"Sonic Dissected" Dissected: (LEGO) Sonic Dimensions As You Truly Imagined It

[Rusty Spy]

Well there we are.

Is that supposed to invalidate his audience? As if because the people who like his work are a part of a community that has many bad seeds associated with it, their opinions don't count? Or that no one who associates with those communities don't provide constructive feedback like the holier-than-thou SSMB?

[Indigo Rush]

All of his audience? No. But a majority of the YouTube and DeviantArt community being the entirety of your supporters isn't exactly something I would consider to be a strong basis for an argument, considering the fact that most of YouTube and DeviantArt are bad seeds, and if you think otherwise, I encourage you to type "sonic" in either site and have a field day.

 

And while SSMB isn't exactly perfect, I've seen far more compelling discussions and educated thought here than any other corner of the fanbase. For the record, "holier than thou" is one of my trigger words, so I would politely ask you to refrain from using that kind of derogatory terminology. You're borderline straw-manning my points.

 

As an aside, I have to wonder now how Retro would respond to these videos.

[SIXTH-RATE SOMA]

While I am alright with criticizing the man's work, I do think a bit of this is too nitpicky, y'know? There are certainly problems with the videos, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have to problematize everything else.

 

As for the argument unfolding above me, I don't really have any authority to ask, but can you guys keep it a little more civil? There's sparks of passive-aggressiveness in there that don't really help anybody.

[Indigo Rush]

For the record, I'm not even here to comment on the man's work any more, but to present the argument that those who are arguing against his points are not necessarily in the wrong, and that there is enough evidence that he may actually be wrong with his analysis. 

[Rusty Spy]

For the record, I'm not even here to comment on the man's work any more, but to present the argument that those who are arguing against his points are not necessarily in the wrong, and that there is enough evidence that he may actually be wrong with his analysis. 

That's the thing though, because there's more positive reception than negative, it begs the question of [if you don't like his work] how much of it is his fault, and how much of it is just personal taste.

[Indigo Rush]

Are we even judging his art-style or any of his personal subjective opinions, though? We're talking about points where he is legitimately incorrect about. From what I gather, people have a problem with his biases and the, purportedly,  poor evidence for his conjectures. In general, people have a "distaste" for misrepresentation and false information.

 

But again, I'm not into that particular facet of this thread, so I don't know what the recent developments are in that aspect.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

I wish that Roger could be as savvy as say the likes of Doug Walker at using tactics to elucidate the solid legit stupid moments, to avoid dilemmas such as this current one.

It'd do wonders for his rep guaranteed.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

That's the thing though, because there's more positive reception than negative, it begs the question of [if you don't like his work] how much of it is his fault, and how much of it is just personal taste.

Those statistics are questionable unless you've got a complete record to back that up. Unless you're going strictly by his videos comments sections in which case it becomes rather a narrow minded view on things.

Granted, aside from majority tropes, this tidbit really seems a bit, pointless.

Oh fudge, they were supposed to merge!

[Rusty Spy]

Are we even judging his art-style or any of his personal subjective opinions, though? We're talking about points where he is legitimately incorrect about. From what I gather, people have a problem with his biases and the, purportedly,  poor evidence for his conjectures. In general, people have a "distaste" for misrepresentation and false information.

 

But again, I'm not into that particular facet of this thread, so I don't know what the recent developments are in that aspect.

Well at the end of the day, I guess it goes back to how harshly people reacted to those things. The actual errors, and people's reaction to them were very disproportionate. Often times minor comments that were beside the overall point being made were blown out of proportion and treated as a either deliberate or ignorant use of information.

 

Not.... nitpicking, but getting worked up over small details and offhand comments that were inconsequential to the actual point, or broad generalizations used to get to a bigger point.

[Zaysho]

I'ma be real, this video is a lot better than the last one I saw. While I don't agree with everything (particularly with the idea of making Cream violent--meh), I felt the points themselves were presented in a way that made me think about the characters they were discussing and didn't come off as obnoxious as they did before. It also helped it wasn't just "hey we like this game why can't we have more games like this one game".

"The Hate Club" comment... eh, it's a lame joke that paints people's criticisms of his video series with an incredibly broad brush. I know it's his humor and all (so neither he nor one his friends need to remind me), but it just comes off as a misrepresentation of what anybody here has said about his video series in the past (and I've only seen people... dissect his points, not personal attacks--other than the one time I referred to him and his co-host as a couple of jokers early on in the thread). He's allowed to be funny... but it doesn't necessarily mean whatever he says is funny. But then, it just falls flat for me, like most of his other attempts at such humor.

