Comment History

on 59 Roots

59 Comments

Forum: Which of these weapons would you wield?
Spiritlord
3

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
I would go for the longsword out of that selection. My speciality is the hand-and-a-half sword. Strong and powerful, albeit not as strong as a proper greatsword, but every bit as fast and wieldy as a standard longsword. I don't use a shield, but... who needs a shield?! Hehehe.
Forum: Your Pokémon Team?
Spiritlord
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Going for favourites, from sixth to first, I may choose:

Weavile,
Leafeon,
Ninetales,
Absol,
Vaporeon,
Umbreon

This could be subject to some change, maybe. Ask some questions if you want and I can elaborate on this rather simple list.
Forum: How important is sound in games?
Spiritlord
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
I guess I fit a sort of 'neutral' option, which as far as I could tell didn't seem to be there. I think sound is pretty important, and it can do a lot to improve the atmosphere of a game (Okami, anyone), but I don't really mind playing games with bad sound, since I can just mute it. I generally mute the sound on a lot of handheld games and also some old games with bad quality MIDI, and stuff (think Pokemon), but leave it on on games with better sound.

So, in a nutshell, if the sound's good, I listen to it and it helps the game greatly, but if not, I just mute it. I really wish people would just stop using MIDI in games these days, since orchestral music is an infinitely better option, even if it does cost more.
Blog: Current Projects and Plans
Spiritlord
3

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
I very much agree with this. Just speaking personally here, the temperaments are by far my favourite of the personality models, and I personally find them by far the most useful. So, yes, we beg you to include them on your personality site. Please. Or at the very least, leave the fighunter page about them up. Please.
Blog: Catharsis Comic
Spiritlord
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Hmmm, yes it doesn't seem to be making any progress in either direction. I agree, let's agree to disagree and stop here. I can't say I'll miss the debate all that much.
Blog: Catharsis Comic
Spiritlord
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Largely, I agree with you, actually. So let's see...

"Well then, if the criticism isn't well phrased, you can still take out some advice out of it. As long as it doesn't get into insulting territory, critique is critique. And besides, if it is poorly worded, you can just ignore it."

Agreed. Constructive criticism should always be helpful in some way, shape or form. If it isn't, it's either because the artist, etc. has already noticed the problem, or because the criticism was delivered so badly that it was no use. Or something like that.

"If someone sensitive asks for critique, they can't expect it to be like a preschool teacher judging a crayon drawing. That, frankly, would be stupid. It's like expecting an English teacher to give you a higher grade on your spelling, despite it being bad, because you're sensitive. ._."

Agreed to a point. If someone sensitive asks for critique, then giving it properly is fair enough. If they do not ask for it, it seems fair enough to me that you at least ask them if they wanted it before you deliver it. If they ask to not be given critique, it seems fair enough that you do not give it to them.

"If a person can't handle taking in criticism and learning from it, that person doesn't deserve to be making things, since it's input from other people that help to refine a product."

I disagree here. For a start, some people could not be remotely serious about drawing, or writing, or whatever, and just do so casually for fun, meaning that criticism is virtually worthless to them. Also, a certain amount of criticism is opinion-based, so what is better for one person may be worse for another. In a case like that, I think the opinion of the artist in question is the most important one. Agreed?

"I'm sorry, but portraying maturity as 'being tough' isn't going to excuse anyone from acting immaturely about critique."

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here, sorry, but my opinion on this is that maturity and toughness have virtually no connections whatsoever. At least, none that I can think of off the top of my head... Hmmm...

"A compromise wouldn't be possibly, since a compromised critique won't be as helpful as it could be and perhaps may even lead the maker astray."

Agreed to an extent. Compromised critique is certainly less helpful to people who can take critique perfectly fine. Someone who struggles to take criticism well, however, may actually take more from the compromise. Throwing a mass of criticism and problems at someone can damage their motivation to work, and as a result, damage the quality of their work, or just stop them from working altogether. It may also make them even more susceptible to future criticism, so you've shot yourself in the foot in more than one way there. Simply delivering the critique in small amounts at a time would be a lot better for avoiding problems such as this.

