Remove this ad

Lead

Jan 19 17 10:59 AM

Tags : : , ,

I felt like this needed sharing, since it's bad, if not the worst, and without a doubt the most obscure webcomic/webcomic site I know: Neko's House.

The site itself, which hasn't been updated since 2011, actually has several comics, all of which are sprite comics made by the same person. The first and oldest shares it's name with the site, and it's about the author's selfinsert being roommates with Capcom's Felicia, a catgirl from some Hentai RPG/Manga/OVA, Tailmon, and Meowth from Team Rocket.
Needless to say, a few red flags there.
There's also a subplot with the other Digimon and another with the cast of the Mega Man games, who later got their own strip, but neither of these subplots matter because the strip was never updated post-2005.

However, the characters still appear in the misc. comics that make up the bulk of the sites content, and are by far the worst offenders.
Though it's definately not supposed to be plot-oriented, and acknowledged to generally be the weakest material on the site, it still has all the problems the main comic had ten times worse. Most of the jokes are either unoriginal, memes, or sex jokes, usually with the author's selfinsert and his catgirl roomies.
Other times, the comic goes one step further, and becomes a soapbox so the the author can tell us liking catgirls doesn't make him a furry, or about his arguments with children on the internet (even if some of them plagarised your work, you aren't being very mature by ranting about it in your news section). Don't forget to throw a possible strawman into one of those.
I'm going to be optimistic and say this strip wasn't meant to be taken seriously, so the only problem with it is that it's recycled in a later strip.

Outside of these rants, Neko/Maneko/Hector Cavieres seems an alright guy. English isn't his first language, so the errors are forgiveable, and he's put effort into creating original sprites, and actually ripped Tailmon's himself. Just look at the site and judge it for yourself.

Last Edited By: Streetbacon Jan 20 17 10:56 AM. Edited 1 time

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad

#1 [url]

Jan 19 17 2:16 PM

so... sprite comics, shitty archive setup where you have to manually open each comic gif up...

Ya, this looks bad. I can't say anything for the plot - my eyes bleed too much when exposed to sprite comics to actually read them.

great compilation of examples of the creator of it acting like an asshole - ya, he sure aint that much of a furry - a weeb no doubt - the line between is blurry when it comes to catgirls.

Quote    Reply   

#2 [url]

Jan 19 17 4:06 PM

Thanks for reminding me.

But yeh, it's one of those weeaboo sprite comics that were popular back then. It wasn't too offensive, but it's still dumb. Thankfully, the comic is dead; otherwise the author might have introduce Meicrackmon to the comic:
image
Yes, that's a real digimon.
 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

plarblman

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,167

#4 [url]

Jan 20 17 8:12 AM

You know, I thought it was by accident that furries were super into Digimon, but now I see that that is not the case.

Sure, go ahead with the review. I tried reading through this and my eyes just glazed over.

Quote    Reply   

#5 [url]

Jan 20 17 9:15 AM

I would rather not see another review on it, because there's been a real unfortunate increase of reviews of badly-drawn (basically stick figures with some flesh and none of the charm) "comics" that focus on "gags" and political dribble. What drew me to Bad Webcomics Wiki is that it did reviews on comic strips with a coherent plot and storyline, whether those that are either a patently ridiculous concept (Foreskin Man, Dreaming of Utopia) or "popular" webcomics that deserve a good thrashing (like Shortpacked). It was the webcomics that were the right kind of bad to make the good reviews, the ones that would make you laugh with its irreverent skewering and funny captions on photos. Discounting the comics that use copyrighted characters (The Legend of Spyro: Zonoya’s Revenge) the last one I can think of that BWW did was Grrl Power back in October. Not that especially badly-drawn comics are always exempt from that (The Lightbringer), but it's that special breed that really makes the site. (Other notable reviews of this caliber include Spinnerette, Bridges) Even The Office Bitch, which was NOT anything that you'd ever want to click the links back to, still had a memorable review since the author decided that besides the one unintentionally amusing "censored" picture of a guy sucking off an invisible dick, the rest of the review was filled with pictures of puppies. Basically I favor quality over quantity, because picking apart some terrible comic worshipped on TVTropes is better than taking cheap shots at sprite comics.

