Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

GTA V - Unworthy of a 10. My voluminous review.

285 replies to this topic
ajrunke
  • ajrunke

    I'm on a boat!

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2008

#121

Posted 29 September 2013 - 05:40 PM

 

Holy sh*t lol, this thread is amazing. Love how the OP tries so hard to sound clever by using words that make no sense in the context of his posts.

Not trying to sound clever at all. That's your perception. If you want to insult me be my guest. It's not going to work as I'm impervious to ad hominem attacks.

I'd appreciate a rebuttal of my review?

What do you think is wrong?

Care to articulate that instead of spouting inane hogwash?

We know which is more difficult.

 

See, this is your entire problem: you're far too wordy. The use of "inane" and "hogwash" within the same sentence in an attempt to describe criticism is redundant. Inane and hogwash mean essentially the same thing.


MrWuggy
  • MrWuggy

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2013
  • None

#122

Posted 29 September 2013 - 05:43 PM

Sorry, but there are multiple flaws with this review. First off, if you want to try and sound smart by using more upper-class words, you need to type out the sentence properly. I saw multiple instances of a sentence that could have been worded better to fit in with the excessive use of those words. I don't mind if you do or don't use that kind of vocabulary in real life, but it's unnecessary to use it on a place like the Internet. Remember, the Internet isn't full of A-grade spellers and readers, you need to lower your work to a standard that most can understand.

 

As for you review, it was quite mediocre, all you did was point out flaws with the game, assuming Rockstar is to blame, your protagonist section drifted off into describing the story, rather than focusing on who the protagonists are. More images would work and prevent readers from getting bored too. Spelling and structuring wise, many pointed out spelling mistakes, but there's also areas where adding more punctuation would work. I'm not sure why you were against the map, but I'm fine if you don't like it, I found it to be very diverse, as it was all crafted and not generated. Your obsession with DLC annoys me too, as I find DLC a greedy way for companies to squeeze you out of your last cent.

 

You tried too hard to push in words that weren't needed just so you could sound smart (possibly to show reads you know what you're saying), an occasional one would have been fine, remember, this review is for others to see, not just for a small minority who may understand all of those words. Even in your replies here I can see multiple spelling mistakes, the most prominent one is the lower case I. Your review pointed out a lot of flaws that have to do with console limitations - something Rockstar can't help. I also can't help but feel you didn't know the meanings to all those words, but I could be wrong, I'm not going to state facts here that aren't proven. Trying to sound smart by using words like that will only make you look bad, spelling correctly is one of the best ways to show others on the Internet your words are worth reading. 

 

Now, don't get me started on spelling, I'm the best speller in my school, having a huge understanding of how to properly structure a sentence while also using the correct words for it. If you can use those "fancy" words, as they call it, fine, but you will get nowhere if you keep writing reviews made for yourself. One other thing, what makes a game deserve a perfect 10? There's no real way to define a "perfect game", as the "perfect game" will always be different to others. I love GTA V, but it had a large amount of issues that could have been solved, but instead Rockstar are obsessed with this multiplayer aspect.

 

Your review overdid it with an excessively large amount of words that weren't needed, which will hinder your target audience. Wording it better and using more base words would work wonders, and you would have never gotten such criticism. Oh, yes, you also need to understand constructive criticism, if many users say your use of words is bad, then change it. Adjusting your work to what the audience wants will set you on a good track, I'm not saying you have to conform, as I hate "following the crowd", but if you only focus on yourself you won't get anywhere. Once again, I have no problem with how you use your vocabulary, but it won't help here on the Internet.

 

Good luck on your next review though...

 

Thank you. This is a mature critique and I appreciate the time you took to write it. 

I assure you, there is no intention of sounding smart. Couldn't really care if people think I do or don't.

Not looking to seek approval. It's not unnecessary to write eloquently on the internet, and that is just an inane view.

 

All I did was point out flaws with the game? Eh, yeah that was kind of the intention. Rockstar are culpable here, they developed it and there are some omissions that I'm sure they're aware of.

I made a few spelling errors, which was inevitable. As for grammar errors I'm all ears.

My obsession with DLC? Where did I say I was obsessed? I said it's a viable solution that exists. I don't care if Rockstar charge more for DLC if it's brilliant.

 

I will accept my usage of ostentatious words may have been excessive and I will try to lessen that in the future. You're nitpicking, a lowercase i in here is not because I'm unaware of the grammatically fault, but because of the speed I'm typing. What spelling mistakes are in the article? My review pointed out a few console limitations and I conveyed that Rockstar weren't culpable for that.

 

I believe Rockstar were very close to pulling off the perfect game. And with DLC I still feel that's attainable.

 

The point about constructive criticism isn't correct. I can accept it, I do not have to invariably agree with as I may think their criticism is flawed. Just because the majority believe something does not make that correct.

I understand you have to adapt depending on the demographic you're writing for. Initially I had no intention of posting it in here.

 

Thanks for the good luck. Appreciate it.


NothingPersonal
  • NothingPersonal

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013

#123

Posted 29 September 2013 - 05:44 PM Edited by NothingPersonal, 29 September 2013 - 05:46 PM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe try to have a reasonable vocabulary with a smooth style? "Antiquation" is not only wrong in usage - likely as taken from a thesaurus to parrot without an understanding of the meaning - it's f*cking awful to read, bordering on purple prose. Incidentally, the redundancy, as if to merely to include adjectives as filling to otherwise vapid ideas, is best exemplified by the description of Trevor as: "reprobate", "irreverent" and "sociopathic" - all practically identical in effect.

 

 

In conclusion: much prolix grandiloquence whilst abstrusely bromidic, deprived of profundity to be milquetoast. 

Kill 'em :catspider:

 

OnTopic: Not trying to be a hater like the rest of the fools commenting here, but I honestly found this review to be boring, and excitement isn't something I look for in written reviews. It's probably your diction.

But your aren't wrong in having those opinions. The game is lacking in some areas, which is something a lot of users here are afraid to accept. But whatever, man. Don't try to force someone to agree with you.

 

Thanks. I'm not trying to force people to concur with me. On the contrary, I want them to take issue with the points I'm making and not the style of writing I'm using.

 

Writing means something: witty, organised and intelligible. Don't bullsh*t yourself to think purple prose is okay with a deeper meaning to excuse yourself.

 

Don't bullsh*t yourself to think your opinion has any merit. Your definition of writing shows your facile understanding of it. Writing has many forms, and different styles. I'm not aiming for whit in this review. I'm attempting to convey to the reader as best as I can why I think this game has a lot of flaws. If I wanted a critique of my use of English I would have went to an English or grammar forum which I frequently visit. I wanted people's opinion on the game, not how they think I'm a pretentious douchebag. Because that couldn't be further from the truth.

 

You're officially insane and either an attention-whore or desperately in need of compliments. You sought FEEDBACK on the review and this includes all aspects. Additionally, need I even speak of your arrogant, contemptuous attitude with, "Most of the people here are a bunch of vacuous, puerile dolts" - now added onto, "Don't bullsh*t yourself to think your opinion has any merit".

