By what criteria do you generally judge if anime is good?
The direction? The animation? The voice acting? Soundstracks? The plot? The art style? How many cute girls it has?
Which is the most important factor and why?
How do you select shows at the beginning of each season to pick up?
The staff? The name of the studio? The art style? The premise? How many cute girls it has?
>By what criteria do you generally judge if anime is good?
If I like it.
>How do you select shows at the beginning of each season to pick up?
If it looks or sounds interesting and the staff involved doesn't have a consistently bad track record.
>The direction? The animation? The voice acting? Soundstracks? The plot? The art style?
>The staff? The name of the studio? The art style? The premise?
Pretty much, yeah.
Also, Rie a best.
I generally look first to the art style and quality, then the characters, then the soundtrack, then the plot. I've long since stopped caring about whether or not a show has a good progressive plot, if I find it fun, it's fun. But if the characters are annoying or badly written, I can't stand it.
>By what criteria do you generally judge if anime is good?
For me, every anime is good by default. It's certain elements that makes me consider it bad after watching them or makes me drop them.
See I primarily pick stuff up on the staff, the director and so on, the people in the important positions, then secondarily art style. I don't really care much about the premise or studio. Studios don't tell you half as much as many people think they do about how an anime will turn out as staff can if you pay attention and get to know people.
Direction, Characters and Story are at up most importance. If everything else is done well that is great but having a poor animation or soundtrack doesn't really effect the overall picture. SDF Macross has some of the worst animation of all time yet it is a brilliant show, Gundam 0080 has an awfully unfitting soundtrack yet it is one of the best in the franchise. Art style helps for modern anime, I don't usually pick up a show unless it has some kind of unique art direction.
Shows with bad animation can be enjoyable on the strength of the writing and direction but in my book they can never be among the truly best of shows for failing in one of the most important areas of anime. Also Macross isn't nearly the worst animated show of all time, it has some terrible scenes like the infamous knife fight sure though.
Animation is obviously the most important. That's literally what the medium is called. I don't see how anyone could think anything else to be more important.
In a visual medium, visuals are the most important. Everything after that is up to opinion, but visuals being the most important is unarguable.
If the characters and/or story is interesting enough, how well done or stylish the animation is doesn't matter as much to me as long as it's around passable. Characters usually come first since I can't care about an interesting story that happens to characters I don't give a shit about.
I'll also watch if I really like how a show looks. I thought Kyoukai no Kanata was forgettable and I liked maybe 2 characters out of the entire cast, but it was a pretty show to look at.
Like most things, i judge if an anime is good if i enjoyed it
All that other stuff you mentioned is just things reviewers say to rationalize if they enjoyed it or not. The truth is that a show can have crap everything but if you like it, then to you it's a good anime.
I think you are missing the point. If you reflect on the shows you like or dislike you can see what it is about them that made you like it unless you lack all self-awareness. The idea of enjoyment is not a black box which we cannot possibly understand it is easy enough to take a look at things you enjoy and see what traits that have that lead you to enjoy them.
Enjoyment mostly, I mean isn't that how it should be?
Enjoyment would include a lot of categories like animation characters story though.
>I mean how many people on /a/ could name their top ten directors and their top ten animators?
I think a decent amount could name their favorite directors. Most animators don't get enough rep here though other than a few popular ones.
>Most animators don't get enough rep here
I think that is because most people are like this guy
>animation is doesn't matter as much to me as long as it's around passable
As long as there isn't obvious QUALITY in a show most people won't even care or notice the difference between good and bad animation or be consciously observing it while watching.
I judge an entire show by the first 10 minutes of the first episode.
It's its fault for not catching my attention fast enough.
Sure but most people on /a/ are the type who say "this is a studio x show, therefore it will be like y". For example the number of people who were expecting Shirobako to be "P.A. Works melodramshit" despite the fact Mizushima has never worked on anything like that and the usual P.A. works writers were not part of the team. Or this season people talking about a "BONES ENDING" with regards to Kekkai Sensen because of how they percieve previous Bones shows to be despite niether the writer or director ever having worked at the studio before.
