Webcomic Pet Peeves

[PatrickOfUnlifeStudios]

This topic is about what pisses you off in webcomics. It can be your own comic if you want, but I'm talking about when you're just surfing around, checking out new comics to read and you come across one that just makes you want to punch the creator. I find a lot of these in the ComicGenesis Signup Samples. Or perhaps a comic you've been reading for some time and the author suddenly does something different that irks you. Also, I'm talking about comic aesthetics, but if you want to bring in art and story, feel free.

Here are a few things that bother me:
- Image Size/Cropping
You expect me to like your comic when it's 1800 x 23400 pixels, 8MB, and mostly white space? On a side note, it also pisses me off when people draw comics on lined paper and leave the margins and notebook holes in. Actually, lined paper pisses me off in general.

- Word Bubble Placement
I can't follow the dialog if the word bubble I'm supposed to read first is placed on the bottom right corner of a panel and the last thing I'm supposed to read is on the top left of the same panel. I was guilty of this in my first few comics

- Lettering Size/Legibility
If you handwrite your words, please have legible handwriting! Furthermore, make sure its large enough to read. I'd rather not squint at a comic.

- POSER COMICS
Dear Lord, nothing offends my eyes more than comics made with Poser 3D characters and environments. I'm sorry to those who actually have Poser comics, but I just find them so very tacky. Even sprite comics are better.

I suppose I also hate it when a good comic dies. I can't really be angry at the author because he/she provided me with free entertainment. If the author wants to quit, it's totally up to him/her.

Any thoughts?

[KWill]

Highly irregular yet frequent updates. OOTS is a big offender here, particularly because I want to know what happens next...

[ShineDog]

Bad artists and writers who should really know better.

[TheSuburbanLetdown]

Comics that suck on purpose and the creator using that label as an excuse to hide their lack of talent.

[Hogan]

You come across a new interesting comic and the last strip & comment states.. ."Sorry for the long delay, but NOW we are back and will start updating again next Tuesday with new strips!" ... and then you notice that update was made in January 2002...

You provide your readers with free entertainment, and you don't owe them anything... except perhaps just keeping them informed about the statud of the comic... if its over, its over and you can say so... if you think you will eventually come back, just say so, but don't tell WHEN if you are not absolutely sure...

Most readers DO accept that real life can get in the ways of comicking and eventually bring a stop to it...

[Mon Ami]

Any sense of pretension on the authors' or readers' part.

[Kemmy]

*Pokes head into forum*

1) Comics that advertise M-W-F updates, then update sporadically, maybe once or twice a month. If you can only produce a comic once every fourteen days, say so, for crying out loud. Infrequent advertised updates are much less annoying than completely random unadvertised ones.

2) Decently drawn, well-scripted comics that are always accompanied by blurbs that read more or less as follows:

Wow, I suck! Sorry, guys; I tried to get the perspective right here, but I guess I'm just a lousy artist. I used a reference shot for panel three, but it's still made entirely of fail, and I didn't even bother with backgrounds for panels four and five. I hate all the white space, but I can't draw trees, as you all already know. Please try not to look at Cindy's hands in panel one. I apologise for this entire comic.

Look...sweetie...I'm reading your comic, aren't I? I like it enough to stick with it, even though you insult it in detail every goddamn day and draw my attention to stylistic deficiencies that I may not even have noticed without your comments. You are on the verge of driving me away from your comic. Just...draw it.

3) The art-quality-to-writing-quality-ratio crossover: i.e., comics that start out really poorly drawn but with decent writing, then evolve into well-drawn comics with sloppy writing, inconsistent storylines, and lazily maintained character arcs. I was probably first attracted to your writing; I gave the art a pass because I liked your story. I'm glad your art has improved, but competent drawing skills do not make it okay for you to neglect every other aspect of your comic, including its basic coherence.

Yes, I do have particular comics in mind here, but they will remain nameless. I would insult my own comic for a bit if not for #2 above. Today is not a good day for hypocrisy. Maybe tomorrow.

*Pokes head out of forum*

[McDuffies]

I hate lazy, sitcom-style humor. Like when someone says something but is instantly proven wrong. The most notorious type of this joke is that "At least it can't get any worse" but there are many other variations, like if someone said "Only an idiot would drink this drink" but then other character enters drinking exactly the same drink. Often used, never funny.