 

Tell me, sir, why does your opinion have any merit? Why do you ask for constructive criticism and then insult people with the very subjective ideas you claim to oppose? Why do you get so f*cking defensive over any criticisms - seeking only compliments as you try to do with an 'impressive' (but laughably bad)  prose?

 

You're a f*cking kid who's retaliating so pathetically when we don't share the reactions desired, such as attention, with arrogant dismissals.

 

Your fallacious reasoning is conspicuous once again. A predominant portion of people in here have labelled me a "fag" "douchebag" and one user even encouraged suicide. My point isn't arrogant at all, it's predicated on the vitriol that's been directed towards me in here. My opinion has merit because I have great self-awarness, and I'm cognisant of biases. I realise it's impossible to suppress all biases, but I do my best. Yes, that may sound pretentious, perhaps even self-deceptive, but I've had many reputable people tell me it. My response to your post was a bit petulant and I apologise for that. I just think you have a very vague understanding of styles of writing and what it entails. I've accepted the constructive criticism in here, I've asked for elaboration, I've asked people to expound on their theories of why I'm wrong. I'm not retaliating at all, and certainly have no desire for attention. I wanted people's opinion on the game, and my criticisms of the game, but unfortunately it was mostly vitriolic responses. 

 

Yes, saying I have 'fallacious reasoning' - essentially 'You Are Wrong' in your special, appreciated dialect - without clarification is completely not laughable when fallacies typically have a lack of explanation....
 
"My opinion has merit because I have great self-awarness, and I'm cognisant of biases."
 
So, you're right because you know you're right...? And you judge I am wrong because you are right? Your reasoning...when reduced to the most simple form...has so many vague references to something substantive, it's got way too many tautologies.
 
Now, as I'm confident I am right because I'm very aware of the meaning to right... I think you are indeed an arrogant, abrasive prick who needs to be socialized...without a doubt considering my fantastical, grandeur knowledge into JUDGING PEOPLE as wrong/right.
 
PS: You're arrogant for responses that demean other people and have them viewed as less, along with sh*tty responses which deflect absolutely any form of critique, plus generalistic bullsh*t such as "It's individually special" - not forgetting you don't do so to other people (entitlement).
 
I think you're a narcissistic c*nt, really, who is acting at best, nothing more or less...

hierbamala
  • hierbamala

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2013

#124

Posted 29 September 2013 - 05:44 PM Edited by hierbamala, 29 September 2013 - 05:44 PM.

f*ck yo voluminous review
  • ajrunke likes this

MrWuggy
  • MrWuggy

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2013
  • None

#125

Posted 29 September 2013 - 05:47 PM Edited by MrWuggy, 29 September 2013 - 05:47 PM.

I'm surprised nobody's said this yet - brevity is the soul of wit.

 

If you can get your point across in fewer, simpler, smaller words, then do it.

 

The problem with the review isn't the opinion you display there, but the way you've written the damn thing. It's just tough to read - even for native English speakers - with many grammar errors, awkwardly flowing sentences and pointlessly "big" words by which I mean words that people rarely use and thus probably won't understand without looking it up. Why say "laudable", when you can say "commendable" or even "praiseworthy"? Why say "voluminous", when you can say "big" or "somewhat large"?

 

No, don't even bother justifying it - simply put, if you want people to enjoy your writing, it should be easily legible. You can use a FEW "big" words, but you can't stick one in every sentence, so your readers have to spend half their reading time looking things up in a thesaurus.

 

Judging from his prose, I think OP just doesn't know that these words are unused in day-to-day life and are thus "big words", unfit for articles and such meant to be read by the general populace. Perhaps he doesn't speak English as a mother tongue.

 

My suggestion: read more books written in English. Learn from fictional writing. Be short and concise, and your readers will appreciate it.

I suggest you research styles of writing. I have no target demographic.

I consider this purely practice. 

Do you think I'm unaware that for many readers not knowing what certain words mean disrupts the flow of the piece? Well I do.

I read an awful lot, read a lot of editorials and see these words used repeatedly.

Maybe you're not noticing them.

You use voluminous because it conveys more than the word "big" voluminous is specifically related to writing, big isn't.


MrWuggy
  • MrWuggy

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2013
  • None

#126

Posted 29 September 2013 - 05:49 PM

 

 

Holy sh*t lol, this thread is amazing. Love how the OP tries so hard to sound clever by using words that make no sense in the context of his posts.

Not trying to sound clever at all. That's your perception. If you want to insult me be my guest. It's not going to work as I'm impervious to ad hominem attacks.

I'd appreciate a rebuttal of my review?

What do you think is wrong?

Care to articulate that instead of spouting inane hogwash?

We know which is more difficult.

 

See, this is your entire problem: you're far too wordy. The use of "inane" and "hogwash" within the same sentence in an attempt to describe criticism is redundant. Inane and hogwash mean essentially the same thing.

 

Redundant adjectives are used everyday dude. Sometimes it's used as a stylistic thing. Subjective. You may dislike it, doesn't mean everyone does.


Kratos2000
  • Kratos2000

    ;)

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Jul 2009

#127

Posted 29 September 2013 - 05:52 PM


 


fa**ot

You're a fatuous imbecile who foolishly believes constructive criticism is worthless.
 
he said "fa**ot" and you replied to that with thesaurus? 
/dontwannaliveonthisplanetanymore
HEY.
I demand my share of this thread too

Btw best thread in years, reading this while eating peanuts /threadfollowed

MrWuggy
  • MrWuggy

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2013
  • None

#128

Posted 29 September 2013 - 05:56 PM Edited by MrWuggy, 29 September 2013 - 05:59 PM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe try to have a reasonable vocabulary with a smooth style? "Antiquation" is not only wrong in usage - likely as taken from a thesaurus to parrot without an understanding of the meaning - it's f*cking awful to read, bordering on purple prose. Incidentally, the redundancy, as if to merely to include adjectives as filling to otherwise vapid ideas, is best exemplified by the description of Trevor as: "reprobate", "irreverent" and "sociopathic" - all practically identical in effect.

 

 

In conclusion: much prolix grandiloquence whilst abstrusely bromidic, deprived of profundity to be milquetoast. 

Kill 'em :catspider:

 

OnTopic: Not trying to be a hater like the rest of the fools commenting here, but I honestly found this review to be boring, and excitement isn't something I look for in written reviews. It's probably your diction.

But your aren't wrong in having those opinions. The game is lacking in some areas, which is something a lot of users here are afraid to accept. But whatever, man. Don't try to force someone to agree with you.

 

Thanks. I'm not trying to force people to concur with me. On the contrary, I want them to take issue with the points I'm making and not the style of writing I'm using.

 

Writing means something: witty, organised and intelligible. Don't bullsh*t yourself to think purple prose is okay with a deeper meaning to excuse yourself.

