Will DS2fags ever recover from the infinite anal annihilation he brought upon them?

But none of what you say is at all contradictory to any position Mauler holds, did you just get your opinions about him fed to you by some brainless e-celeb?
Wanting the text of a film to not be outright contradictory to the subtext and themes doesn't mean you take offense at analysis of those things, he just doesn't want people to defend bad movies with "m-muh themes" when those themes are poorly executed.

he managed to attract an audience of children and uni dropouts who will follow along with his nonsensical form of criticism and feed his ego, which is a win i suppose

have people actually watched all of this guy's videos the whole way through?

oh sorry, i must have hallucinated the part where he nonstop has 20 hour livestreams where he and his furfag brainlet friends insist that there's such a thing as objectively good art and that logically consistent writing is the utmost value a film can have, yeah he's definitely just a composed normal dude who doesn't hold nonsensical beliefs at all

just because he pretends he doesn't say stupid shit all the time doesn't mean he doesn't say stupid shit all the time my dude

yeah I have
all of his normal videos at least, those podcasts are too much even for me tho

all that text and yet you said absolutely nothing

how do you find the time for it

wow just like mauler LMAO

But there can be objectively good art, as long as you can define what you mean by "good", which he frequently did on the same podcast you're referencing.

>as long as you can define what you mean by "good"
and his definition is complete and utter horseshit that isn't consistent within itself, wowee, we're back at square one

He constructs all of his videos to function like podcasts so you can easily listen to them while playing vidya or working.
Most people who make these lengthy videos try to make it so you can just listen to them.

Why does this dude's nose have a key hole?

Attached: 1585485709818.png (895x799, 397.15K)

His definition of objective quality within writing is the logical consistency of the script.
Basically, potholes bad.
>insists that logically consistent writing is the upmost value a film can have
He never said that. In fact, he believes that the "value" of a piece of media is entirely subjective. The point of his videos are not to shit on people for having their personal reasons for liking it, but to show how these movies conflict with themselves narratively and debunk arguments suggesting otherwise.

How do people still not understand what Mauler means when he talks about objective art criticism?

Attached: 158654270543.jpg (1080x4002, 1.24M)

>play vidya on my main monitor
>put up youtube on my second monitor
I usually got some kind of video running whenever I play games and longform vidya content is my favorite, I only keep it off when playing story based games

I'd like you to demonstrate how it isn't consistent.
Either way i do disagree with him on the usefulness of wholistically defining things as good or bad, but that doesn't change that his general analysis of films isn't usually on point anyway.

Maybe it's like a chastity belt for his face.

His DS2 video literally addresses every single sentence Hbombfag made in his shit video. Putting your head in the sand doesn't mean he made no points.

>His definition of objective quality within writing is the logical consistency of the script
say i write a script which intentionally lacks logical consistency, as many non-mainstream films do

is the film objectively bad even if it achieves every single goal it sets out for flawlessly and is beloved by everyone who watches it?

>if you stopped existing, the view of "plot holes are bad" would still exist
nothing about art is apriori, that's fucking nonsensical, you cannot simultaneously admit that art is created by humans and then claim that art has rules which are fundamentally true with or without humans, those are completely opposing statements

I will never, in my life, understand listening to someone drawl on for an hour on their analysis of a videogame.
Let alone 8. Jesus fucking christ, mother of all golly gushes.

If you're talking for 8 hours on a videogame, you better be one of the ones that actually developed it.

how the fuck do you people have the patience to watch a 1 hr 19 min. video and then watch another 8 fucking hour rebuttal. are these people capable of sufficiently making points within 10-30 min? better yet come up with your own fucking opinion lmao.
based, but i don't someone at FromSoft would even go on for that long.

Attached: 1512935417794.jpg (278x319, 52.24K)

>nothing about art is apriori, that's fucking nonsensical, you cannot simultaneously admit that art is created by humans and then claim that art has rules which are fundamentally true with or without humans, those are completely opposing statements
Are you being deliberately retarded? When he says "you" he's referring to the individual, not all of humanity. And nowhere did he say those intersubjective standards are apriori, he literally says the standards aren't objective, but once you apply a standard, you can then objectively analyze whether a piece of work follows it.

>intentionally lacks logical consistency, as many non-mainstream films do
>is the film objectively bad
No, and MauLer even stated this himself. Making a movie that is intentionally illogical and abstract is perfectly fine. It's movies that are created with the intention of making logical sense but ultimately fall apart that are bad.
Star Wars TLJ is bad not JUST because its script is horribly inconsistent, but because all of these issues are clearly unintentional. Disney's fucking Star Wars is not some post-modern abstract art piece. It's consumer media made to be accessible into non-challenging to a wide audience, which makes it perfectly clear that the issues within its script are purely a result of poor craftsmanship.