I also hate when stories that start as light fluff turn halfway into some "serious" "dramatic" stuff. Not because of change of the tone, but because fluffy comics are often absurdist and inconsistent, and later writer struggles to rationalise all the things from the beginning that don't fit into new vision and continuity, making overly long and improbable explanations and leaving big, gapping holes.

I, like SL, hate when people try to excuse crappiness of their comics by saying it out loud like it is going to do any better. Few days ago I was commenting elsewhere on forum that if you have to be stupid, at least be stupid honestly and all the way. If you think that it's important to stress "I'm not actually stupid, I'm just pretending", then what do you actually think about your readers? They're reading your stupid comic, but by god, you're not one of them.

My latest pet peevee is when people are openly worshiping their idols by heavily referencing them and adding tributes wherever they can. Specially if these idols are very predictable, like Mel Brooks, Douglas Adams or Monty Python - referencing any of them in your comic doesn't make your comic any better, and if you like some good comedy writers, doesn't mean that you are a good comedy writer too. I'd rather see something original. And I'm certaily not gonna say "Man, that Mel Brooks sounds interesting. How comes I've never heard of him?"

Here are a few things that bother me:
- Image Size/Cropping
You expect me to like your comic when it's 1800 x 23400 pixels, 8MB, and mostly white space? On a side note, it also pisses me off when people draw comics on lined paper and leave the margins and notebook holes in. Actually, lined paper pisses me off in general.

etc etc

Why do all those things bother you? It doesn't take actually reading the comic to notice all those things, you can exit the site at a first glance. Plus, comics with un-resized images and illegit font don't stayaround for very long because noone reads them.
What I don't like is comics that are actually promising but fall flat, or those that lure me into reading and then fall flat, or those that such but are immensely popular. In other words, comics that I can not avoid.

Any sense of pretension on the authors' or readers' part.

Surely you phrased it badly. There are a lot of pretentious authors who don't have enough skills to support that pretention, and comics that try to be phylosophical but end up being soapboxy, but what you say sounds like you hate any attempt of author to give his comic a subtext and make it more than just a brainless entertainment.

[PatrickOfUnlifeStudios]

Why do all those things bother you? It doesn't take actually reading the comic to notice all those things, you can exit the site at a first glance. Plus, comics with un-resized images and illegit font don't stayaround for very long because noone reads them.
What I don't like is comics that are actually promising but fall flat, or those that lure me into reading and then fall flat, or those that such but are immensely popular. In other words, comics that I can not avoid.

It's not that they stick around that bothers me, though I suppose that would. But like I said, sometimes I just browse for something new to read and when I come across something bad, it annoys me to think this person actually thought about making a series out of such a bad start. I mean, your first comic doesn't have to be a masterpiece. Mine certainly wasn't. I just think there are certain things you shouldn't do when making a comic.

[War]

Snoutface and talking heads.

[Mon Ami]

Any sense of pretension on the authors' or readers' part.

Surely you phrased it badly. There are a lot of pretentious authors who don't have enough skills to support that pretention, and comics that try to be phylosophical but end up being soapboxy, but what you say sounds like you hate any attempt of author to give his comic a subtext and make it more than just a brainless entertainment.

I was referring to this particular context:

pre·ten·tious
adj.

1. Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified.

That a bit more clear?

[Dr Neo Lao]

I only just recently noticed a new trend. Or at least it is to me, presumably everyone else here has been seeing it for years.

I started aggressively hunting for new comics by following links, looking for comics people talk about and looking at some of the "top-rated" comic listing sites.

I noticed that of the top ten, five were comics that were excellently drawn. I mean, absolutely gorgeous, fantastic artwork, like it was a professional studio production, or the author was laving weeks of attention on every page.

But the story sucks. It sucks beyond all reason. The pacing is ... incredibly ... ... agonis . in .. g ... ly ... ... ... ... s ... l ... o ... w.... ... ...