 

Don't bullsh*t yourself to think your opinion has any merit. Your definition of writing shows your facile understanding of it. Writing has many forms, and different styles. I'm not aiming for whit in this review. I'm attempting to convey to the reader as best as I can why I think this game has a lot of flaws. If I wanted a critique of my use of English I would have went to an English or grammar forum which I frequently visit. I wanted people's opinion on the game, not how they think I'm a pretentious douchebag. Because that couldn't be further from the truth.

 

You're officially insane and either an attention-whore or desperately in need of compliments. You sought FEEDBACK on the review and this includes all aspects. Additionally, need I even speak of your arrogant, contemptuous attitude with, "Most of the people here are a bunch of vacuous, puerile dolts" - now added onto, "Don't bullsh*t yourself to think your opinion has any merit".

 

Tell me, sir, why does your opinion have any merit? Why do you ask for constructive criticism and then insult people with the very subjective ideas you claim to oppose? Why do you get so f*cking defensive over any criticisms - seeking only compliments as you try to do with an 'impressive' (but laughably bad)  prose?

 

You're a f*cking kid who's retaliating so pathetically when we don't share the reactions desired, such as attention, with arrogant dismissals.

 

Your fallacious reasoning is conspicuous once again. A predominant portion of people in here have labelled me a "fag" "douchebag" and one user even encouraged suicide. My point isn't arrogant at all, it's predicated on the vitriol that's been directed towards me in here. My opinion has merit because I have great self-awarness, and I'm cognisant of biases. I realise it's impossible to suppress all biases, but I do my best. Yes, that may sound pretentious, perhaps even self-deceptive, but I've had many reputable people tell me it. My response to your post was a bit petulant and I apologise for that. I just think you have a very vague understanding of styles of writing and what it entails. I've accepted the constructive criticism in here, I've asked for elaboration, I've asked people to expound on their theories of why I'm wrong. I'm not retaliating at all, and certainly have no desire for attention. I wanted people's opinion on the game, and my criticisms of the game, but unfortunately it was mostly vitriolic responses. 

 

Yes, saying I have 'fallacious reasoning' - essentially 'You Are Wrong' in your special, appreciated dialect - without clarification is completely not laughable when fallacies typically have a lack of explanation....
 
"My opinion has merit because I have great self-awarness, and I'm cognisant of biases."
 
So, you're right because you know you're right...? And you judge I am wrong because you are right? Your reasoning...when reduced to the most simple form...has so many vague references to something substantive, it's got way too many tautologies.
 
Now, as I'm confident I am right because I'm very aware of the meaning to right... I think you are indeed an arrogant, abrasive prick who needs to be socialized...without a doubt considering my fantastical, grandeur knowledge into JUDGING PEOPLE as wrong/right.
 
PS: You're arrogant for responses that demean other people and have them viewed as less, along with sh*tty responses which deflect absolutely any form of critique, plus generalistic bullsh*t such as "It's individually special" - not forgetting you don't do so to other people (entitlement).
 
I think you're a narcissistic c*nt, really, who is acting at best, nothing more or less...

 

Another strawman. I've elaborated on why your points are defective. I've provided the sufficient evidence. If you want to ignore that, be my guest. I'm right because under the most harshest of scrutiny my points can be defended, and have rationale behind them. You can believe what you want, the fact that you're making an inference on someone's personality without the adequate amount of data, says a lot about your thinking.

So essentially you think you're right because you're very aware of the meaning to right? You have the audacity to call me arrogant but then proceed to say "I think you are indeed an arrogant, abrasive prick who needs to be socialized...without a doubt considering my fantastical, grandeur knowledge into JUDGING PEOPLE as wrong/right. Astonishing. I demean people who brazenly use homophobic slurs. 

Deflect any form of critique? Are you capable of reading? If you are you'll see I have asked for elaboration on their criticism. 
Your beliefs have very little meaning, as it appears you're just trying to insult someone to give your ego a boost. Not working.

NothingPersonal
  • NothingPersonal

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013

#129

Posted 29 September 2013 - 05:58 PM

 

 

 

Holy sh*t lol, this thread is amazing. Love how the OP tries so hard to sound clever by using words that make no sense in the context of his posts.

Not trying to sound clever at all. That's your perception. If you want to insult me be my guest. It's not going to work as I'm impervious to ad hominem attacks.

I'd appreciate a rebuttal of my review?

What do you think is wrong?

Care to articulate that instead of spouting inane hogwash?

We know which is more difficult.

 

See, this is your entire problem: you're far too wordy. The use of "inane" and "hogwash" within the same sentence in an attempt to describe criticism is redundant. Inane and hogwash mean essentially the same thing.

 

Redundant adjectives are used everyday dude. Sometimes it's used as a stylistic thing. Subjective. You may dislike it, doesn't mean everyone does.

The facts so far...

 

100% people who've replied have disliked the style...

 

You've failed the target audience HERE when it's been POSTED HERE.

 

You refuse to adapt to HERE and instead make excuses to have your STYLE as okay (might as well type in GIBBERISH), making it more about your desire to indulge in a style rather than be entertaining or understood (AKA: YOU SELFISH DICKHEAD, SO CONCERNED WITH PRETTY WORDS TO DISREGARD EVEN COMPREHENSIBILITY TO MOST f*ckING STANDARDS OF ENGLISH)

 

You seem to be thinking of writing a review, technical writing, as making LITERATURE, something so absurd I won't even comment on it.

 

You insulted many helpful people and rationalized whatever flaws were noted.

 

You declare yourself as practically omnipotent on self-analysis and then seek others' feedback (normally for objective reviews).

 

You complain about people discussing the style of review when that's something fundamental to the content...

 

 You insults of 'you are wrong', 'you are pleb', 'I smarter than you' to respond to anything that isn't 'constructive' to a very narrow viewpoint that relates to...accepting all you've done.


assmillk
  • assmillk

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2012

#130

Posted 29 September 2013 - 05:58 PM Edited by assmillk, 29 September 2013 - 05:59 PM.

 

Clearly retarded.

I actually thought this forum had some level of maturity, but evidently i was wrong.

Reddit is the best place for GTA discussion these days.

Most of the people here are a bunch of vacuous, puerile dolts.

 

I agree with you that this forum is full of idiots, but do you really have to keep using big vocabulary that 95% of users on this forum don't understand?  Just makes you look like a total douche. 

  • Bonnano likes this

Derpmaster
  • Derpmaster

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2013

#131

Posted 29 September 2013 - 05:59 PM Edited by Derpmaster, 29 September 2013 - 06:07 PM.

 

I'm surprised nobody's said this yet - brevity is the soul of wit.

 

If you can get your point across in fewer, simpler, smaller words, then do it.

 

The problem with the review isn't the opinion you display there, but the way you've written the damn thing. It's just tough to read - even for native English speakers - with many grammar errors, awkwardly flowing sentences and pointlessly "big" words by which I mean words that people rarely use and thus probably won't understand without looking it up. Why say "laudable", when you can say "commendable" or even "praiseworthy"? Why say "voluminous", when you can say "big" or "somewhat large"?

 

No, don't even bother justifying it - simply put, if you want people to enjoy your writing, it should be easily legible. You can use a FEW "big" words, but you can't stick one in every sentence, so your readers have to spend half their reading time looking things up in a thesaurus.