Besides, it just makes us look petty.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

plarblman

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,167

#6 [url]

Jan 20 17 10:12 AM

Funny, we get complaints about the exact opposite: people who say we should only go after low-hanging fruit and that the likes of Shortpacked or Grrl Power don't deserve reviews.

The way I see it, it doesn't matter what the 'quality' of the comic you're reviewing, as long as you can make a sound and persuasive argument on why it's bad.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Beardfist

Regular User

Posts: 165

#7 [url]

Jan 20 17 12:26 PM

I certainly think there's a lot of different philosophies that go into it. Some take the more categorical approach, too, where it becomes more the duty of the site to review ~just about anything~ that could be construed as bad. I think the ultimate end is just to overlook the review altogether, provided it gets greenlit. I personally don't much care for them, either, though at the same time I'm still slowly reading apace through that weird bandicoot one--most certainly some rather low-hanging fruit.

I'd suggest poking around in the monolithic homestuck thread, since that most certainly fits the criteria of sacred cow tipping. I think one of the bigger problems is, well, there aren't really very many of those sort that pop up over time, whereas you do have a lot of these. I think these reveal the more caustic underbelly of the site--but I also think that that caustic underbelly is important, as there are certain people who probably just shouldn't be creating things. (Or who need a good knock on their head if they continue to do so.) This comic's old and dust, but it still has a lot of more common mistakes that I think people could learn from. I think that these tend to be fine, even if they're perhaps a little less venomously entertaining and a little more 'these are all these things from this old comic from a different era that simply do not work.'

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,101

#8 [url]

Jan 20 17 3:15 PM

American Dork wrote:
I would rather not see another review on it, because there's been a real unfortunate increase of reviews of badly-drawn (basically stick figures with some flesh and none of the charm) "comics" that focus on "gags" and political dribble. What drew me to Bad Webcomics Wiki is that it did reviews on comic strips with a coherent plot and storyline, whether those that are either a patently ridiculous concept (Foreskin Man, Dreaming of Utopia) or "popular" webcomics that deserve a good thrashing (like Shortpacked). It was the webcomics that were the right kind of bad to make the good reviews, the ones that would make you laugh with its irreverent skewering and funny captions on photos. Discounting the comics that use copyrighted characters (The Legend of Spyro: Zonoya’s Revenge) the last one I can think of that BWW did was Grrl Power back in October. Not that especially badly-drawn comics are always exempt from that (The Lightbringer), but it's that special breed that really makes the site. (Other notable reviews of this caliber include Spinnerette, Bridges) Even The Office Bitch, which was NOT anything that you'd ever want to click the links back to, still had a memorable review since the author decided that besides the one unintentionally amusing "censored" picture of a guy sucking off an invisible dick, the rest of the review was filled with pictures of puppies. Basically I favor quality over quantity, because picking apart some terrible comic worshipped on TVTropes is better than taking cheap shots at sprite comics.

Besides, it just makes us look petty.

Ever heard of "The Razzies", the awards fir the worst movies of the year?  I view this website as having a similar function.

​Yes, I personally prefer reviewing webcomics that are well-reagrded but shouldn't be, rather than obvious gasrbage.  But the types of webcomics I prefer to review are the following:

​1) Webcomics that the author tries too hard to promote and tries to make them sound much better than they are.  That's why I enjoyed reviewing Eyre Toons, because the author spent so much effort in tooting his own horn, including having Facebook pages for his characters and heading every page of his strip with the message of how wonderful his webcomic is.

​2) Webcomics that try to be artsy-fartsy such as Looney Toons Reborn, or worse yet, Jack, which uses silly-looking cartoon animals to convey a violent, gruesone supernatural horror story.

​3) Webcomics aimed at a target audience but don't please said audience, such as Ren And Jay,

4) Very long webcomics that start out as shit and contiue being shitty such as Stalag '99.

​5) Webcomics that look like family entertainment but aren't, such as Sandra And Woo and Sabrina-Online.

​6) Any webcomic from the earlier days of the Internet that sucks, from before 2002 or even better 1999 and previously.

Quote    Reply   

#9 [url]

Jan 20 17 9:18 PM

Beardfist wrote:
I certainly think there's a lot of different philosophies that go into it. Some take the more categorical approach, too, where it becomes more the duty of the site to review ~just about anything~ that could be construed as bad. I think the ultimate end is just to overlook the review altogether, provided it gets greenlit. I personally don't much care for them, either, though at the same time I'm still slowly reading apace through that weird bandicoot one--most certainly some rather low-hanging fruit.


