![]() This can occasionally be Truth in Television.Ĭontrast Constructive Criticism, which actually aims to be useful to a creator rather than entertaining to an audience. ![]() In-Universe, Caustic Critics are frequently portrayed as jaded washouts dumping their Sour Grapes onto younger versions of themselves, individuals with extreme Opinion Myopia who have declared themselves the ultimate judge of quality in a particular field, and/or attention whores mostly interested in drawing an audience by wiping their feet on the coattails of anything moderately popular. Their reviews become Sadist Shows where half the fun is watching them suffer meltdowns at whatever they're discussing. Their over-the-top reactions to everything from video games to sports to professional wrestling can be just as entertaining as anything they say about a given work, organization or event. Some Caustic Critics can be Played for Laughs. They still can seem just as mean, but at least they (supposedly) have their target's best interests at heart. If the critic says that they're accentuating the negative out of tough love to help their victim improve, that's a Compassionate Critic. Even attacking Macekres of that period is probably frowned upon since the reviewer in question never had to put up with them and probably had to go out of their way to find them in the first place. Or they might be offended by a caustic negative review of something that is considered Cult Classic of Fair for Its Day, especially if the caustic reviewer in question is obviously too young to remember when it was a new thing note An example of a scenario that is generally considered bad form: A reviewer born sometime after 1993 delivers a caustic review that is heavily dependent on mercilessly attacking the dated aspects of an early 80s anime production. This is why a lot of current Youtube reviewers have dispensed with comedic interludes, quirky deliveries, and other filler, thus being able to focus on informative content over stage persona. At other times, audiences will prefer a more educational, no nonsense, objective review of a product that they may consider purchasing or watching. At times, it's considered entertaining, especially if the audience already agrees that the target of the caustic review probably deserves it. This trope tends to be cyclic in popularity. They need not necessarily be reviewers they might be essayists discussing trends, but the spirit is the same. Most Caustic Critics belong to one of three types of reviewers: those who thrive on Bile Fascination and give only negative reviews, those who review both good or bad recent works but consider merciless panning the only honest way to criticize the bad ones, and those who don't really care about honestly reviewing anything (without necessarily only panning, either) and are doing the whole thing for Rule of Funny alone. That said, the Caustic Critic is almost always rather divisive, especially when they take on a generally well-liked game / show / movie / album / book / manga / anime / webcomic / webcartoon / fanfic / lamp. Why? Because it's funny, and the Caustic Critic is first and foremost out to entertain an audience. This is a reviewer who not only savagely criticizes the work in question but also calls it names until it bawls. Useful, succinct, and an integral part of any entertainment industry. Lovingly hand-crafted retro style graphics bring you back to the classic era of adventure gaming.On paper, the job of a reviewer of any medium is to provide an evaluation of a given work in the medium, outlining its good and bad points and whether you should check it out.Multiple paths and branching story-lines create a different experience every time you play. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |