This section is for the premature ejaculators who confused a comment thread with a review and shamefully shot their load of impotent rage all over the floor of our site.
This is a cautionary tale about why it's probably better to wait until the review actually appears in the Wiki before saying anything. We take you back to late 2015.
If you want to see how the entire thread played out with our increasingly desperate attempts to salvage the situation as the potential review author and the webcomic creators escalated going after each other, click the title or here but even just the relevant posts from the people being reviewed say more than enough.
So yes, in this case as history has shown, the third panel was definitely the best option here by far.
Sweet! We finally made it! The start date was actually October 26 2013. We don't use "posable" models, and we've slogged through enough government paperwork and fees to call ourselves a studio. Good on you for being the first person in the two years plus this comic has run that noticed the penny arcade style. We've honestly been shocked no one has brought that up before. We are glad you enjoyed the first comic though.
Despite how this looked on the surface, I suspected undercurrents of a different tone.
Nah, no sarcasm implied on our part.
... and yet I was not completely convinced.
Ok, maybe there was a bit of sarcasm in that part.
We do our comic in this style because we enjoy the style, and it's a quick turn around. And last I checked... It is our comic. Are we trying to fool anyone? Nope. If you really want to break it down, the penny arcade style is just a copy of Genndy Tartakovsky. We've been fans of his since first seeing his annimation as teens. As far as cashing in... I'm not sure where you are getting that. We are a small little comic that is just now starting to come into a little fanbase. Rolling in all that penny arcade webcomic fame, we are not.
Things were starting to spin of its axis here.
In your review saying posable makes it sound like we’re using premade models like Buckley did or bitstrips does, and that is defiantly not what we’re doing. We do have comics where all three panels are similar but I’m pretty sure that they are’nt the majority of our archive. You can check if you want, I’m sure that would be great research for your review. Doing this may also make pages look the same, but if there isn’t a need to change a scene besides minor movements then why change it?
We don’t mind you writing the review, it’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it, but you seem to be taking this personally. Why is that? You said, “And the reason nobody had previously commented about the similarities to Penny Arcade is because the few 13-year-olds on Newgrounds who read AB&C are too young to know what Penny Arcade is, it’s kind of a relic.” Whats the point of this, why be so snide in your comment? Is that an attempt to demean our work? How do you know that only 14 year olds read our comic, and what would be so bad if all of our fans were 14? It may be your opinion but I also think it’s an informal fallacy much like the one you accuse us of in your review. Let’s not forget about your comment on our Newgrounds page, “Looks a lot like one of the several styles Penny Arcade has used, did you draw for Penny Arcade at some point? The thing is it’s even less funny. Why would you even waste time trying to make comedy comics when you haven’t got a single funny thing to say? Your jokes were absolute fossils the first 15 times I saw them elsewhere in my life.” Once again here you try to be as rude as possible, yes it’s your opinion but do you need to present it in such a manner? What did we do to you? Did one of our comics bite you, or is it because internet? We bet it’s because internet, but that’s just speculation on our part and there’s no way we can prove it. To be honest you come off as more of a troll than someone stating their opinion and you lose credibility doing that. We don’t mind that you don’t think we’re funny or if you think our jokes are old. There are other people out there who enjoy what we do. You just aren’t one of them.
Now, time to address the Penny Arcade problem. We don’t mind saying that we’re inspired by Penny Arcade, we’ll be the first to admit that, it honestly doesn’t bother us. They’re a big inspiration to us, especially Krahulik’s art style. We knew that some people were going to have a problem with it when we started the comic and we know some people are going to have a problem with us admitting it now, but it is what it is. But is it really that bad to be inspired by other people? Look at Abby Howard for example. The first time we saw her artwork Jhonen Vasquez and Kate Beaton came to mind and that’s not a bad thing. Is it? Will AB&C always look like this? We doubt it, because unlike what you stated in your review, we think the art has changed since the first comic and hope it continues to evolve over time. We would also like to say that the Tartakovsky thing was a mix up with Steven Silver. Compare the art from Kim Possible and Penny Arcade from the early to mid ‘00s and you’ll see what we mean.
We aren’t saying don’t write the review, it wouldn't matter if we were. We’re saying write it using facts not extreme bias.
... and despite everyone's best efforts (including someone who's actually ended up with a review in here already), we've sailed past the event horizon (and hence any chance of saving this one) here.
Then everyone completely forgot about it for most of 2016 and did nothing about it for the rest of it but then since Tina's Story ended up in this section and it was never even going to have a review in the Wiki for a few reasons as detailed in its entry, in fairness we now have to put this in.
The obvious irony here is once again (though to be accurate, this happened before the above) if the creators simply had said nothing, this wouldn't be here as the potential review author last logged in on the last day of 2015 still leaving their work incomplete and as of the creation of this entry here in early 2017, hasn't accessed their forum account since.
This comic gets to be in our reaction section twice. But really, it deserves to be here three or four times. Once for when they made a thread about our thread on their forum (the forum itself was recently deleted and I didn't think to save a copy of the thread), once for when the author's husband came to our thread to argue about it before the review was even made, and a third time when he came back again, a year later, after it was.
This has to be the stupidest thing ever... He found our thread/half review and wrote on his DA account that we only hate him because we are liberals.
DAMN YOU OBAMA!
So while updating my website this morning, I ran across this site reviewing my series. An excerpt:
"So far we have an annoying author self-insert as the protagonist who at times will be revealed to have random super powers which benefit him depending on what situation he's in, the self-insert's friends who usually do nothing significant, a generic 90's cartoon bully and his right hand man who team up with the protagonist and his crew after some mysterious villain appears out of nowhere to attack everyone, moronic henchman who work for the bully and his attack dog, and tons of characters that are introduced and do nothing...It's painfully obvious that Tony, the bully in this comic, is supposed to be a carbon copy of Montana Max from Tiny Toons, from both the design and the personality." --Crazy Bus
Actually, Tony Moneran was modeled after this kid who used to pick on me growing up... psst, in the nineties, Slick, so of course he looks like a 90's cartoon bully, you moron. Moneran was basically a living cartoon caricature. He was this punk who usually hung around on Main Street, chain-smoking Marlboros (the cigarette of choice for the discriminating d-bag), often going shirtless to show off those cheap green ink tattoos up and down his arm, and constantly harassing passersby, usu. with his retinue made up of fellow d-bags. Monty's real name was Weyer, or Meyer, or some dang-fool thing, I've long forgotten. As with many people I know, he became incorporated into the comic, serving as the foil and periodic rival to my star. I often wonder what happened to good ol' Monty. Likely he was dumb enough to try his crap with someone who was a lot less easygoing as I was and got the hell beaten out of him for his trouble.
By "easygoing" you mean "cowardly". Don't project you pathetic revenge fantasy on other people.
The rest looks to be the typical liberal pinhead fare--mockery, insults, quotes of mine taken completely out of context, a few random pages posted to make it look like they've actually read the comic and know what they're talking about (which they don't), f-bombs thrown about casually like a verbal tic, and the obligatory and inevitable comparisons to Sonichu.
There is a thread on the Sonich Wiki forum comparing you to Sonichu. We are backed by an expert opinion.
They really don't get it. The two couldn't be any more different. Sonichu is of, for, and about Christian Weston Chandler. The Belch Dimension is about helping people. Starting out, I never had anyone in my corner to show me the ropes. I made mistakes. For them, I was punished. I'm talking horrible, life-rending punishments, many bordering on abuse. That's why I have devoted my life to guiding the new generation of young men past the pitfalls and the gibbering intricacy of rules that is college life. I want to be the one to help get them around these stupid rules, to help them learn every angle, to find the back doors into The System. I mean, there has to be some reason I had these rules browbeaten and drilled into my head, right? Learn from my experiences, then go forth and teach others?
Yeah, I'm sure you love "Back doors"... But anyway, none of this has anything to do with his comic so I can't be bothered to respond to it.
Of course the left will never admit they taught you wrong. They'll insist you learned wrong. You misunderstood. You're stupid. Because it's always the victim's fault. Liberals are perfect and infallible and always have your best interests in mind.
This is a bully mentality, and I wish to discuss this more in my next art blog. Adios for now.
Picking up from where they left-off with the utterly awful "Mall Monkeys", this trio now makes a new comic which we have gotten a number of complaints about but have yet to bother reviewing. Still, they cited a thread regarding the comic as a review on their site and said:
Even though it’s pretty outdated, this is still our favorite example of hating hatefarm. Someone should update it.
I'm not sure if they meant this as a compliment or an insult. Either way, your comic is shit.
The creator of "Modest Medusa" saw that someone made a thread considering making a review of her comic and made this tweet about it:
Presented without comment.
The creator of this comic briefly mentioned us in the comments of his comic back in 2011, citing:
I had a really long week, let's... kinda put it that way. I've stared down the barrel of heavy criticism quite a few times--run ins with 4Chan, Bad Webcomics Wiki, and more recently SomethingAwful (but I'll get to that in a second). I've come out realizing that my comic has alot of potential to be something big--not just big, but big-big. Like, someone on ScrewAttack put Mushroom Go in the same sentence as 8-Bit Theatre and Brawl in the Family, and that kind of blows my mind.
The comic obviously never made it "Big-big" (he must have been fucking delusional). In another comment he went on to say:
First and foremost, the reactions from Bad Webcomics Wiki, 4chan, etc. weren't actually bad; the reactions ranged from "this is alright" to some of them actually enjoying it. That's actually what got me pumped that this comic could make it HUGE, that even people that normally hate this sort of thing seem okay with it.
Again, doubtful. Either way, a review wasn't created until 2014 (and the reaction was less positive than "this is alright"), but at that point the comic had already ended. So he never got to give us his thoughts on it.
I was able to get the password to our old email and found this:
Thanks for the review!
Just want to point one thing out: I use Power Point, not MS Paint for my shitty artwork. If you could fix that, I would appreciate it.
We didn't fix it. We deleted the entire page because no one gives a fuck about MS paint scribbles that haven't been updated in four years.
If anyone still wants to read the half-review someone did write you can do it here.
On a thread about our site the creator of this comic posted this comment:
It's bullying... Half the junk that they write is pointless bashing. There are some legitimate critiques in there, I'm sure, but it's so wrapped up in derogatory comments that it's going to be lost on a creator anyway. I also have an issue with the fact that their articles tend to be very subjective to the article author's personal tastes.
But all was not as it seems because later he posted this on that same thread:
That's a fair point Cynic. What I meant was that, in specific to our case, someone said "The colour scheme doesn't fit a zombie story." It just showed a general lack of insight into the work that they were trying to rip apart... It should be abundantly clear that a dark, bleak colour scheme would have been completely wrong for our comic.
But honestly, their review of our comic didn't really bother me. It was their review of someone else's comic... I'm not sure if Nightsky is talking about the same person, but it really irritated me.
Their general position that one has to be at a certain level of competence in order to put a webcomic on the internet is one that I am completely opposed to.
So when he says: "It's going to be lost on a creator anyway". He means: "It was lost on me". We hurt his feelings so we are wrong. Also he doesn't understand that all reviews are subjective opinions by default and opposes competence... Actively, it would seem.
We never intended to write a review of this admittedly awful webcomic, but it still earns a place in the "Reactions" section. Why?
First off, this is a furry porn webcomic on an adult furry website. We've reviewed porn comics, of course, some of which were truly hideous. But those were webcomics that could be found in a casual internet search, while this one could only be viewed by signing up for SoFurry, the adult furry website in question. One person did sign up for the BWW forum to insist to us that we review Tina's Story, which we agreed was bad, but we decided not to bother reviewing it because it was on a membership-restricted adults-only website, and the only people who would look at it were those who were looking for fapping material in the first place. This would have been the end of the matter, if webcomic author "Gray Muzzle" hadn't also joined the BWW forum to tell off the person who complained about his webcomic. The post by Gray Muzzle:
"You sad little critter.
Just read your anonymous htchet job. Anonymous, because it was an account created for this post. Pathetic and sad, because you've clearly read every single thing I've ever posted over the last eight years?
What did I ever do to hurt you? Are you the ONE person I've had to ban?
