 4. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that ''[[VideoGame/MetroidOtherM Other M's]]'' detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated what fans assumed she was like this whole time, as Samus didn't have any characterization until now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that Samus was written as weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. In other words, it's not so much that her characterization differed from Fanon like Bob claims, it's that said characterization was bad. Not only that, his claim that Samus didn't have any characterization before ''Other M'' [[CriticalResearchFailure ignores]] the huge elephant in the room that is ''[[VideoGame/MetroidFusion Metroid Fusion]]'' and how it gave her inner monologues that provided some insight into her character. [[note]]While it's possible that Bob hadn't played Fusion at the time, there's no excuse for not at least researching it before making a claim like that.[[/note]] Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school narrative mechanic with the weapon authorization that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in unintended narrative oddities that are being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. Not only does this sound like someone using mental gymnastics to justify liking something many people have issues with, but once again he fails to address the actual criticisms of how Samus was written as a character. He just blames it entirely on the authorization mechanic, writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads, and then accuses anyone criticizing Sakamoto for being sexist (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. That last one in particular is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of Other M's ''Other M's'' detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. This kind of behavior is baffling coming from someone with a reputation for being very analytical.
2nd Mar '17 4:49:14 PM Bartzv
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will typically: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core arguments of the other side. 3. Ignore any inconvenient facts that weaken his arguments. 4. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that ''[[VideoGame/MetroidOtherM Other M's]]'' detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated what fans assumed she was like this whole time as Samus didn't have any characterization until now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that Samus was written as weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. In other words, it's not so much that her characterization differed from Fanon like Bob claims, it's that said characterization was bad. Not only that, his claim that Samus didn't have any characterization before ''Other M'' [[CriticalResearchFailure ignores]] the huge elephant in the room that is ''[[VideoGame/MetroidFusion Metroid Fusion]]'' and how it gave her inner monologues that provided some insight into her character. [[note]]While it's possible that Bob hadn't played Fusion at the time, there's no excuse for not at least researching it before making a claim like that.[[/note]] Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school narrative mechanic with the weapon authorization that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in unintended narrative oddities that are being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. Not only does this sound like someone using mental gymnastics to justify liking something many people have issues with, but once again he fails to address the actual criticisms of how Samus was written as a character. He just blames it entirely on the authorization mechanic, writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads, and then accuses anyone criticizing Sakamoto for being sexist (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. That last one in particular is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of Other M's detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. This kind of behavior is baffling coming from someone with a reputation for being very analytical.

to:

* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will typically: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core arguments of the other side. 3. Ignore any inconvenient facts that weaken his arguments. 4. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that ''[[VideoGame/MetroidOtherM Other M's]]'' detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated what fans assumed she was like this whole time time, as Samus didn't have any characterization until now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that Samus was written as weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. In other words, it's not so much that her characterization differed from Fanon like Bob claims, it's that said characterization was bad. Not only that, his claim that Samus didn't have any characterization before ''Other M'' [[CriticalResearchFailure ignores]] the huge elephant in the room that is ''[[VideoGame/MetroidFusion Metroid Fusion]]'' and how it gave her inner monologues that provided some insight into her character. [[note]]While it's possible that Bob hadn't played Fusion at the time, there's no excuse for not at least researching it before making a claim like that.[[/note]] Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school narrative mechanic with the weapon authorization that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in unintended narrative oddities that are being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. Not only does this sound like someone using mental gymnastics to justify liking something many people have issues with, but once again he fails to address the actual criticisms of how Samus was written as a character. He just blames it entirely on the authorization mechanic, writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads, and then accuses anyone criticizing Sakamoto for being sexist (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. That last one in particular is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of Other M's detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. This kind of behavior is baffling coming from someone with a reputation for being very analytical.
2nd Mar '17 11:16:10 AM Bartzv
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core of the other side's arguments. 3. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that Other M's detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated what fans assumed she was like this whole time as Samus didn't have any characterization until now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that the way Samus was written makes her look weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. Not only that, his claim that Samus didn't have any characterization before Other M ignores the huge elephant in the room that is Metroid Fusion and how it gave her inner monologues that provided some insight into her character. Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school game narrative mechanic in the weapon authorization and that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in stuff that's being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. Not only does this argument sound like someone using mental gymnastics to justify liking something many see as awful, but once again it doesn't address the actual criticisms of how Samus was written as a character. He just blames it entirely on the authorization mechanic, writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads, and then accuses anyone accusing Sakamoto of sexism (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. That last one in particular is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of Other M's detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. This kind of behavior is baffling coming from someone with a reputation for being very analytical.

to:

* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will: will typically: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core arguments of the other side's arguments.side. 3. Ignore any inconvenient facts that weaken his arguments. 4. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that ''[[VideoGame/MetroidOtherM Other M's M's]]'' detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated what fans assumed she was like this whole time as Samus didn't have any characterization until now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that the way Samus was written makes her look as weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. In other words, it's not so much that her characterization differed from Fanon like Bob claims, it's that said characterization was bad. Not only that, his claim that Samus didn't have any characterization before Other M ignores ''Other M'' [[CriticalResearchFailure ignores]] the huge elephant in the room that is ''[[VideoGame/MetroidFusion Metroid Fusion Fusion]]'' and how it gave her inner monologues that provided some insight into her character. [[note]]While it's possible that Bob hadn't played Fusion at the time, there's no excuse for not at least researching it before making a claim like that.[[/note]] Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school game narrative mechanic in with the weapon authorization and that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in stuff that's unintended narrative oddities that are being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. Not only does this argument sound like someone using mental gymnastics to justify liking something many see as awful, people have issues with, but once again it doesn't he fails to address the actual criticisms of how Samus was written as a character. He just blames it entirely on the authorization mechanic, writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads, and then accuses anyone accusing criticizing Sakamoto of sexism for being sexist (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. That last one in particular is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of Other M's detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. This kind of behavior is baffling coming from someone with a reputation for being very analytical.
1st Mar '17 9:12:23 PM Bartzv
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core of the other side's arguments. 3. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that Other M's detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated with what fans assumed she was like this whole time. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that the way Samus was written makes her look weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school game narrative mechanic in the weapon authorization and that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in stuff that's being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. Not only does this argument sound like someone using mental gymnastics to justify liking something many see as awful, but once again it doesn't address the actual criticisms of how Samus was written as a character. He just blames it entirely on the authorization mechanic, writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads, and then accuses anyone accusing Sakamoto of sexism (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) without any hard evidence of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. That last one in particular is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of Other M's detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. This kind of behavior is baffling coming from someone with a reputation for being very analytical.

to:

* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core of the other side's arguments. 3. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that Other M's detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated with what fans assumed she was like this whole time.time as Samus didn't have any characterization until now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that the way Samus was written makes her look weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. Not only that, his claim that Samus didn't have any characterization before Other M ignores the huge elephant in the room that is Metroid Fusion and how it gave her inner monologues that provided some insight into her character. Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school game narrative mechanic in the weapon authorization and that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in stuff that's being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. Not only does this argument sound like someone using mental gymnastics to justify liking something many see as awful, but once again it doesn't address the actual criticisms of how Samus was written as a character. He just blames it entirely on the authorization mechanic, writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads, and then accuses anyone accusing Sakamoto of sexism (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) without any hard evidence of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. That last one in particular is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of Other M's detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. This kind of behavior is baffling coming from someone with a reputation for being very analytical.
This list shows the last 10 events of 194. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=DethroningMoment.Moviebob