I'd suggest poking around in the monolithic homestuck thread, since that most certainly fits the criteria of sacred cow tipping. I think one of the bigger problems is, well, there aren't really very many of those sort that pop up over time, whereas you do have a lot of these. I think these reveal the more caustic underbelly of the site--but I also think that that caustic underbelly is important, as there are certain people who probably just shouldn't be creating things. (Or who need a good knock on their head if they continue to do so.) This comic's old and dust, but it still has a lot of more common mistakes that I think people could learn from. I think that these tend to be fine, even if they're perhaps a little less venomously entertaining and a little more 'these are all these things from this old comic from a different era that simply do not work.'

While a part of me wants to say "That's the other half of the equation, after a hilarious review is to get the butthurt fans to whine on the forums," by no means should a review be done to solely piss off fans, because again that looks petty (the xkcd review is one, as well as some of the early religious-themed ones done by the Luigiian). But one could also argue that those reviews look petty because they're not well-written to begin with. A lot of this all depends on how well you can write, and there are no "untouchable" webcomics solely on virtue. Obviously, the better a webcomic is it's going to be harder to write about (Lackadaisy, while I can't really get into it, seems to be one of these comic strips), which is why there are still "qualifying" factors.
 
Long Tom wrote:
6) Any webcomic from the earlier days of the Internet that sucks, from before 2002 or even better 1999 and previously.

 
And yet, College Roomies From Hell!!! and Sluggy Freelance go without reviews, even to this day...

Last Edited By: American Dork Jan 20 17 9:21 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,101

#10 [url]

Jan 21 17 3:18 PM

American Dork wrote:
And yet, College Roomies From Hell!!! and Sluggy Freelance go without reviews, even to this day...

If you feel these should be reviewed, you can write reviews yourself.  Or alternatively make threads to make the case to us why these deserve reviews.

​It actually took some persuasion on my part before I got the go-ahead for Sandra And Woo.  It was not low-hanging fruit, but you had to read it for a bit to find out what was so bad about it.

Quote    Reply   

#11 [url]

Jan 22 17 6:54 AM

After reading the original strip (when you sprite comic, I thought "sprites ripped from NES/Genesis games with speech bubbles") I think it's worthy for inclusion. That being said, I think that it's high time for another "popular" strip review.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,101

#12 [url]

Jan 22 17 2:20 PM

American Dork wrote:
After reading the original strip (when you sprite comic, I thought "sprites ripped from NES/Genesis games with speech bubbles") I think it's worthy for inclusion. That being said, I think that it's high time for another "popular" strip review.

Actually, unlike Angel Warrior, this one had some mild laughs and actually could have been good if the author had done a better job with it.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,962

#13 [url]

Jan 22 17 4:22 PM

Long Tom wrote:

American Dork wrote:
And yet, College Roomies From Hell!!! and Sluggy Freelance go without reviews, even to this day...

If you feel these should be reviewed, you can write reviews yourself.  Or alternatively make threads to make the case to us why these deserve reviews.

​It actually took some persuasion on my part before I got the go-ahead for Sandra And Woo.  It was not low-hanging fruit, but you had to read it for a bit to find out what was so bad about it.

Well, my understanding of how things work here is that if anyone wants a webcomic to appear in here, they propose it and make their case and if that's accepted, they then write a draft and once that's in good enough state, it gets put in.

The anarchist collective element here is that if something isn't ever proposed, it never gets put in. Hence that might be why there's some major titles that there's an argument for their inclusion which are missing while on the other hand there's some very obscure stuff that's in here.

Assignments aren't handed down from on high (at most there's a suggestion of 'What about ...?" "anyone ...?" "Oh, OK then." if something doesn't get taken up until it surfaces again.)

On that note, how about "Too Much Information"? Keeps surfacing here periodically, we've already got a Premature Reaction (completely missing the point that we know we increase traffic to sites even by just talking about them in the forums, that's kind of the point), regular Top 10 member of Top Webcomics and I have it on good authority of people knowledgeable about 3D graphics like Daz and Poser that there is a complete and absolute lack of improving the graphics in the last 12 years unlike their upgrading their software technique whenever they can.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help