 

Judging from his prose, I think OP just doesn't know that these words are unused in day-to-day life and are thus "big words", unfit for articles and such meant to be read by the general populace. Perhaps he doesn't speak English as a mother tongue.

 

My suggestion: read more books written in English. Learn from fictional writing. Be short and concise, and your readers will appreciate it.

I suggest you research styles of writing. I have no target demographic.

I consider this purely practice. 

Do you think I'm unaware that for many readers not knowing what certain words mean disrupts the flow of the piece? Well I do.

I read an awful lot, read a lot of editorials and see these words used repeatedly.

Maybe you're not noticing them.

You use voluminous because it conveys more than the word "big" voluminous is specifically related to writing, big isn't.

 

Jesus, now you're just being stubborn. Just because you saw "voluminous" used in some piece of literature, once or twice, doesn't mean you can use words of its like a hundred times in a simple little review. I reiterate - you simply do not know that these words are underused. What I meant by 'flow' is that many of your sentences flow awkwardly - I won't go into detail, just post this review on one of your grammar forums and they'll chew it apart and tell you.

 

Anyway, so what you're saying is that this review isn't meant to really be a review at all? I mean, if you clearly don't care about making it legible for this or any audience, then why even post it on this forum, then? This isn't a grammar forum.

 

And what exactly are you practicing, pray tell? How to write a review? You're apparently not interested in improving your abilities in that department, by which I mean making your reviews legible without a thesaurus, a lot of patience for your inept prose and a glass of scotch.

 

Eloquent writing? No.

 

eloquent:

adjective \ˈe-lə-kwənt\. : having or showing the ability to use language clearly and effectively

 

You do not display that ability in your review. It is definitely not fluent or clear (it's just tough to read and NOT only because of the big words but because of your inadequate skill at prose - if you don't believe me, ask... well, anyone) and it is not efficiently written aka a lot of it is not legible for people who aren't English language professors, without a thesaurus.

 

Brevity = soul of wit.


MrWuggy
  • MrWuggy

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2013
  • None

#132

Posted 29 September 2013 - 05:59 PM

 

Don't bullsh*t yourself to think your opinion has any merit. Your definition of writing shows your facile understanding of it. Writing has many forms, and different styles. I'm not aiming for whit in this review. I'm attempting to convey to the reader as best as I can why I think this game has a lot of flaws. If I wanted a critique of my use of English I would have went to an English or grammar forum which I frequently visit. I wanted people's opinion on the game, not how they think I'm a pretentious douchebag. Because that couldn't be further from the truth.

 

WHAT?? You visit english forums..... Wow. I've never heard anyone say that in all the 27 years that I have lived. Holy sh*t...

gasp_animation.gif

 

Actually common practice from people who write.


NothingPersonal
  • NothingPersonal

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013

#133

Posted 29 September 2013 - 06:03 PM Edited by NothingPersonal, 29 September 2013 - 06:04 PM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe try to have a reasonable vocabulary with a smooth style? "Antiquation" is not only wrong in usage - likely as taken from a thesaurus to parrot without an understanding of the meaning - it's f*cking awful to read, bordering on purple prose. Incidentally, the redundancy, as if to merely to include adjectives as filling to otherwise vapid ideas, is best exemplified by the description of Trevor as: "reprobate", "irreverent" and "sociopathic" - all practically identical in effect.

 

 

In conclusion: much prolix grandiloquence whilst abstrusely bromidic, deprived of profundity to be milquetoast. 

Kill 'em :catspider:

 

OnTopic: Not trying to be a hater like the rest of the fools commenting here, but I honestly found this review to be boring, and excitement isn't something I look for in written reviews. It's probably your diction.

But your aren't wrong in having those opinions. The game is lacking in some areas, which is something a lot of users here are afraid to accept. But whatever, man. Don't try to force someone to agree with you.

 

Thanks. I'm not trying to force people to concur with me. On the contrary, I want them to take issue with the points I'm making and not the style of writing I'm using.

 

Writing means something: witty, organised and intelligible. Don't bullsh*t yourself to think purple prose is okay with a deeper meaning to excuse yourself.

 

Don't bullsh*t yourself to think your opinion has any merit. Your definition of writing shows your facile understanding of it. Writing has many forms, and different styles. I'm not aiming for whit in this review. I'm attempting to convey to the reader as best as I can why I think this game has a lot of flaws. If I wanted a critique of my use of English I would have went to an English or grammar forum which I frequently visit. I wanted people's opinion on the game, not how they think I'm a pretentious douchebag. Because that couldn't be further from the truth.

 

You're officially insane and either an attention-whore or desperately in need of compliments. You sought FEEDBACK on the review and this includes all aspects. Additionally, need I even speak of your arrogant, contemptuous attitude with, "Most of the people here are a bunch of vacuous, puerile dolts" - now added onto, "Don't bullsh*t yourself to think your opinion has any merit".

 

Tell me, sir, why does your opinion have any merit? Why do you ask for constructive criticism and then insult people with the very subjective ideas you claim to oppose? Why do you get so f*cking defensive over any criticisms - seeking only compliments as you try to do with an 'impressive' (but laughably bad)  prose?

 

You're a f*cking kid who's retaliating so pathetically when we don't share the reactions desired, such as attention, with arrogant dismissals.

 

Your fallacious reasoning is conspicuous once again. A predominant portion of people in here have labelled me a "fag" "douchebag" and one user even encouraged suicide. My point isn't arrogant at all, it's predicated on the vitriol that's been directed towards me in here. My opinion has merit because I have great self-awarness, and I'm cognisant of biases. I realise it's impossible to suppress all biases, but I do my best. Yes, that may sound pretentious, perhaps even self-deceptive, but I've had many reputable people tell me it. My response to your post was a bit petulant and I apologise for that. I just think you have a very vague understanding of styles of writing and what it entails. I've accepted the constructive criticism in here, I've asked for elaboration, I've asked people to expound on their theories of why I'm wrong. I'm not retaliating at all, and certainly have no desire for attention. I wanted people's opinion on the game, and my criticisms of the game, but unfortunately it was mostly vitriolic responses. 

 

Yes, saying I have 'fallacious reasoning' - essentially 'You Are Wrong' in your special, appreciated dialect - without clarification is completely not laughable when fallacies typically have a lack of explanation....
 
"My opinion has merit because I have great self-awarness, and I'm cognisant of biases."
 
So, you're right because you know you're right...? And you judge I am wrong because you are right? Your reasoning...when reduced to the most simple form...has so many vague references to something substantive, it's got way too many tautologies.
 
Now, as I'm confident I am right because I'm very aware of the meaning to right... I think you are indeed an arrogant, abrasive prick who needs to be socialized...without a doubt considering my fantastical, grandeur knowledge into JUDGING PEOPLE as wrong/right.
 
PS: You're arrogant for responses that demean other people and have them viewed as less, along with sh*tty responses which deflect absolutely any form of critique, plus generalistic bullsh*t such as "It's individually special" - not forgetting you don't do so to other people (entitlement).
 