There are pages with five words on them and ten panels. I was reading one comic that had a hundred and twenty odd pages and by the time I reached the end NOTHING HAD HAPPENED. Literally, nothing. The characters had walked around and said bland pleasantries but that was about it. Oh, don't get me wrong, it was beautifully well drawn nothing and it was a very entertaining way of looking at something pretty that did nothing, meant nothing and contributed nothing. It's like a Paris Hilton version of the webcomic world, a Hilton comic.

I'm just amazed at how much effort people put into the look of their comics but neglected to have a reason for making it in the first place.

[McDuffies]

Good one, Neo.

[VinnieD]

I want to say comics that can't resolve anything and every time a resolution is near something new opens up and the old plotline goes forgotten until the creator needs something to bring back....then I realized I'm guilty myself. I think I owe Elf Life an apology now.

I'm just going to go with failing to update, especially when you still manage to post in your blog regularly and play and comment about video games, and yet never read your email. Yes I am talking about a certain comic regarding kitties and games of the video variety.

Clinging to a joke no one likes in hopes that if you repeat it enough times it will become funny. This goes for not just webcomics but comedy in general. Yes I am looking directly at you Garfield.

[Lei]

Personal inside jokes, references to sugar-overdosing, and general pre-teen-ish-ness.

[KWill]

I hate lazy, sitcom-style humor. Like when someone says something but is instantly proven wrong. The most notorious type of this joke is that "At least it can't get any worse" but there are many other variations, like if someone said "Only an idiot would drink this drink" but then other character enters drinking exactly the same drink. Often used, never funny.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry about those kinds of things happening to me in real life.

[Boozeathon4billion]

I can deal with some bad artwork and some shoddy writing now and again, but it really pisses me off when artists upload their stuff late, but date it for the supposed upload date. We know better, so just admit that you couldn't get it up on time and load it for Tuesday instead of Monday.

And although this isn't on the exact same track... it also irritates me when people diss a site/comic without actually giving critical feedback. There are whole sites dedicated to comic reviews and pointing out bad comics, but if you just rate or diss them without offering real feedback, it will just piss off the authors and their readers and nothing will change. It is also really irritating when those "critics" have never tried doing a comic in their life.

[RobertBlake]

I can deal with some bad artwork and some shoddy writing now and again, but it really pisses me off when artists upload their stuff late, but date it for the supposed upload date. We know better, so just admit that you couldn't get it up on time and load it for Tuesday instead of Monday.

I'll admit I was bad about this when I started webcomicking. I would say something like "I got yesterday's comic up so now I'll start on today's." I eventually went with a schedule I could manage, from six comics a week to three. Now I'm easily managing five comics a week and I someday want to do seven.

And although this isn't on the exact same track... it also irritates me when people diss a site/comic without actually giving critical feedback. There are whole sites dedicated to comic reviews and pointing out bad comics, but if you just rate or diss them without offering real feedback, it will just piss off the authors and their readers and nothing will change. It is also really irritating when those "critics" have never tried doing a comic in their life.

I'm on the receiving end of this sort of thing on a nearly daily basis. There's this joker (it's actually three people) whose life mission seems to be to insult my comic or try to get some kind of rise out of me, even going so far as to taking my comics and editing the text with random stupidity and claiming it a parody of my comic (which I quickly put an end to thanks to the advice and help from the peeps here at CG and another forum I frequent). It irritated the piss out of me at first, but now I've come to simply ignore them, deleting their idiocy from my shoutbox when need be.

[Jekkal]

And although this isn't on the exact same track... it also irritates me when people diss a site/comic without actually giving critical feedback. There are whole sites dedicated to comic reviews and pointing out bad comics, but if you just rate or diss them without offering real feedback, it will just piss off the authors and their readers and nothing will change. It is also really irritating when those "critics" have never tried doing a comic in their life.

I went for about the first six months of my comic getting jack in the way of support because everyone I tried to show it to in person went "Oh hell no, I ain't touching that furry shit!"

Fortunately, actual criticism at this point seems to have dwindled, although I think now it's a matter of getting actual exposure. Then again, my art's improved in the past several months to the point it's been classed a "style" and not merely a certain level of suck. (Though having an actual table at conventions now may be part of it...)

That said, I don't think you need to have a comic to criticize a comic. It helps in pointing out issues for improvement, but as an end-user, they still have wisdom to impart.

... hopefully.

[Yeahduff]

I dislike things of low quality.