"You can't give a sugar-coated critique and expect someone to get better. That's like telling a student that 'cat' could be spelled like 'kat' if they want. See? Sugar-coating is unneeded and even dangerous at times."

There's a world of difference between giving sugar-coated critique, and simply lying. I could write more here, but a large amount of it is in the section above.

"Did you wonder why I thought Pseudo's stance on critique was childish?"

No. I didn't.

"I once read a blog he made where he said that he can't accept critique from other people unless they were artists. I could make another post for why this is so mind-explodingly stupid and immature, but I'll just say this: People have eyes and they can see what's wrong with your artwork."

I read that as well. While I agree with you, I do sort of see his thinking here, as it's easier to take from an artist than from just anyone. And it may be more valid in many cases. But I do agree with you.

"Any kind of critique given to him, whether it be helpful or aggressive or helpful, Pseudo will either ignore or whine about it depending on how right it is."

I know, but this is largely because of the amount of critique, often delivered aggressively, that he has received over the years. Pseudolonewolf is sensitive. He cannot help this, and neither can anyone else. It's not some kind of personality flaw that should be stamped out, it's merely something which presents a problem in regards to critique. I seem to remember Pseudo was not always completely anti-ctitique, but because of the amount that he received, as well as other factors, like the atmosphere of this site, he became more susceptible to it, to the point where he could not take any more. I believe this is currently improving, if so, it'll be because he's avoiding this site and, as a result, a certain amount of critique and aggression.

"I often read the descriptions of his sketches and he often complains about the quality of them which he blames on himself, being 'inexperienced' when really, he could just ask people for some help."

I agree here, but again, this falls under the 'when to give critique' section from earlier. Pseudo has full rights to complain about himself, and things that concern him. If he wants help, he can ask for it, otherwise, it's fair enough to assume that he doesn't, or at the very least, ask him if he does before giving it. Agreed?

"What I'm trying to say is that there's not point to getting critique if it's gonna make you flip out..."

My opinion is that there's no point to giving critique if it will offend and repel the recipient, because then you're doing more harm than good. This is sort of what you're saying, I think, except you seem to be putting more blame on the artist, whereas I seem to be putting more blame on the critique-giver (or whatever the technical word is). Or something like that.

"...and there's no point in making things if you aren't going to take the input of the people who use those things."

I disagree. If you can't take critique, ask to not be given it, and then if people are considerate, they will at least think twice about giving it. Or you could just not share things online with other people at all. I agree that taking input is important, but looking at it entirely objectively just seems completely absurd to me. This depends on what your definition of 'art' is, really. Is it completely objective, solid facts, etc? I say 'no'.

I wonder if you ever make things, and put them on the internet for anyone to judge. If you don't, maybe you would have a slightly different opinion on this. Or maybe not. If you do, I'm sorry for mentioning this.

Well, I think that's about everything I meant to say.
Signed, Spiritlord Z

PS. Sorry I don't know how to quote properly.
PPS. Sorry this is so bloody long!
Blog: Catharsis Comic
Spiritlord
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Well, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion, but...

To quote part of the description for the comic on Pseudo's DeviantArt: "Perhaps I should have used a different word than 'criticised' (since I know that a lot of people interpret that to mean the positive kind of 'constructive criticism' that is regarded as good and necessary for 'improvement'), but oh well. Hopefully that won't start an argument or something from people who respond to this exactly as the Bold is doing there. o_O"

Pseudolonewolf probably realised it was the wrong word some time after the comic was finished, or maybe after it was put on the internet, or something. Just a guess as to why that word stayed in if it wasn't the exact word he wanted. Or maybe he couldn't think of a better word. Who knows?

And now to quote your comment: "And there's no such thing as aggressive criticism, as criticism has to be both analytically and helpful to the person being critiqued, which aggression does not mesh well with."