I think you're a narcissistic c*nt, really, who is acting at best, nothing more or less...

 

Another strawman. I've elaborated on why your points are defective. I've provided the sufficient evidence. If you want to ignore that, be my guest. I'm right because under the most harshest of scrutiny my points can be defended, and have rationale behind them. You can believe what you want, the fact that you're making an inference on someone's personality without the adequate amount of data, says a lot about your thinking.

So essentially you think you're right because you're very aware of the meaning to right? You have the audacity to call me arrogant but then proceed to say "I think you are indeed an arrogant, abrasive prick who needs to be socialized...without a doubt considering my fantastical, grandeur knowledge into JUDGING PEOPLE as wrong/right. Astonishing. I demean people who brazenly use homophobic slurs. 

Deflect any form of critique? Are you capable of reading? If you are you'll see I have asked for elaboration on their criticism. 
Your beliefs have very little meaning, as it appears you're just trying to insult someone to give your ego a boost. Not working.

 

You never provided any evidence besides, "I am very aware of my own opinions to know you are wrong about my opinions" - totally self-referential as evidence... By the way, the hypothetical sh*t you note...was exactly that...because it was SATIRE of you, silly, because you're almost akin to a GTA parody.

 

As for your personality, we are seeing a lot from how you're speaking, expecting stuff and applying certain thoughts.


Thisnamehasnotbeentaken
  • Thisnamehasnotbeentaken

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2013

#134

Posted 29 September 2013 - 06:04 PM

Your website is pretty retarded.

  • Kratos2000 likes this

ezfaun
  • ezfaun

    Drive

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2009
  • None

#135

Posted 29 September 2013 - 06:04 PM

Actually common practice from people who write.

 

Ok


MrWuggy
  • MrWuggy

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2013
  • None

#136

Posted 29 September 2013 - 06:05 PM

 

 

I'm surprised nobody's said this yet - brevity is the soul of wit.

 

If you can get your point across in fewer, simpler, smaller words, then do it.

 

The problem with the review isn't the opinion you display there, but the way you've written the damn thing. It's just tough to read - even for native English speakers - with many grammar errors, awkwardly flowing sentences and pointlessly "big" words by which I mean words that people rarely use and thus probably won't understand without looking it up. Why say "laudable", when you can say "commendable" or even "praiseworthy"? Why say "voluminous", when you can say "big" or "somewhat large"?

 

No, don't even bother justifying it - simply put, if you want people to enjoy your writing, it should be easily legible. You can use a FEW "big" words, but you can't stick one in every sentence, so your readers have to spend half their reading time looking things up in a thesaurus.

 

Judging from his prose, I think OP just doesn't know that these words are unused in day-to-day life and are thus "big words", unfit for articles and such meant to be read by the general populace. Perhaps he doesn't speak English as a mother tongue.

 

My suggestion: read more books written in English. Learn from fictional writing. Be short and concise, and your readers will appreciate it.

I suggest you research styles of writing. I have no target demographic.

I consider this purely practice. 

Do you think I'm unaware that for many readers not knowing what certain words mean disrupts the flow of the piece? Well I do.

I read an awful lot, read a lot of editorials and see these words used repeatedly.

Maybe you're not noticing them.

You use voluminous because it conveys more than the word "big" voluminous is specifically related to writing, big isn't.

 

Jesus, now you're just being stubborn. Just because you saw "voluminous" used in some piece of literature, once or twice, doesn't mean you can use words of its like a hundred times in a simple little review. I reiterate - you simply do not know that these words are underused. What I meant by 'flow' is that many of your sentences flow awkwardly - I won't go into detail, just post this review on one of your grammar forums and they'll chew it apart and tell you.

 

Anyway, so what you're saying is that this review isn't meant to really be a review at all? Why even post it on this forum, then?

 

And what exactly are you practicing, pray tell? Eloquent writing? No.

 

eloquent:

adjective \ˈe-lə-kwənt\. : having or showing the ability to use language clearly and effectively

 

You do not display that ability in your review. It is definitely not fluent or clear (it's just tough to read and NOT only because of the big words but because of your inadequate skill at prose - if you don't believe me, ask... well, anyone) and it is not efficiently written aka a lot of it is not legible for people who aren't English language professors, without a thesaurus.

 

I'm not being stubborn at all. I didn't say it's not meant to be a review, that's a clear misinterpretation of what I said.

I said this is practice, and I've made substantial progress since 9 months ago.

Actually, I've seen voluminous used in reviews before, and you're not the police man on what words can and can't be used.

I'm practicing a lot of different forms of writing. Satire, eloquent, descriptive, and persuasive.

I've had many people who've praised my articulation previously, but I am taking this criticism on board and there's probably some credence to it.

So NYTimes articles aren't efficiently written because the majority of people don't know what a few words mean?

Nonsense.


Raavi
  • Raavi

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • None
  • Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#137

Posted 29 September 2013 - 06:07 PM

Honest review plagued by excessive use of adjectives and lingo 90% of this section won't even understand after having the meaning spelled out in front of them. When writhing a review always keep the demographic it's geared towards in mind. Decent review nonetheless.

  • QuietSundayLibrary likes this

QuietSundayLibrary
  • QuietSundayLibrary

    Abide by God's Glory

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Nov 2011

#138

Posted 29 September 2013 - 06:07 PM Edited by QuietSundayLibrary, 29 September 2013 - 06:08 PM.

I wholly concur with you on several points, but where we can agree to disagree is in regards to the diversity of the map. I posit that it's supposed to represent the barren wasteland that is southern California, and having visted frequently from up north, I can attest to its accuracy. Without an imagination, the seemingly desolate countryside can seem vacuous, devoid of much purpose. However, with the right vehicles and mindset, one can find themselves surprisingly amused, taking in such minor details as a coyote's distant and forlorn caterwauling in the evening and incomprehensible banter between the burly, unkempt denizens of Trevor's trailer park community.

 

This game is/was an obvious labor of love, and while not perfect, a testament to the power of aging hardware/technology and overall human ambition.


MrWuggy
  • MrWuggy

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2013
  • None

#139

Posted 29 September 2013 - 06:10 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe try to have a reasonable vocabulary with a smooth style? "Antiquation" is not only wrong in usage - likely as taken from a thesaurus to parrot without an understanding of the meaning - it's f*cking awful to read, bordering on purple prose. Incidentally, the redundancy, as if to merely to include adjectives as filling to otherwise vapid ideas, is best exemplified by the description of Trevor as: "reprobate", "irreverent" and "sociopathic" - all practically identical in effect.

 

 

In conclusion: much prolix grandiloquence whilst abstrusely bromidic, deprived of profundity to be milquetoast. 

Kill 'em :catspider:

 

OnTopic: Not trying to be a hater like the rest of the fools commenting here, but I honestly found this review to be boring, and excitement isn't something I look for in written reviews. It's probably your diction.

But your aren't wrong in having those opinions. The game is lacking in some areas, which is something a lot of users here are afraid to accept. But whatever, man. Don't try to force someone to agree with you.