Not much else to add, honestly.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

Well at the end of the day, I guess it goes back to how harshly people reacted to those things. The actual errors, and people's reaction to them were very disproportionate. Often times minor comments that were beside the overall point being made were blown out of proportion and treated as a either deliberate or ignorant use of information.

 

Not.... nitpicking, but getting worked up over small details and offhand comments that were inconsequential to the actual point, or broad generalizations used to get to a bigger point.

Let's not mislead ourselves and amount the actual arguments against Roger, trivialized to that now.

 

And yet still, even if this were the whole tale, it'd still circulate back to the problem that Roger kinda sucks at outwardly and explicitly differentiating his humor from his moments we're supposed to take seriously.

 

Not to mention he can also very well come off as an asshole because of it, just as easily as someone in a forum collectively condescending to a group of people, assuming they're taking everything to face value or using buzzwords like "holier-than-thou" and rather inappropriately at that.

 

I mean, seriously, we have a whole That Guy With The Glasses thread, and for good reason, we don't really run into this sort of mucked-up-conveyance conundrum there.

[Badnik Mechanic]

No one directly stated they hated him, but some people were being very harsh and rather rude with their comments towards him. It's one thing to criticize someone and another to blatantly insult them.

Yeah and it's something else to call 'club of hate' and then flash a screen of the forum implying it was everyone.

And this. Seriously, let's nitpick at someone's voice....you know, something they can't fix.

I fail to see why this can't be a criticism? You are doing a video, video is an audio/visual medium. Both would be up to be criticised.

[RustyRick]

I honestly think this has gone a bit too far in terms of what can be considered 'constructive criticism' and just taking everything one person says and using it as ammo fodder for more potshots against said person.

Roger himself clearly referred to this whole topic with one phrase, a 'merry little hate club' in a tone not meant to offend anyone in any real serious way, yet now it has been made the new title for this topic altogether? Please people, if Roger was seriously trying to talk bad about this, he'd mention it in a far more cynical tone like 'A merry little hate club solely devoted to blasting the ever-loving matter out of me.' He proceeded to give valid reasons as to why he actually admits his Dissected video's have flaws and invites you guys openly to contact him about it.

Yet furthermore, the actual goal of this topic has been wildly swinging back and forth, and rarely in it's initial goal. It was created to give valid counterreasons to Roger and Luke's own opinions, yet as Rusty Spy pointed it out, it hardly amounted to anything like that from the get-go, and most of the posts felt more like people using these opinions more as a excuse to take potshots at Roger himself and how he's so wrong in every conceivable way, than it were to actually give him some constructive and insightful feedback.

Really, can you blame him for this response when most of the posts were pretty much that?

And finally, the man posted both on this topic in person and in the latest Dissected video (right after the now notorious phrase might I add) for people to contact him about various opinions and even invite you to appear in his show, yet now people over here are a big fuzz about how they weren't attacking him at all in the first place, when it really felt like it. Urgh, this topic gives me a headache.


Bottom line is, please stop taking everything the man says out of context and make a big deal out of it. He really is just giving his two cents here and trying to be nice and constructive, not out to make you guys angry and furious.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

Yeesh, are people really overreacting this much to mere discontent with some Rogers' more annoying shortcomings?

 

Oh where are my manners, it would be rather INSENSITIVE of me to group all you guys whether you just misunderstand where we're coming from, go wild and yell us down, overly or legitimately defend Roger, or are just being jerk-asses, actually have good reasoning, etc.

[Komodin]

Bottom line is, please stop taking everything the man says out of context and make a big deal out of it. He really is just giving his two cents here and trying to be nice and constructive, not out to make you guys angry and furious.

 

... I'm not taking everything he says out of context or overreacting to his statements. Again, just because I don't think too fondly of his stuff, doesn't mean I'm "buggin' out" over it.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

Um...

 

When did we become a hat club? I don't even wear hats.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

I honestly think this has gone a bit too far in terms of what can be considered 'constructive criticism' and just taking everything one person says and using it as ammo fodder for more potshots against said person.

This is coming off as one of those bleak dramatizations set to demonize out a crowd. Not cool dude.

 

 

Roger himself clearly referred to this whole topic with one phrase, a 'merry little hate club' in a tone not meant to offend anyone in any real serious way, yet now it has been made the new title for this topic altogether? Please people, if Roger was seriously trying to talk bad about this, he'd mention it in a far more cynical tone like 'A merry little hate club solely devoted to blasting the ever-loving matter out of me.' He proceeded to give valid reasons as to why he actually admits his Dissected video's have flaws and invites you guys openly to contact him about it.

Don't you even and try and play the BS "clearly" "as night and day" routine card, bucko. If you're going to come off riding in on that high horse, the possibility of you and company possibly just being ignorant to the how it can legitimately bug people for good reason to be regarded in such a term and dicks for chastising them for it.