Tina's story is a fun, furry soap opera that's been around since 2009. It's not great literature; it's not MEANT to be. Still, it's been viewed millions of times, and has three "Best of Web Comics" nominations to it's credit, for Best Furry, Best Romance, and Best Adult. It's a twice weekly comic followed by 5-6 thousand watchers, and is consistantly a top draw on multiple websites
In the end, do I care? No. Are you showing me your much better art and writing? No
I am guessing that you are a thirteen year old with no life and multiple "Second Life" accounts.
If you don't like it, don't read it."
Yo, Gray Muzzle! I've met you on SoFurry (using a different pseudonym) and I got the impression that you were more mature than to react like this. If you think this person is so "pathetic and sad" for joining the BWW forum to tell us to pan your webcomic, how do you think you sound when you join the BWW forum just to write a whiny response to this "pathetic and sad" critic of yours? If you didn't care "in the end", why even respond to him? If you consider your webcomic so wonderful and popular, why even care about one person who doesn't like it? I've done my own artistic endeavors over the years and I never expected everyone to like them, nor did I react like a crybaby if anyone criticized anything I did. I don't expect to please everyone. Did you expect everyone to like Tina's Story, even among the adult furry community?
I won't give Tina's Story a full review, just a quick description. Tina is an anthropomorphic poodle who spends her time undressing, masturbating, having sex with other dogs (both male and female) and fantasizing about having sex with a human. (And later on would actually marry one and puppies with him. Yes, really.) It's schlock porn at best. It may have a lot of viewers, but it's for the fapping aspect and not because the story or art are so fantastic.
UPDATE: I wrote a message to Gray Muzzle on his SoFurry account telling him that we wouldn't review Tina's Story on the BWW, and that it was only because of the fact that it was on an adults-only website not accessible to the general public. His response to me:
Thanks, and a tip of Tina's hat to you!
Evidently he failed to notice, or did not care, that I told him that his webcomic avoided being listed on the BWW strictly due to the technicality mentioned above.
The author of the comic had this to say about the thread that discussed his comic:
I debated whether or not to put up a link to this, but after going over my logs, I seem to have picked up dozens of new readers. So it doesn’t seem anyone else takes them seriously.
This post brought on a slew of ass-pats from his fans in the form of long paragraphs about how wrong we are and how amazing his comic is. It was pretty sad to watch. He then continued in the comment section, claiming he gets 500 times more traffic than we do, something that isn't true and was probably even less true before we moved sites, and said the number of new readers he has gotten thanks to us is now 150 compared to 0 for the past 8 years. So I guess someone does take us seriously.
The most hilarious part in all of this was this picture of his face-
The only trace left of this thing
It all started when someone on our forum found a collaborative woolfaboo comic on DA and a thread about it. We all had a good laugh calling the artists names, mocking their demands for fanart, joking about its poor quality and discussing if we should write a review about it. Suddenly, the creators somehow found out we were talking about them (could be because some of us went and posted some insults on the comics' profile) and wrote this hilarious response:
Some of the comment has been lost when they deleted everything
I'm aware of this and to be honest. I don't give a crap about what a bunch of 30 year old basement boys have to say.
How did she find out about our band "The Basement Boys"?
We're making the comic for fun and for our friends, not to win any awards. SO what these guys don't like the comic, they hate all webcomics because they always expect Marvel/DC grade work (which to some of them includes large amounts of cleavage).
Everyone knows the BWW motto is "Tits or GTFO".
Then why are 95% of all the comics they review they hate on. Besides, it was just rude for them to call our work a wolfaboo comic. If you want to see real wolfaboos in action, I recommend you look a user group called Anti-Wolf, of which several of our staff are members of. Go look in the memorable quotes and you'll see what REAL wolfaboos do.
Shut up woolfaboo.
Just making a comic about werewolves doesn't make us wolfaboos.
Yes it does.
As good as the original site staff was, Badwebcomics has effectively been made into a troll site, plain and simple; and I knew this before the comic was even made
This was literally said to the original staff.
But it wasn't over there because then they wrote a journal about us.