But it is a black box we cannot possibly understand. Sure there are traits and stuff like you say, but they don't always apply. Think about it, like if you say you like music, art, direction, animation, and voice acting in anime, then why is Guilty Crown considered bad?
That's like saying a sculpture or painting should be judged only by how technically skilled the artist is and difficult the piece is to create, or by how accurately it mimics life. This simply isn't true.
>But it is a black box we cannot possibly understand
Only if you completely lack self awareness.
>why is Guilty Crown considered bad?
Because it ranges between mediocre to awful with regards to all of those criteria.
At the moment, yes. I've been working on rigging up a device that consists of two electrodes placed on the penis in order to determine not just "erect/not erect" but the actual degree of rigidity through changes in electrical resistance.
It will connect to a computer and you can launch the measuring software at the same time as you start watching a show, and receive a detailed readout at the end to pinpoint exactly which parts of the show were the most boner-inducing.
Honestly if you cannot look at something you enjoyed retrospectively and establish what it was about it that made you enjoy it then you have some kind of problem. Sure you can't establish exactly what you will enjoy always from that but it is pretty clear once you have looked at this enough what you value most. It is easier to see in what you choose not to watch than what you choose to watch. You must think "those shows look bad because of X" and decide not to pick them up?
Yeah, and I disagree. Technical skill is only one aspect of a show. The quality of the animation itself could be superb, but a show can still be terrible if it's poorly directed or has a poor plot or characters. In saying that "animation is the most important" you imply that all other aspects are significantly less important.
You don't judge animation being good or bad by just "technical skill" though. You can appreciate it on that level yes but it is ultimately a tool for storytelling and different types of animation can be employed to different effect to tell different stories, some like hyper realistic Okiura animation would look stupid in and others super cartoony Imaishi animation would look stupid in.
If you want incredible plot and characters are what you're looking for then go read a book. Animation excels at doing what it's called, animation. Everything else is secondary because it's not what the medium is about.
Just look at Owari no Serpah this season. The writing and characters are atrocious, yet the visuals are fucking superb. Had it gone to a studio with no budget or talent, it wouldn't even be worth watching.
What's the point of judging quality instead of enjoyment?
For specific series I sure am able to say what I enjoy about them but generally it can be anything.
Any aspect of a show can be outstanding. I just don't have certain criteria a show has to meet
Well if we go by Sturgeon's Law, then 10% of books should have good plot and characters, and there are certainly many more books written then there are anime produced. So you're much more likely to get good characters and plot in that medium.
Jesus you could not be more retarded. Font is a visual thing you know? Are you really this stupid or is this just bait?
As far as I'm concerned if a story seems as if it was well thought out from start to finish on how it would be executed and any meanings/symbolism or foreshadowing to be hidden prior to actually writing the story then it's good.
Bleach isn't good because it clearly isn't written with an end in mind and any foreshadowing people in the threads find are so obscure you can't help but think they're coincidence at best.
Art and sound wise an anime/manga can be basically at best a 7 or 8 out of 10 without them, the better they are the better a rating the anime gets.
Animation is a given and any QUALITY is pretty much unacceptable for a studio. It depends on the budget though. Often I'm in awe at what can be produced at low budgets.
I come to /a/ and take a look at the threads in the catalog.
I pick up a show based on 1) how many threads there are, 2) how appealing the OP images look and 3) the comments.
If /a/nons unreservedly praise something, then it's probably better to wait it out and see how it develops.
On the other hand, if there's a lot of rage, autistic nitpicking, senseless questions and general shitposting, then it's definitely something worth checking out at least.
That's about it.
>You should be able to tell if a show will be good just from looking at the studio/staff and a few official arts, maybe a PV.
Yeah, about that.
An anime is good if it surprises me.
By this criteria, Samurai Flamenco is the best anime of the decade so far.
There are infinite factors that make an anime enjoyable. The most important I guess are the direction and writing, bringing everything together and executing it in an interesting way.
If I like it I like it. I'm uncritical of my enjoyment and that's why I enjoy.
First off, the art has to be good enough to draw me in. If the art or character designs look like ass, It's going to take a LOT to make me even give it the time of day. I'm not talking like modern anime art either, old stuff looks fantastic too.