 

As is a frequent problem, the jokes lack a sense of organization and diversity in tone than what we're supposed to actually take to the bank on the memoir.

 

 

Yet furthermore, the actual goal of this topic has been wildly swinging back and forth, and rarely in it's initial goal. It was created to give valid counterreasons to Roger and Luke's own opinions, yet as Rusty Spy pointed it out, it hardly amounted to anything like that from the get-go, and most of the posts felt more like people using these opinions more as a excuse to take potshots at Roger himself and how he's so wrong in every conceivable way, than it were to actually give him some constructive and insightful feedback.

 

Can you actually provide structural proof of such to re-buff the possibility that the criticisms here aren't as illegitimate as you collectively make them out to be, and that your speech here isn't the result of being, I quote Rusty Spy: "so sensitive"? If you ask me this is coming undone as shameful attempt to try and shame us for expressing non-positiveness while actually still staying on the topic and purpose of the thread, despite what a disdain it apparently is for you.

 

 

Really, can you blame him for this response when most of the posts were pretty much that?

 

Considering his past record that has yielded these circumstance, 'eeyup.

 

 

 

And finally, the man posted both on this topic in person and in the latest Dissected video (right after the now notorious phrase might I add) for people to contact him about various opinions and even invite you to appear in his show, yet now people over here are a big fuzz about how they weren't attacking him at all in the first place, when it really felt like it. Urgh, this topic gives me a headache.

 

 

Something tells me  a good chunk of this whole entourage of text is how one felt more so than what actually happened. Alas.

Bottom line is, please stop taking everything the man says out of context and make a big deal out of it. He really is just giving his two cents here and trying to be nice and constructive, not out to make you guys angry and furious.

I'm rather not happy being not to do something that I wasn't even doing in the first place. Speak for yourself, Rick.

[Ash Cloud]

Of course there hasn't been much general discussion on the topics he raises. The point of this thread is to take a similar role and dissect Roger's video series in turn. What are we supposed to do aside from, well, comment on the video series? Even the OP is full of directed thoughts towards Roger's own statements, saying for example that he oversimplified Secret Rings' story which is problematic.

 

 

People have been discussing his opinions, mostly where the root of their disagreement comes from. Bias is one of those things. If people feel he is unfairly painting one game a certain way versus another, that is perfectly fair game to note in the discussion, as it was noted in the OP. And given that opinions are basically rooted in subjectivity, you can't disagree or even agree with them without confirming bias in the first place.

 

All in all, I don't see where all of this supposed vitriol is towards the man. No one hates him. And I'm not sure why people are getting upset that we're directly going after his statements and his statements alone when that's what the topic told us to do.

 

I think you're misunderstanding my comment. I specifically directed my comment towards the people who were targeting Roger HIMSELF, and not his comments or opinions. Many people in here only went after Roger's statements, but some other individuals went after him as a person. The topic was never about criticizing Roger as a person, and the people who did so were wrong.

 

Roger should always make it clear in his Dissected videos whether he's being serious or not, and if he doesn't make this clear at all than that's his problem and he needs to address that.

 

Otherwise we get instances like the end of his SLW animation with the wall of text. Misunderstandings and all that.

 

Oh my goodness, no. Roger shouldn't have to make an announcement every time he's about to make a joke or not. Really, guys? Many people watch his videos and have no problem understanding when he's messing around or when he's not. If you don't understand his jokes or don't enjoy them, then that's YOUR problem. People like myself understand his jokes perfectly fine, and like them. Roger shouldn't have to change himself in order to accommodate people who don't like or understand his sense of humor. 

 

Yeah and it's something else to call 'club of hate' and then flash a screen of the forum implying it was everyone.

I fail to see why this can't be a criticism? You are doing a video, video is an audio/visual medium. Both would be up to be criticised.

What, were you expecting Roger to namedrop the specific individuals who attacked him? His viewers aren't gonna know who's who. You're seriously jumping to some major conclusions here. Just because he showed a screen of the forums doesn't mean he's attacking EVERYONE here. The individuals who came at him just so HAPPEN to be here, and they know who they are.

Seriously.

I specifically said constructive criticism. You can't give someone constructive criticism on their voice because you can't change your voice for the better. Constructive criticism is all about improvement. You're born with your voice, it's not going anywhere. Even if there IS a way for Roger to change his voice, why should he? Because a few individuals said they found it "Ear grating"?

Are people so self-entitled that they believe that Roger should change himself and his ways just to suit them? Because that's what I'm getting from some of these comments.

[Double A]

Another very good dissected video! I like the part about how a character isn't necessary interesting on its own but is a good support for a major character. I don't think it's possible to make the deadly six interesting though since their design suggest they aren't legit Sonic characters to begin with and they feel too distant with the Sonic Universe.

