The Bad Webcomics Wiki!

xkcd's haters come across every bit as smug as its fans. "Look at me, I'm one of the few people who truly understand what a hack Randall is!" vs "Look at me, I'm one of the few people who truly understand the joke Randall just made!" Not So Different.

We haters haven't given Randall any of our money, last I checked./smug.

edited 24th Oct '10 4:30:25 PM by SomethingSomething

NO ONE READS XKCD TO FEEL PRETENTIOUS AND SUPERIOR BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND IT. That is almost as ridiculous and overused as the idea that TV Tropes sucks because it's people trying to feel pretentious and superior by doing phony literature analysis, which I see thrown around in the same places by the same people. As in people that completely missed the point in the first place.

Why would you assume that just because you don't understand every joke that this somehow means Randall's being pretentious? Pretty freaking sure no one understands every joke. I showed my dad, who knows virtually nothing about computers, a bunch a while back and while not understanding every comic he thought the ones he laughed at were hilarious.

edited 24th Oct '10 4:40:46 PM by RLabs

I dunno. When I understand the jokes, I get VERY proud of myself.

Yes they do. Nowadays, Randall doesn't even bother making jokes. He just makes references to stuff, knowing his audience will just nod along to the reference.

I just read through the last five comics. None of them require any knowledge of esoteric references, unless "soh cah toa" is an obscure reference. Last ten, one comic required knowledge of a reference, and it wasn't even remotely nerdy (romance books called "The Rules" and "The Game", which are apparently well-known?)

Honestly, though, have you actually looked at the xkcd fora or somewhere where fans discuss stuff? Or did you just assume everyone was cocky and reads internet comics to make themselves feel important and smart because they understand obscure references?

Don't be so accusatory, R Labs. It's rude.

Alright, tech support was actually good, I'll give you that.

Besides that one, out of those ten, how many were actually funny, and not just nerd wankery?

Ah, so now it's possible for a comic that doesn't depend on nerd references to still be "nerd wankery". Fascinating development.

Wow I actually was being pretty rude. Sorry for being such an asshole.

And not finding them funny is definitely understandable. I just take issue with the idea that not funny to everyone -> liked by those who do understand specifically and only because others don't understand.

Here's an interesting question: do webcomics actually NEED to be reviewed? With films and games, you're paying for them, so having an idea of what they're about, who they'll appeal to etc, is important. You don't want to waste money on something you won't enjoy, after all.

But webcomics are free, so you don't lose anything for reading them, except your spare time. If you find you don't like the comic, you can simply close it down and do something else.If the whole point of a review is to reccomend good works and warn us of bad ones before we spend our money, then reviews of webcomics are arguably pointless because we can simply check out the comic and decide for ourselves.

Webcomics with big archives, though, can be a big investment of time, and since they're usually a writer/artist's first project, it can be very difficult to predict which direction they're going to go in simply from the earliest strips.

It helps to know when (and if) a comic is going to Grow the Beard or Jump the Shark, how engaging the overall plotline is (if it has one) and so on and so forth.

Consider, for instance, Looking For Group, which takes sixty or so strips to mutate from an entertainingly anarchic black comedy to a somewhat intriguing, epic dramedy... before completely losing its shit as the plot ties itself in knots and the humour becomes more and more reliant on cheap pop-culture references and disconnected from the rest of the story. A new reader would simply not have all that information at hand.

Basically, when you start reading a webcomic, you embark on a journey, and it's helpful to know in advance whether your destination's going to be nice and how long it takes to get there.

If it starts out being nice and stops, then it costs you nothing to stop reading.

The way I see it, the hard part dealing with webcomics is finding the ones worth reading. Telling people that a specific webcomic isn't worth reading isn't particularly helpful, because relatively few people were going to read it anyway, and those who do can quickly form an opinion on it at little cost to themselves. A good review, on the other hand, can lead people to seek out a webcomic they wouldn't otherwise have read.

Of course, it's important that the reviews be honest and not exaggerate the comics' virtues, because it can be quite frustrating to seek out or stick with a comic on the basis of what turns out to be false reassurance.

Telling people that a specific webcomic isn't worth reading isn't particularly helpful, because relatively few people were going to read it anyway, and those who do can quickly form an opinion on it at little cost to themselves.

I disagree. Negative reviews are necessary to combat positive reviews of bad comics.

Why? If people read a good review of a bad comic, they're more likely to find out it was misleading by checking the comic itself than another review, and at no greater cost to themselves.

Plus, a negative review of a bad webcomic might drum up more undeserved attention and traffic for said webcomic, instead of leaving it to rot in obscurity where it belongs.

I was disappointed by the blandness of the bad webcomics on the site. I was expecting epic fail levels of badness. Most are just bad. Still, there are plenty of bad webcomics that should be ridiculed, and if a few good ones get caught in the cross fire... I can live with that.

First, to shine the light of criticism and honesty on the darkest and most deluded crevasses of the internet. Second, as personal therapy to let off steam at something horrible that has harmed you. Third, Bile Fascination and general amusement (“lulz,” as I believe the young'ns call them nowadays.)

What good does "shining the light of criticism and honesty on the darkest and most deluded crevasses of the internet" actually do?

Claiming that a webcomic has harmed you is, in nearly all cases, hyperbolic, and denotes a histrionic demeanor which I don't think merits respect.

Doing it for amusement is, I think, a legitimate purpose, but if the amusement is gained entirely on the basis of mocking someone else and tearing down their work, I don't think that kind of behavior merits any respect either. The reviews should be able to stand as a source of entertainment on their own merits.

Constructive criticism can also obviously serve a purpose, but that demands that you present it in a way that the author will accept it as constructive, otherwise you might as well not bother; there's no value in a token effort.

The good it does is to remind some people and their comfort zone that perhaps this incredibly wonderful bestest thing they love so much… Isn't. A little perspective never hurt anyone.

^ In practice, how often does that actually happen? Now, in practice, how often do those trying to "educate" the fanboys and fangirls become just as obsessive and close-minded as them?

edited 31st Oct '10 8:11:20 PM by feotakahari

Eric, I find it far more amusing that you think there's a sacred right and duty to discover and insult, I mean, criticize every single pet project comic on the internet. As if it is a holy mission that must be done because those people are a threat to the ART of literature itself.

If anything, I've found most of the people that dedicate themselves to tasks like this have their heads far more up their butts than even the mighty Tim Buckley. And are significantly more prone to screaming like a child when called on it.

Just look at how many times John Solomon threw tantrums on his blog. Hell, I got him to do it in the comments once. All I had to do was question his story about Scott Ramsoomair throwing a con badge. Bloody hilarious.

@Rebo: Critics are just like normal people y'know. Some are jerkwads and some are not.

Among the set of critics who rip apart works that are free and unlikely to be read by many people anyway without a clear idea of why their service is supposed to be legitimately useful, I think the proportion of "not" is rather low.

The good it does is to remind some people and their comfort zone that perhaps this incredibly wonderful bestest thing they love so much… Isn't. A little perspective never hurt anyone.

A little perspective never hurt anyone, but verbal assault frequently has. With perspective in mind, I think it's important for webcomic caustic critics to keep in mind that they're really not providing a particularly useful service. Telling people why the things they like are bad rarely serves to benefit them. Treating it as a positive good is nothing but an indulgence of self righteousness. Introducing one's audience to things that are better, and providing them with the tools to seek out and recognize them for themselves, is a legitimate service, but not one that critics who focus on negative reviews tend to provide.

Well then, guess I should hope I am part of the not —pokes signature link— and withdraw out of the argument before I put my ego into it.