 

Thanks. I'm not trying to force people to concur with me. On the contrary, I want them to take issue with the points I'm making and not the style of writing I'm using.

 

Writing means something: witty, organised and intelligible. Don't bullsh*t yourself to think purple prose is okay with a deeper meaning to excuse yourself.

 

Don't bullsh*t yourself to think your opinion has any merit. Your definition of writing shows your facile understanding of it. Writing has many forms, and different styles. I'm not aiming for whit in this review. I'm attempting to convey to the reader as best as I can why I think this game has a lot of flaws. If I wanted a critique of my use of English I would have went to an English or grammar forum which I frequently visit. I wanted people's opinion on the game, not how they think I'm a pretentious douchebag. Because that couldn't be further from the truth.

 

You're officially insane and either an attention-whore or desperately in need of compliments. You sought FEEDBACK on the review and this includes all aspects. Additionally, need I even speak of your arrogant, contemptuous attitude with, "Most of the people here are a bunch of vacuous, puerile dolts" - now added onto, "Don't bullsh*t yourself to think your opinion has any merit".

 

Tell me, sir, why does your opinion have any merit? Why do you ask for constructive criticism and then insult people with the very subjective ideas you claim to oppose? Why do you get so f*cking defensive over any criticisms - seeking only compliments as you try to do with an 'impressive' (but laughably bad)  prose?

 

You're a f*cking kid who's retaliating so pathetically when we don't share the reactions desired, such as attention, with arrogant dismissals.

 

Your fallacious reasoning is conspicuous once again. A predominant portion of people in here have labelled me a "fag" "douchebag" and one user even encouraged suicide. My point isn't arrogant at all, it's predicated on the vitriol that's been directed towards me in here. My opinion has merit because I have great self-awarness, and I'm cognisant of biases. I realise it's impossible to suppress all biases, but I do my best. Yes, that may sound pretentious, perhaps even self-deceptive, but I've had many reputable people tell me it. My response to your post was a bit petulant and I apologise for that. I just think you have a very vague understanding of styles of writing and what it entails. I've accepted the constructive criticism in here, I've asked for elaboration, I've asked people to expound on their theories of why I'm wrong. I'm not retaliating at all, and certainly have no desire for attention. I wanted people's opinion on the game, and my criticisms of the game, but unfortunately it was mostly vitriolic responses. 

 

Yes, saying I have 'fallacious reasoning' - essentially 'You Are Wrong' in your special, appreciated dialect - without clarification is completely not laughable when fallacies typically have a lack of explanation....
 
"My opinion has merit because I have great self-awarness, and I'm cognisant of biases."
 
So, you're right because you know you're right...? And you judge I am wrong because you are right? Your reasoning...when reduced to the most simple form...has so many vague references to something substantive, it's got way too many tautologies.
 
Now, as I'm confident I am right because I'm very aware of the meaning to right... I think you are indeed an arrogant, abrasive prick who needs to be socialized...without a doubt considering my fantastical, grandeur knowledge into JUDGING PEOPLE as wrong/right.
 
PS: You're arrogant for responses that demean other people and have them viewed as less, along with sh*tty responses which deflect absolutely any form of critique, plus generalistic bullsh*t such as "It's individually special" - not forgetting you don't do so to other people (entitlement).
 
I think you're a narcissistic c*nt, really, who is acting at best, nothing more or less...

 

Another strawman. I've elaborated on why your points are defective. I've provided the sufficient evidence. If you want to ignore that, be my guest. I'm right because under the most harshest of scrutiny my points can be defended, and have rationale behind them. You can believe what you want, the fact that you're making an inference on someone's personality without the adequate amount of data, says a lot about your thinking.

So essentially you think you're right because you're very aware of the meaning to right? You have the audacity to call me arrogant but then proceed to say "I think you are indeed an arrogant, abrasive prick who needs to be socialized...without a doubt considering my fantastical, grandeur knowledge into JUDGING PEOPLE as wrong/right. Astonishing. I demean people who brazenly use homophobic slurs. 

Deflect any form of critique? Are you capable of reading? If you are you'll see I have asked for elaboration on their criticism. 
Your beliefs have very little meaning, as it appears you're just trying to insult someone to give your ego a boost. Not working.

 

You never provided any evidence besides, "I am very aware of my own opinions to know you are wrong about my opinions" - totally self-referential as evidence... By the way, the hypothetical sh*t you note...was exactly that...because it was SATIRE of you, silly, because you're almost akin to a GTA parody.

 

As for your personality, we are seeing a lot from how you're speaking, expecting stuff and applying certain thoughts.

 

I actually did provide evidence of why some of his points are defective, most notably the vitriolic responses in this threat mentioned by quite a few.

 

As for my personality, you're actually seeing a diminutive portion of it. There's no way you could make a valid conclusion on someone's personality based on a few sentences.

The fact you honestly believe that shows how reductive you're being in this instance. 


MrWuggy
  • MrWuggy

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2013
  • None

#140

Posted 29 September 2013 - 06:11 PM

Honest review plagued by excessive use of adjectives and lingo 90% of this section won't even understand after having the meaning spelled out in front of them. When writhing a review always keep the demographic it's geared towards in mind. Decent review nonetheless.

Thanks dude. Appreciate that and the criticism has been noted.


ezfaun
  • ezfaun

    Drive

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2009
  • None

#141

Posted 29 September 2013 - 06:11 PM

I wholly concur with you on several points, but where we can agree to disagree is in regards to the diversity of the map. I posit that it's supposed to represent the barren wasteland that is southern California, and having visted frequently from up north, I can attest to its accuracy. Without an imagination, the seemingly desolate countryside can seem vacuous, devoid of much purpose. However, with the right vehicles and mindset, one can find themselves surprisingly amused, taking in such minor details as a coyote's distant and forlorn caterwauling in the evening and incomprehensible banter between the burly, unkempt denizens of Trevor's trailer park community.

 

This game is/was an obvious labor of love, and while not perfect, a testament to the power of aging hardware/technology and overall human ambition.

I like the way this man speaks. Insightful rather than forceful. Spoken like a gentleman.


NothingPersonal
  • NothingPersonal

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013

#142

Posted 29 September 2013 - 06:11 PM

 

 

 

I'm surprised nobody's said this yet - brevity is the soul of wit.

 

If you can get your point across in fewer, simpler, smaller words, then do it.

 

The problem with the review isn't the opinion you display there, but the way you've written the damn thing. It's just tough to read - even for native English speakers - with many grammar errors, awkwardly flowing sentences and pointlessly "big" words by which I mean words that people rarely use and thus probably won't understand without looking it up. Why say "laudable", when you can say "commendable" or even "praiseworthy"? Why say "voluminous", when you can say "big" or "somewhat large"?

 

No, don't even bother justifying it - simply put, if you want people to enjoy your writing, it should be easily legible. You can use a FEW "big" words, but you can't stick one in every sentence, so your readers have to spend half their reading time looking things up in a thesaurus.