Cry me a river
Out of common decency I have opted out of posting your website link. With all the expletive spam and outright bashing I found it very degrading and likely wouldn't contribute to your image.
Nice implicit threat. I don't think you understand what kind of site this is.
I'm aware that our current rules in place regarding fan art may be a bit to harsh. All we were trying to do was keep perverts from using our series as an excuse to try to get even MORE porn/hentai on DA. I know their was a danger of this because several people have been revealed planning to do just that.
Aside from that, we'd already paired up a good majority of our characters, and people doing otherwise in a particularly such a gross fashion (i.e. incest, yuri, and or yaoi) would just be an insult for everything we've worked on.
No one cares.
I know you guys hate us. I ain't asking for your approval, pity, or forgiveness. Just wanted to try and let them hear us out for once
And you won't get it either.
We are NOT wolfaboos
Yes you are.
We do NOT expect any big awards for the comic (we're not marvel)
We do NOT expect to make any money off of all this.
As if you could.
The comic was made solely for fun and for our friends
I pity them.
We are NOT art school graduates
Shocking (still better than Preston).
we ARE a bunch of 1st and 2nd year highschoolers using computer programs
We do NOT hate classic werewolf portrayals of snarling, blood thirsty monsters. Shoot, coming from me personally; I love those types of movies. The Wolfman is one of my favorite all time movies
More shit no one cares about.
We WOULD appreciate if you'd stop calling us a ton of expletives
Suck it up (like a [expletive deleted]).
We WOULD love to have your positive input into the series
End it (they did).
Look, I don't care if you bash me over this until the moon explodes, but stop calling my friends the names you all said. You all know what I'm talking about.
At this point we realized these are a bunch of kids and decided to apologize to get them to stop freaking out and lay off of them, but it was already too late. We were unable to stop before one of our user made a blog (deleted and not archive) of parody porn of their characters. After seeing it they announced that they are ending the comic, deleted their page and left a number of angry comments in this thread, one of which ended with the words:
The thread itself has too many funny comments to quote here, with the only positive one being one of the creators saying she will take our advice and try to do better. Even so, my favorite thing they said to us was:
At least it's less pathetic than the time we made Andrew Fraser cry.
Found this on google and used it because the actual site is always down
While we were talking about if we should review this comic or not, someone (I'm guessing a user of this site who's trying way too hard) informed Viv about it via anonymous asks on tumblr.
Question: Hey Viv, how do you feel about all the recent talk on the Bad Webcomics Wiki Forum about Zoophobia?:/
Um… well I didn’t know about it until now haha
Firstly I thought comics had to be like LAUGHABLY bad to get on that wiki, and while I do not at all think ZP has reached any level of ‘good’ yet, I certainly don’t think it’s laughably bad.
Secondly, I’m sure every comic out there that has elements to nitpick has been brought up to talk about on the forums of that site. I’m sure there are people who can’t stand my comic and I’m sure those are the same people who even pay attention to a site like “bad webcomics wiki”
Kinda like Encyclopedia Dramatica, I understand why the site exists, in some aspects I think it’s hilarious. But I really don’t care what people who update on sites like that think of me and my work haha. I’m not gonna go read them.
Question: there was an over-exaggeration about the ownership issue, they didn't talk about it so much. there was some nitpicking, but what some people are saying is a genuine review that i think would be useful to at least take under minimum consideration. idk, i just think that only ever listening to the good isn't going to help, you seem mature enough to listen to all sides of your audience.
I don’t ever just listen to the good. I am already incredibly critical of my own comic, and I listen to the advice and the feedback of other creators who I feel have a better grasp of things then I do, and even a select few fans. If I focused on what every fan who doesn’t have a clear image of what my story is and is intended to be, then I’d just be constantly fixing and changing my story to try to please everyone, and it would stop being MY comic.
If people have advice on things that I don’t have full knowledge of, like how to portray a certain culture, or something like that, I’m beyond open to it.
But when it comes to story concepts, timing, writing, ext. It is my comic, I’ll take the advice i’m given by others, but I’m not going to go to a forum and read all the things people think I should do.
As you can see, what she says is actually fairly reasonable, besides the part where she implies she won't read the review because we're all a bunch of trolls.