>Hbomb defense force STILL cannot make a single rebuttal

without being on lockdown he'd suck every cock in three states.

He did not assblast DS2 fans. He assblasted one faggots poor argument in its favor.

didn't watch either video, get fucked

Attached: 1491021119022.jpg (224x225, 8.13K)

Dude, a symptom of autism is rigid structure. Just because Maulpergers is a bit 'tistic doesn't mean you need to point ALL the problems with his 8 hour screeds.

Why do those people always use some edgy 'badass' avatar? They sperg about kiddy movies and vidya, it doesn't fit at all.

>long form content inherently bad
>there is no point that can't be made in 10 minutes
Nobody tell this guy that books exist.

Doesn't he actually like the game though

He makes his videos as long as they are so he can address every topic that comes up. He often spends more time going on tangents related to a piece of media rather than talking about the media itself.
It's basically so that nobody can say "yeah but you forgot X" in response to his critiques.

Would you read a book that's just an analysis of another book? Don't lie to me. You don't even read regular books.

None of the niggas making hour long Dark Sous 2 analysis videos can even perform a stance switch attack I legit don't care about their opinions. I for sure am not watching a sissy cope for an hour straight because he died in baby's first "Hard game" franchise

Attached: 1583624002367.png (528x800, 301.85K)

because autism

>Would you read a book that's just an analysis of another book?
Sure...? Why wouldn't i? I know it's hard to believe, but some people actually still have an attention span that extends beyond 5 minutes and consume media with slightly more content than Vine videos.

>stance memes instead of just slaughtering invaders with a claymore by using positioning and punishing attacks
>not making faggots rage because you beat them with a "PvE" weapon

Attached: plebs.png (500x571, 150.02K)

>he literally says the standards aren't objective, but once you apply a standard, you can then objectively analyze whether a piece of work follows it
no, you can't. if you believe that any standard concocted by a human being could possibly be applied to all of art across all of human creation, you're fucking delusional. EVERY standard falters at some point, and continuing to attempt to create a perfect standard is utterly futile. there is no fucking point applying a marxist lens to certain works, for instance, because certain works just do not contain the elements necessary to sufficiently do so. so there is no fucking point trying to push any one standard as a standard which is better than others like these fucking autists insist on doing.

>all of these issues are clearly unintentional
i'd like you to objectively and factually prove this
i'd like you to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that rian johnson is not some 4th level supergenius who intentionally created these issues
if rian johnson came out tomorrow and said with no ambiguity that he made the movie that way on purpose to prove a point, would you believe him?
because if you wouldn't, then you're putting foward that intent does not matter, meaning you can't apply "but it's not intentional" to any piece of media
and if you would believe him, then have fun believing tommy wiseau when he says the room was always meant to be a comedy, and every other piece of bullshit an author has ever spouted to cover their ass

you do not understand the complexity of what you're talking about here, it's out of your depth, you watch disney movies in the theater and you think you've uncovered the magnum opus of judging art when in reality you've found one tiny sliver of the world of art and decided that said sliver must exist outside of the spectrum of art, in a definitive place of its own, rather than just being another part of the gradient which can only be judged subjectively

ironically you already put your head in the sand when reading a short post

>Load up this literal who's DS2 video
>His video is a rebuttal to some other literal who's DS2 video which is also 1 hour and 20 minutes long
>20 minutes in and this guy is just another Matthewmatosis sheep parroting the same old debunked arguments
Yawn, and this goes on for 10 hours? Hard fucking pass. At least when Matthewmatosis did his cringy video he had the good sense to keep the runtime under an hour.

>No u
Make an actual argument already.

Nah playing with fundamentals only got me bored fast, I do all those Japanese techniques with the ladle so don't worry bro I'm not a tryhard

Attached: 1576242099472.jpg (287x176, 6.47K)

I wish i knew what it's like to experience life through the lense of being this stupid.
Life must be fascinating if everything confuses you.

Mauler never said that, he explicitly said that intentions don't matter actually.
A shit movie that was made to be shit on purpose is still shit.

>if you believe that any standard concocted by a human being could possibly be applied to all of art across all of human creation, you're fucking delusional.
No one said there is some objective standard all art is held to. I've said the exact fucking opposite you strawmanning retard.
>so there is no fucking point trying to push any one standard as a standard which is better than others like these fucking autists insist on doing
No one is doing this. There are different standards and they are totally up for debate. You wouldn't use the same standard on both a drama and a comedy. However, once you decide on a standard to view a piece of art from, you can objectively observe whether that piece of art satisfies said standard.

No one wants to watch your 10 hour video, faggot. fuck off.

will the massives ever learn that "b-but it's long" isn't an argument?