 

Judging from his prose, I think OP just doesn't know that these words are unused in day-to-day life and are thus "big words", unfit for articles and such meant to be read by the general populace. Perhaps he doesn't speak English as a mother tongue.

 

My suggestion: read more books written in English. Learn from fictional writing. Be short and concise, and your readers will appreciate it.

I suggest you research styles of writing. I have no target demographic.

I consider this purely practice. 

Do you think I'm unaware that for many readers not knowing what certain words mean disrupts the flow of the piece? Well I do.

I read an awful lot, read a lot of editorials and see these words used repeatedly.

Maybe you're not noticing them.

You use voluminous because it conveys more than the word "big" voluminous is specifically related to writing, big isn't.

 

Jesus, now you're just being stubborn. Just because you saw "voluminous" used in some piece of literature, once or twice, doesn't mean you can use words of its like a hundred times in a simple little review. I reiterate - you simply do not know that these words are underused. What I meant by 'flow' is that many of your sentences flow awkwardly - I won't go into detail, just post this review on one of your grammar forums and they'll chew it apart and tell you.

 

Anyway, so what you're saying is that this review isn't meant to really be a review at all? Why even post it on this forum, then?

 

And what exactly are you practicing, pray tell? Eloquent writing? No.

 

eloquent:

adjective \ˈe-lə-kwənt\. : having or showing the ability to use language clearly and effectively

 

You do not display that ability in your review. It is definitely not fluent or clear (it's just tough to read and NOT only because of the big words but because of your inadequate skill at prose - if you don't believe me, ask... well, anyone) and it is not efficiently written aka a lot of it is not legible for people who aren't English language professors, without a thesaurus.

 

I'm not being stubborn at all. I didn't say it's not meant to be a review, that's a clear misinterpretation of what I said.

I said this is practice, and I've made substantial progress since 9 months ago.

Actually, I've seen voluminous used in reviews before, and you're not the police man on what words can and can't be used.

I'm practicing a lot of different forms of writing. Satire, eloquent, descriptive, and persuasive.

I've had many people who've praised my articulation previously, but I am taking this criticism on board and there's probably some credence to it.

So NYTimes articles aren't efficiently written because the majority of people don't know what a few words mean?

Nonsense.

 

You're asking for our opinions, not -insert irrelevant people-. We're discussing your writing, not -insert irrelevant article-. Jesus, you defend absolutely everything and miss the big f*cking picture:

 

Your writing does not flow to US, the REQUESTED audience.

 

You asked for us to review it and then say it's all about YOUR opinions on style.

 

 

It's all about f*cking you, apparently, and a generalistic principle that whatever you choose is alright if it's alright to YOU. Question is, if so, why the f*ck have you brought it here? Why have you asked for criticisms from our SUBJECTIVE opinions if they are EXACTLY that as CRITICIZED?

 

You are nonsense as a person and that's confirmed with how ABSURD your motive looks when considering these trends.


Jameson312
  • Jameson312

    Founder and Lead Curler: LS Curling Association

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2013

#143

Posted 29 September 2013 - 06:12 PM Edited by Jameson312, 29 September 2013 - 06:14 PM.


I actually thought this forum had some level of maturity, but evidently i was wrong.

Reddit is the best place for GTA discussion these days.

Most of the people here are a bunch of vacuous, puerile dolts.

 

 

Vacuous, puerile dolts? What is this your masters dissertation?

 

 

 

This community is awful. OP took the time out to write that up and just gets called a fa**ot, nice job. 

Thanks. I didn't expect everyone to agree with it but I at least expected mature discourse. 

 

Maybe before you attempt to exaggerate your intelligence, it's best you learn journalism 101; Proof read. There were SEVERAL typos, and misspellings. 

 

You're not smarter than everyone else in the room, you're just an asshole.

 

 

Pathetic.

 

I've read your review (although it was unnecessarily long) and I do agree with you on most parts. However, I felt that your choice of vocabulary was too strong for the intended demographic cohort thus the reason for the negative feedback that you may or may not have received over the past few minutes.

 

Soooo much of this. Just stop it OP. That said, I agree with almost everything you had a problem with, except for the graphics, which were a big step up from previous installments.


MrWuggy
  • MrWuggy

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2013
  • None

#144

Posted 29 September 2013 - 06:13 PM

I wholly concur with you on several points, but where we can agree to disagree is in regards to the diversity of the map. I posit that it's supposed to represent the barren wasteland that is southern California, and having visted frequently from up north, I can attest to its accuracy. Without an imagination, the seemingly desolate countryside can seem vacuous, devoid of much purpose. However, with the right vehicles and mindset, one can find themselves surprisingly amused, taking in such minor details as a coyote's distant and forlorn caterwauling in the evening and incomprehensible banter between the burly, unkempt denizens of Trevor's trailer park community.

 

This game is/was an obvious labor of love, and while not perfect, a testament to the power of aging hardware/technology and overall human ambition.

Yes, I can understand why many would disagree with regard to the map as it is a highly subjective matter.

It's not that I lack imagination, it's that I have preference for urban areas.

I really liked their depiction of Manhattan in GTA IV.

I think I didn't emphasise enough just how much I appreciate this game.


Derpmaster
  • Derpmaster

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2013

#145

Posted 29 September 2013 - 06:14 PM Edited by Derpmaster, 29 September 2013 - 06:18 PM.

 

I'm not being stubborn at all. I didn't say it's not meant to be a review, that's a clear misinterpretation of what I said.

 

I said this is practice, and I've made substantial progress since 9 months ago.

Actually, I've seen voluminous used in reviews before, and you're not the police man on what words can and can't be used.

I'm practicing a lot of different forms of writing. Satire, eloquent, descriptive, and persuasive.

I've had many people who've praised my articulation previously, but I am taking this criticism on board and there's probably some credence to it.

So NYTimes articles aren't efficiently written because the majority of people don't know what a few words mean?

Nonsense.

 

Like I said, articles (even those in the New York Times, not that it matters at all where they're written) don't use those kinds of words too often. They pepper them in, one or two or maybe a dozen tops in a large article. You used half a hundred at the very least in your review, probably a hundred or more - I won't count them, I'm not quite there yet.

 

And I'm not "policing" the use of words, I'm saying that I dare say nobody but an English professor knows the meaning of every one of those "big" words you used in your review. I'm sure you and many readers know them after going through your review with a thesaurus, but that isn't an argument against my point. I'm stating facts - which you yourself admit to - which are frankly, backed up by this whole thread if you're looking for references.

 

So what is this? A practiced attempt at making your writing as illegible as possible?


NothingPersonal
  • NothingPersonal

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013

#146

Posted 29 September 2013 - 06:17 PM

You took a 'diminutive portion' of others' characters in their remarks to JUDGE them all...and that's okay? What's with your double-standards, huh, as logically clear from these comments, akin to 'f*ck you' being clear as insulting?

 

 

Double standards>entitlement>above to have different standards>arrogance to think above.

 

As for your 'evidence', I still don't see any but, "I think I should be allowed to do anything I want with how I write, OH MY GOD"...or you implying it's irrelevant (huh).