Then it has to have an interesting enough catch with the preview/short description/anything else. If I don't like what I've seen/read/heard, I won't give it a shot.
Then comes voice acting. This is a major part of whether I like something or not. It has to fit the character, and most important of all, it has to not make me want to stab a pen in my ears.
A good opening goes a long way too. The soundtrack isn't as make or break as the above, but rather, a multiplier. Use the right music for the right scene, and it's amplified. Likewise if you have fucking dubstep over a moment meant to make you feel sad, you're not going to feel anything.
Animation is a similar multiplier. But not as important, as long as it's fluid.
And after I watch the an episode, if the next feeling that comes to me is, I want to watch the next, it's good. If I have to force myself to watch the next, it's shit.
Depends of the series, but mostly:
2. Overall atmosphere
4. Animation, music, other stuff
Good characters can make bad series watchable (i survived Tiger&Bunny just for Kotetesu).
Even the best graphic of epic music isn't going to compensate for lack of plot or crappy characters.
If i take a look at my absolute favorites through all time, it's usually boiled down to characters and character interactions. Good characters can save or ascend the anime from bad to okay or mediocre to great.
Second to that, art. And not just in a crisp style, i'd say Artstyle can really make anime like Tatami, Ping pong etc. stick out from the norm, which while not always good enough to save a series, makes it more memorable.
Music can also be used to really enforce scenes when used effectively.
>What's the point of judging quality instead of enjoyment?
Because you can enjoy things that are bad and you can not enjoy things that are good. You can also like things that you don't necessarily enjoy.
But you have the right idea at the core. You should find the things you are doing worthwhile, first and foremost.
Yes. I don't need to justify myself to anyone.
It just makes you sound like a brainless moron to be honest. It isn't about "justifying" yourself to people. Without being able to talk about why you enjoy something you can't even engage in so much as discussing things you like and finding others perspectives on that.
>If entertainment fulfills its purpose by entertaining me why should I consider it bad?
Fucking anything can be entertainment. I can pick apart bits of toilet paper and stick them on my face for entertainment. I can go watch my dog lick the floor for entertainment. Being entertaining is not difficult. Art has the power to be far, far more than simple entertainment, and we should expect it to be more than just entertainment.
You have to understand that these people are so utterly desperate to have their precious anime accpeted as an art form. Its like on /lit/ where they read for the prose instead of enjoyment.
>Fucking anything can be entertainment. I can pick apart bits of toilet paper and stick them on my face for entertainment. I can go watch my dog lick the floor for entertainment. Being entertaining is not difficult.
If that would entertain me as much as watching anime I wouldn't see the problem with doing those things instead.
>Being entertaining is not difficult
That depends on who you want to entertain.
I don't care much for voice acting, but if some of my favourites are voice acting in the show I definitely won't drop it.
Soundtrack doesn't really matter , but it certainly augments the experience if done well.
Like most of /a/ I don't know how to judge direction, but sometimes my enjoyment is affected when a scene plays out one way and I think that I would have done it differently and better. Sometimes when a show does have what could be considered poor, or at least idiosyncratic, direction, I do enjoy it a bit more. Mainly because it's amusing, intriguing and slightly awing to watch. I keep thinking "Why did the director do that?" or "Wow, I wouldn't have done it this way"
Art style genuinely doesn't matter for me, because only an autistic cunt or newfag would think the quality of a show lies in how "well-drawn" or "detailed" the art style is, or get put off by how something looks.
Animation, however, is a different question. Again, I'm not too autistic to obsess over small errors in how characters move or their proportions. What does bother me is unnecessary CGI or incredibly low amounts of inbetweens.
Cute girls don't matter either, I got over the waifu stuff a few hundred series in when I noticed they were basically just all the same archetypes but with different colours and designs.
It's incredibly hard to find an actual good, "well-written" plot in anime, so I've given up. Unless it's too painfully cliché or trite, I honestly don't care about how stupid the premise is or how much of a trainwreck it becomes.
But whether it's good or not depends on if I enjoyed it a lot.