I understand what you're saying, but I can't completely agree with this. I agree that criticism is intended to be helpful, and that aggression conflicts with that, but it can still be phrased incorrectly, and still count as criticism. Compare 'your drawing is bad in these areas' to 'it wouldn't hurt to work on improving these areas'. That's a bad example, sorry, but it gets the point across.

The first of those statements is quite aggressive, and it could still be counted as criticism, don't you think? The second would be better suited to working with someone sensitive, and still getting your point across. If you're working with someone sensitive, I think it's important to 'sugar-coat' your criticism, and maybe lessen it at times, because otherwise you can repel the person in question, and then none of the criticism will get through, so you'll have unnecessarily hurt someone, and wasted your time in the process.

If someone is sensitive, bluntly criticising them does not help. Neither does aggression. It only hurts them, leading them to become even more sensitive. People cannot help sensitivity, but the people around them can at least make an effort to work around it, rather than forcefully trying to make them 'toughen up'. All my opinion of course, but don't you agree a compromise is necessary?
Blog: Catharsis Comic
Spiritlord
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Actually, I agree that it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. But constructive criticism delivered aggressively is may be less constructive than if it was 'sugar-coated' and delivered nicely.

If the person in who you're criticising is very sensitive, like Pseudo, it's better to phrase the criticism in a friendly, non-aggressive way, because that will not repel the person in question, so then they may take the criticism positively.

If they are very thick-skinned, on the other hand, and would not be hurt by criticism, 'sugar-coating' may be a hinderance, rather than a help, as it can prevent you from getting your point across.

I believe that how you criticise someone should be defined by what method of criticism is most useful. If someone is sensitive, aggressively telling them to 'grow a thicker skin' or something will not help - it will probably only hurt them, and cause them to become even more sensitive. A compromise is necessary, I think. Do you agree? Sorry this is mostly the same as my post above it.
Blog: Catharsis Comic
Spiritlord
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Sorry to intrude, but, uh...

I'm not entirely sure you got the point Pseudo was making in the second comic. He said on his DeviantArt something along the lines of regretting he used the word 'critisise', as it may be interpretted to mean constructive critisism, instead of aggressive critisism, which I believe is what Pseudo was talking about. I'm not totally sure so don't quote me, but I seem to remember reading something like that.

I believe the second one was meant to be reffering to basic empathy, rather than the problems of being critisised. The sinndrel is clearly upset, so you should treat them nicely, rather than being aggressive, or something like that. Again, don't quote me on that, it's just how I interpretted it.
Forum: [Pokemon] Competitive Battling Strategy
Spiritlord
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
I like to use lots of strong, durable pokemon, and then teach toxic to most of my team. Or just use toxic spikes. Whatever floats.

One good one is a Vaporeon trained for defence and hitpoints. Give it leftovers and teach is aqua ring, and maybe rest or wish (and toxic, as always). Then put surf or scald in your empty moveslot, so you can hit hard when you need to. You'll be hard to knock out, which is very handy when you're enemy's poisoned, like they always should be in my strategies.

Try Skarmory. Train its defences, and maybe also hitpoints. Important moves are toxic, whirlwind/roar and spikes/stealth rock. This trick is actually easier if you forget about toxic, and just lay down toxic spikes twice first. All you have to do is whirlwind through their team, until all, or most of them are poisoned. Of course, to counter this, the enemy will switch to something you've already poisoned, so you can't poison it again, which is why toxic spikes works better. It's also good for scouting out their team.

Umbreon's a pretty good one. As well as just pretty. It works well with toxic, and you can trap your enemy in using mean look. And if your team's in bad shape, you can use wish-switching to heal them. And it's stylish. If you're like me, and you're not a serious competitor, that's very important.

Espeon's another personal favourite of mine. I like using it to sweep the enemy with psychic, signal beam and shadow ball, after the enemy's been spiked, or Espeon's been boosted by a friendly baton-passer. Put what you like in the last slot - I normally go for a defensive screen to use before switching, or to allow Espeon to sweep for longer. Or use toxic then switch to your lovely Umbreon. Did I mention that I love toxic? Or Umbreon?