The Bad Webcomics Wiki!

Basically the succesor of John Solomons "Your Webcomic is Bad And You Should Feel Bad" Blog.

http://badwebcomics.wikidot.com/webcomics-wiki-main

Coincidence... I found this just the other day.

I enjoyed it (I'm the kind of person who enjoyed John Solomon's blog, take that as you like it), and it was nice to see some new comics get their collar felt. Of course, you'll always going to have quibbles about lists like this. I felt that the VG Cats review was a bit too thin-skinned: OMG he makes jokes about ABORTIONS! Won't somebody please think of the children? The XKCD review (whether or not you think XKCD belongs in a list of "bad webcomics" at all - I don't) used "Aspergic" as an insult so many times, it bordered on hate speech.

And how can you write an article about Hal Lindsey's political cartoons without even mentioning his superstardom in the rapture movement in the 1960s? That page gave me aggrieved at the ignorance of kids today. (Not enough to actually edit the page myself, though.)

That aside, I think it's a good tool for cataloguing bad webcomics, which manages to make some good points about what a good webcomic should contain. And it's rather less vulgar than Your Webcomic Is Bad And You Should Feel Bad, to boot.

Mmmmmmmmm... I have to disagree on the VG Cats abortion joke. The point wasnt "Think of The Children!" it was... "WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU!?" Seriously its gross and not funny AT ALL. Even people who hate children ought to gag in disgust.

I don't think it was particularly funny, but I've seen so much more tasteless that it hardly registered on that count.

I liked John Solomon, but this seems kinda mediocre.

Wow, people who start sites like this are really pathetic, and that's the nicest thing I can say about them. You just know every webcomic that ever existed is going to end up on there for one petty reason or another!

I remember coming across the Bad Webcomics Wiki linked from a Something Awful thread (or was it Cracked? I can't remember) for a list article about the worst webcomics in existence. The reviews on the Bad Webcomics Wiki are absolutely hilarious… Except when the subject matter becomes sufficiently horrible, and some of those comics are so, SO mindbendingly awful. I admit that including some successful strips like xkcd, User Friendly, and Megatokyo might seem a bit harsh, but I think it's fair to say that a certain amount of success raises the bar for “Bad.” The one thing I disagree with (just like with Solomen) is the slagging they gave VG Cats. I mean, calling the Cooking Mama strip misogynistic? Come on.

Speaking of that thread, they found some… Interesting stuff. First there were the kinda' incompetent comics, then the laughably bad ones, then the really awful ones, then the downright nasty ones, then the bottom of the barrel was scraped, then dug straight through, then the barrel turned inside-out and swallowed everyone to reveal a hellscape dimension where unspeakable twisted horrors molested everyone into gibbering wrecks, then all that was left was the posts of these brave, foolish souls, which sternly advised potential readers to read no further. Let me tell you there's some comics out there I really regret having read, and some more I REALLY regret even reading vague synopses of.

The worst part? This is the internet. That means, somewhere, there are even WORSE ones. So stay on Bad Webcomics Wiki, stay where they can't find you, YAAARGH!

Wait, where was I going with that?

HATHOR THE COWGODDESS

Eric: I'm afraid to ask. I know of only a handful of truly horrific webcomics, and I dare not speak of them.

@Bro Diddley: *Twitch* *Quiver*

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say I don't want to know what the hell Bro was referencing there.

I was right.

The worst part of it is, some of those parts are fine, but some are bad. Taken as a whole? OW.

Edited to add:

Jack Chick and Hathor the Cow Goddess- isn't that a cage match you'd love to see?

. . . Personally, I hate cage matches, but lock those two in a room and film the results.

edited 29th Nov '09 7:52:13 PM by GoggleFox

Their article on Suicide for Hire was clearly written by a troper. I find this either interesting or frightening, and I really can't decide which.

edited 29th Nov '09 7:59:32 PM by MetaFour

Quick read... Unicorn Jelly is on there. Despite having sorta liked it when I read it, the review is actually pretty much spot on.

Also, Shivae! is on there. The review is incomplete, but I have to agree with the assessment of Tiff's tendency to let her plots meander far too much — it's most of the reason I gave up on Alien Dice. The rest is Wangst. The fact that she's let herself spread out among ten separate comics at once probably has a lot to do with why they never seem to go anywhere, but the other part can't be solved as easily.

My impression? Reviews like these two are more along the lines of a simple "Accentuate the Negative" style, and can be targeted even at those comics that aren't truly "bad," but are frustrating to read.

Meanwhile, reviews like those for that Hathor nonsense and for this one in the post above . . . Those make you wonder just why some people put pen to paper, and if they should be kept away from anything sharper than a crayon.

edited 29th Nov '09 8:21:44 PM by GoggleFox

@Meta Four - I think someone needs to talk to the Trope Police...

Yeah I was kinda disappointed by that wiki when I perused it a few weeks back. It's a dull heavygoing chore to read, and they're sucky enough writers that the snark and vitriole tends to come off as borderline obsessive rather than witty.

A shame, because a lot of the webcomics they review honestly do deserve a good hard kick in the nuts.

Its because its a wiki and people other than the creators can review if they desire to do so,leading to inconsistent quality.

They get edited and corrected from time to time.

I found a couple of the more "deserving" ones with reviews on there, but I'm not sure I should really link those.

Am I the only one who's starting to get annoyed at Chick Tracts being listed as a webcomic?

Well, it deserves all the bashing in the world, after all!

You have a point.

That, and the fact is, he now posts all of these things on the web in all their glory. Not sure what to make of that.

The definition of "webcomic" is kinda vague, but if you include it as "comics that are published as a whole on the web," this one counts.

Lovely, another site that thinks its funny because it tries to tell bad jokes about webcomics.

It's the worst of both worlds.

I'm not a fan of Jack but that website's review of it seems to be highly nonsensical in spots.

For example, they accuse the comic of ripping off Donnie Darko, apparently because Donnie Darko has a human-sized rabbit character and Jack has a human-sized rabbit character. Seriously what.