MrWuggy
  • MrWuggy

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2013
  • None

#147

Posted 29 September 2013 - 06:17 PM

 

 

 

 

I'm surprised nobody's said this yet - brevity is the soul of wit.

 

If you can get your point across in fewer, simpler, smaller words, then do it.

 

The problem with the review isn't the opinion you display there, but the way you've written the damn thing. It's just tough to read - even for native English speakers - with many grammar errors, awkwardly flowing sentences and pointlessly "big" words by which I mean words that people rarely use and thus probably won't understand without looking it up. Why say "laudable", when you can say "commendable" or even "praiseworthy"? Why say "voluminous", when you can say "big" or "somewhat large"?

 

No, don't even bother justifying it - simply put, if you want people to enjoy your writing, it should be easily legible. You can use a FEW "big" words, but you can't stick one in every sentence, so your readers have to spend half their reading time looking things up in a thesaurus.

 

Judging from his prose, I think OP just doesn't know that these words are unused in day-to-day life and are thus "big words", unfit for articles and such meant to be read by the general populace. Perhaps he doesn't speak English as a mother tongue.

 

My suggestion: read more books written in English. Learn from fictional writing. Be short and concise, and your readers will appreciate it.

I suggest you research styles of writing. I have no target demographic.

I consider this purely practice. 

Do you think I'm unaware that for many readers not knowing what certain words mean disrupts the flow of the piece? Well I do.

I read an awful lot, read a lot of editorials and see these words used repeatedly.

Maybe you're not noticing them.

You use voluminous because it conveys more than the word "big" voluminous is specifically related to writing, big isn't.

 

Jesus, now you're just being stubborn. Just because you saw "voluminous" used in some piece of literature, once or twice, doesn't mean you can use words of its like a hundred times in a simple little review. I reiterate - you simply do not know that these words are underused. What I meant by 'flow' is that many of your sentences flow awkwardly - I won't go into detail, just post this review on one of your grammar forums and they'll chew it apart and tell you.

 

Anyway, so what you're saying is that this review isn't meant to really be a review at all? Why even post it on this forum, then?

 

And what exactly are you practicing, pray tell? Eloquent writing? No.

 

eloquent:

adjective \ˈe-lə-kwənt\. : having or showing the ability to use language clearly and effectively

 

You do not display that ability in your review. It is definitely not fluent or clear (it's just tough to read and NOT only because of the big words but because of your inadequate skill at prose - if you don't believe me, ask... well, anyone) and it is not efficiently written aka a lot of it is not legible for people who aren't English language professors, without a thesaurus.

 

I'm not being stubborn at all. I didn't say it's not meant to be a review, that's a clear misinterpretation of what I said.

I said this is practice, and I've made substantial progress since 9 months ago.

Actually, I've seen voluminous used in reviews before, and you're not the police man on what words can and can't be used.

I'm practicing a lot of different forms of writing. Satire, eloquent, descriptive, and persuasive.

I've had many people who've praised my articulation previously, but I am taking this criticism on board and there's probably some credence to it.

So NYTimes articles aren't efficiently written because the majority of people don't know what a few words mean?

Nonsense.

 

You're asking for our opinions, not -insert irrelevant people-. We're discussing your writing, not -insert irrelevant article-. Jesus, you defend absolutely everything and miss the big f*cking picture:

 

Your writing does not flow to US, the REQUESTED audience.

 

You asked for us to review it and then say it's all about YOUR opinions on style.

 

 

It's all about f*cking you, apparently, and a generalistic principle that whatever you choose is alright if it's alright to YOU. Question is, if so, why the f*ck have you brought it here? Why have you asked for criticisms from our SUBJECTIVE opinions if they are EXACTLY that as CRITICIZED?

 

You are nonsense as a person and that's confirmed with how ABSURD your motive looks when considering these trends.

 

My writing does not flow to you!!!! Some in here have actually expressed approval at the article.

Secondly the sample of people in here is very small.

I didn't ask for you to review my usage of words at all.

None of this is about me, this piece was about GTA. The posters in here changed the narrative to me when they started being vitriolic. 

To reiterate, I brought it here to see what people thought of my opinion on flaws and positives and thankfully a few people have responded maturely.

Have a nice day.


MrWuggy
  • MrWuggy

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2013
  • None

#148

Posted 29 September 2013 - 06:19 PM

 

 

I'm not being stubborn at all. I didn't say it's not meant to be a review, that's a clear misinterpretation of what I said.

 

I said this is practice, and I've made substantial progress since 9 months ago.

Actually, I've seen voluminous used in reviews before, and you're not the police man on what words can and can't be used.

I'm practicing a lot of different forms of writing. Satire, eloquent, descriptive, and persuasive.

I've had many people who've praised my articulation previously, but I am taking this criticism on board and there's probably some credence to it.

So NYTimes articles aren't efficiently written because the majority of people don't know what a few words mean?

Nonsense.

 

Like I said, articles (even those in the New York Times, not that it matters at all where they're written) don't use those kinds of words too often. They pepper them in, one or two or maybe a dozen tops in a large article. You used half a hundred at the very least in your review, probably a hundred or more - I won't count them, I'm not quite there yet.

 

And I'm not "policing" the use of words, I'm saying that I dare say nobody but an English professor knows the meaning of every one of those "big" words you used in your review. I'm stating facts - which you yourself admit to - which are frankly, backed up by this whole thread if you're looking for references.

 

So what is this? A practiced attempt at making your writing as illegible as possible?

 

I beg to differ. A quick peruse of some of the articles and you can see words that many would consider obscure.

I will concede some of the words are a little excessive and I thank you for pointing that out. 


NothingPersonal
  • NothingPersonal

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013

#149

Posted 29 September 2013 - 06:19 PM

 

Honest review plagued by excessive use of adjectives and lingo 90% of this section won't even understand after having the meaning spelled out in front of them. When writhing a review always keep the demographic it's geared towards in mind. Decent review nonetheless.

Thanks dude. Appreciate that and the criticism has been noted.

 

Notice how he accepts this review...when someone else said this as well...to receive a hostile reaction as they didn't also like it. OP is confirmed as commend-whore.

  • Kratos2000 likes this

MrWuggy
  • MrWuggy

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2013
  • None

#150

Posted 29 September 2013 - 06:21 PM

You took a 'diminutive portion' of others' characters in their remarks to JUDGE them all...and that's okay? What's with your double-standards, huh, as logically clear from these comments, akin to 'f*ck you' being clear as insulting?

 

 

Double standards>entitlement>above to have different standards>arrogance to think above.

 

As for your 'evidence', I still don't see any but, "I think I should be allowed to do anything I want with how I write, OH MY GOD"...or you implying it's irrelevant (huh).

I judged no one. I made a retort to a homophobic remark, and a comments encouraging suicide. You're not always this obtuse, are you? You mistakenly think I'm incapable of accepting criticism which is laughably wrong. You just have to read this threat to see me accept many criticism. You sound very irascible today.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users