 

Anyways. Good job Roger keep the good work.

[FriendBot]

Another very good dissected video! I like the part about how a character isn't necessary interesting on its own but is a good support for a major character. I don't think it's possible to make the deadly six interesting though since their design suggest they aren't legit Sonic characters to begin with and they feel too distant with the Sonic Universe.

 

Anyways. Good job Roger keep the good work.

 

Oh sure....

 

 

Cause these guys are totally legit characters and aren't too distant from the series, now are they?

 

I know I'm being snarky but you can't be serious when you have Black Doom and Iblis and their minions being in the series prior to the Deadly Six.

 

Like in comparison, the Deadly Six can fit in with the Sonic series and sure they might not have been written too well but I'm sure that they can work well enough if Sonic Team decided to put an effort to a proper narrative for the games.

[Komodin]

 I don't think it's possible to make the deadly six interesting though since their design suggest they aren't legit Sonic characters to begin with and they feel too distant with the Sonic Universe.

 

... Okay, I gotta ask. If you think the Deadly Six aren't "legit Sonic characters" because of their designs, then tell me: what do you think of Biolizard, the Black Arms, Iblis and Solaris? Because the way I see it, the Deadly Six gels far more effectively with how the Sonic franchise usually goes than any of those other monsters.

[Badnik Mechanic]

What, were you expecting Roger to namedrop the specific individuals who attacked him?

I wasn't expecting him to attack anyone to be honest? Why does he need to attack people when the majority are attacking his argument?

You're always going to get some people posting odd stuff regardless. But you don't respond by saying "Here's my merry little hate club" *Posts a picture of a post which was actually supporting him.*

Also how many people were actually not posting constructive stuff? Between that and his total view count? What's the percentage. Can't be that high, yet it's prompted the screen grab.

Even when a lot of people defending him have made more of a fuss on it and focusing on the people saying stuff like that instead of the actual good criticisms and flaws in his argument which there have been many, heck the first reply to the topic is a rather marvellous one.

To me it feels more like an attempt to get people to try and join here to support and back him up. Which to be honest has already been going on in here anyway so why not post it in his vids?

 

I specifically said constructive criticism. You can't give someone constructive criticism on their voice because you can't change your voice for the better.

I am fully qualified to tell you that this is wrong and that you can change your voice and do stuff to the audio in post processing to improve it.

So yeah, if people are going on about the audio it might be an idea to look at it, otherwise if it's just one comment, how the hell is this some kind of evidence that the bulk of criticism isn't constructive at all?

[100Rings]

Gold!! Best dissected yet! I really love his in depth details on how the characters can and should be handled. Cream, although a cutesy character, has potential to be respected if he can have a chance to prove herself to the audience. Even for all my loathing for the  Babylon Rouges, I can admit that the evil twin concept is pretty sweet! As for the D6, they were birthed for the very reasons of being offensive cliches and lame koopalings ripoffs. Keep em put I say. They don't really fit the Sonic vibe. Otherwise, I love how this guy thinks. He's pretty imaginative and his subtle humor really pulls his videos together. Keep it up Roger! I nominate he discuss how the "lost characters" like Fang, Mighty, Honey and Ray could fit in a current sonic narrative. That would be sexier than pork meatballs.

[Ash Cloud]

Another very good dissected video! I like the part about how a character isn't necessary interesting on its own but is a good support for a major character. I don't think it's possible to make the deadly six interesting though since their design suggest they aren't legit Sonic characters to begin with and they feel too distant with the Sonic Universe.

 

Anyways. Good job Roger keep the good work.

-back on topic-

Yes I agree. This was a very nice video.  

I enjoyed his little bit about the characters returning in Sonic Boom: Orbot, Cubot and "Marine". The characters few care about over characters like Shadow, Rouge, Blaze and the Chaotix. I do hope that these other characters make an appearance in Boom, it's only fair to bring these guys back since they've been around longer.

As for the other characters he mentioned, I pretty much feel the same way about each of them. They could work in Sonic's "cool" universe, but they all need some major changes made to them. Especially Cream, who I believe should stay out of the adventures completely. She's a sweet little flower child who hates violence, so going on action-packed adventures sort of goes against her character.

[Willsy]

There's always been a joke in the Sonic fanbase about SSMB being 'the shark pool of Sonic communities'. Of course, it's far from the truth, but some people just like to harmlessly joke about it, and I think that's fine as it's just a joke, and it's not meant to hurt anyone. I'm sure that's what Roger was doing (with the mentioned sarcastic tones and all), I can't see him trying to instigate a problem with one of the more popular online Sonic communities and it's members.