>if rian johnson came out tomorrow and said with no ambiguity that he made the movie that way on purpose to prove a point, would you believe him?
No, because his twitter exposes him as an absolute low IQ orangutang that he is and he is clearly incapable of intelligent thought and probably got into film business through nepotism just like everyone else.

>i'd like you to objectively and factually prove this
Because the movie absolutely still carries the pretense of obeying the same laws and logic of all the prior Star Wars films. There is never a point in the film where the Star Wars universe is established to have fundamentally changed, so when the characters perform actions that should be impossible it comes across as pulling things out of their asses and simply forgetting their own rules.
In the Berserk manga, the world the characters reside in goes through several fundamental transformations where it is clearly established that the laws of physics and possibility have been changed. So when characters perform formerly impossible tasks or surreal events occur, there's a clear precedent set for these events. It's allowed to be absurd and surreal because it has been made clear that the world has changed.

Rian Johnson can give whatever post-hoc rationalizations he wants for his nonsense; he and his fans have come up with no shortage of them. But they all ultimately fall under headcanons under what is presented within the actual film.

Nobody that actually likes DS2 gives two shits about him or Hbomberguy.

If anything I find it fucking hilarious and pathetic that he got so buttblasted over some faggot commie's opinion, that he dedicated literally hundreds of hours of his time over it.

Attached: 1579961028144.jpg (1450x960, 234.7K)

This is literally a quote from Hbomberguy in his Bloodborne video.
>Good criticism means good discourse. I can completely see why writers, critics, and journalists use the short hands they do, but I think the onus is on us to try not to. To be willing to be long, complicated, willing to be yeah even a little bit boring or pedantic at times in order to explore the qualities of gaming experiences in a truly valuable way
Call Mauler an autist all you want, but Hbomberguy absolutely deserved to be anally ravaged by Mauler.

Attached: 374847262837.jpg (2560x1920, 1.72M)

>once you decide on a standard to view a piece of art from, you can objectively observe whether that piece of art satisfies said standard
no, you can't. because two different critics who both use a feminist lens can completely disagree on whether or not a piece of art is egalitarian or not. there's no standard on this earth that you could create which all people can universally agree on. if you want to create a standard for yourself to use, then fine, but then who the fuck cares if you say something objectively follows a standard? what have you accomplished? what, you've objectively proven that something meets your subjective standard? that's just called having an opinion and backing it up with some textual evidence. i have no clue what the purpose of this rhetorical roundabout is.

again, factually prove this. imagine he comes out and outright says everything he's said and done was an intentional act. prove him 100% factually wrong in this scenario without returning to your own assumptions about him.

again
prove it factually
not with "this is what i interpret" but with hard evidence
if he said he was a galaxy brain troll this whole time, find me photographic or measurable or scientific and irrefutable evidence that his claim is wrong

Where's your King's Field collection?
>greatest hits
What a fake fan

For the same reason that those cartoon character reviewers on JewTube use skinny, fit versions of themselves as the character art.

Real life MauLer is a spergy looking fatass

>again, factually prove this
The onus is on you to prove that an intent exists, not on me to prove that it doesn't

>read book
>author has 10 page long preface before the story actually starts
>finally move on to the actual story of the book
>author stops the story every 5 pages to write about some inane bullshit that has nothing to do with main plot
That's the book equivalent of a mauler video, fag will make you wait 20 minutes before being up his first point then go a tangent that's vaguely related to his point, dragging out video essays that are 30 minutes of meaningful content to 2 hours longs

>no, you can't. because two different critics who both use a feminist lens can completely disagree on whether or not a piece of art is egalitarian or not
That's a debate about the standard, not the piece of art. Here's a better example, if you use the standard that objects disappearing for no reason in a movie meant to be taken seriously is bad, then you can objectively find a scene where this occurs and use that as proof the movie doesn't meet said standard.
youtube.com/watch?v=mSmOLPs91Uc

I think a lot of the issue is that Mauler insists on using loaded terms like "good" or "bad" which undermines his objective approach to critique.

I want to go back to the old days when we all liked matthew "if the game doesn't say nigger, it's a misser" mattosis videos and laughed at egoraptor for being shit at video games because they were the only vidya analysists anyone gave a shit about

Biggest autist on yt

>prove it factually
I just did you absolute retard
The movie carries the pretense of following the rules of previous films and it is never established that said rules have changed. So it's baffling when it breaks those rules and never gives an explanation for it.
If a movie states that the sky is blue, turns the sky red and then gives no explanation for why it's happening or is even possible, then it is an objective flaw in the story.
>if he said he was a galaxy brain troll this whole time
Awesome. So he made an intentionally shitty and nonsensical movie and ruined a franchise beloved by millions. Literally "I was just pretending to be retarded".
Great. Truly he was THE master troll of our times.
As were you, because you convinced me to take your swill seriously for this long. Suck my cock, faggot.