As for airing shows, I just watch next seasons of shows I had seen before or shows that seem interesting. Usually I just pick shows that seem interesting from the title or the blurb, and occasionally just because a certain studio is doing it. If one of my favourite VAs are in it and I'm on the fence, I'll probably watch it anyway even if it's not good.
>Art style genuinely doesn't matter for me, because only an autistic cunt or newfag would think the quality of a show lies in how "well-drawn" or "detailed" the art style is, or get put off by how something looks.
Don't you think art style should match with the tone of the show though?
Generally, I'd say there's a baseline to be met for animation/artwork, and then plot. Unusually good direction, animation and art can make a show better, but most shows I enjoy or dislike on the strength of the writing.
>Well if we go by Sturgeon's Law, then 10% of books should have good plot and characters, and there are certainly many more books written then there are anime produced. So you're much more likely to get good characters and plot in that medium.
Holy shit, what? Ten percent is ten percent, you fucking mongoloid.
So, I enjoyed watching the first arc of Sword Art Online. I was fun. But I don't think it's good, and the fact that I enjoyed watching it doesn't make it good. I can articulate reasons why I don't think its good, even if I enjoyed watching it. The two are separated.
That's bullshit, unless you define "quality" as meeting some objective criteria you make up, in which case you're just changing the word and there's no objective reason to care about what meets those criteria.
If the story/direction are good I'll call it a good anime. If only the animation is good (or if it's good along with other things) I'll call it a good anime. If it gets the thing its going for right and rarely fucks up, I'll call it a good anime.
I feel I can acknowledge when an anime is good, even if I don't like it. Also, I like a lot of shit anime.
I would say you have a wrong definition of the word good.
Also, chances are you're just deluding yourself into thinking it's bad so that you don't have to defend your enjoyment of a thing.
Of course there's no utterly objective criteria. But there is a criteria by which one can assess the quality of something regardless. Otherwise there would be no consensus whatsoever about what things are good and what things are bad. Critics and people would all like things pretty much at random, and any opinions would be regarded as arbitrary. The fact that this isn't the case is evidence that there is some sort of criteria for quality.
If I can't defend the fact that I enjoyed it then it is bad.
That's my point. I have no reason to defend it because I don't think that it's good. The fact that I enjoyed it does not mean that its good. Hell, I can even explain why I enjoyed it, but that still doesn't make it any better.
Here's a slightly different question.
Do you rate anime after watching it? (whether you're some MAL-fag or not, do you put numbers next to shows once they're done?)
Assuming so, do you rate it based on what it does well or wrong? (As in start at 5 and give points for things it did right, or start at 10 and take points off)
I tend to like/enjoy most shows I watch, so I start at the top. Then if the story was full of plot holes, drop a point, Gary Stu main character, drop a point, quality animation, etc.
> Of course there's no utterly objective criteria. But there is a criteria by which one can assess the quality of something regardless. Otherwise there would be no consensus whatsoever about what things are good and what things are bad. Critics and people would all like things pretty much at random, and any opinions would be regarded as arbitrary
This can all be explained by the fact that people's minds work similarly combined with the development of a social consensus on what "good" means with respect to certain media.
Yeah, but if you view "good" in that way, those criteria are the total definition of the word - like, it doesn't mean anything that the thing is "good" except that it met a certain number of those criteria. You could just as easily define "hirbilkers" as meaning a show that met those criteria, and it would have just as much meaning. Assigning a word to it doesn't mean it makes any more sense for me to care which shows meet a random checklist.
I mostly look for the story (normally shit in this medium to be honest), direction (most is just 'competent') and characters (there are quite a good ones).
I also appreciate the animation/voice but to a lesser degree.
I rate things to improve my recs. I start in the middle, and then more-or-less arbitrarily add or subtract points depending on whether or not I enjoyed it.
4.5 I loved it.
3.5 - 4.0 really good.
Any less than that depends on how much it upset me. I don't usually give those just cause I drop most things I don't like.
I do. And it's a mixture of both. I generally give higher scores primarily for properly related themes, good characterization, and good writing. Pretty much everything else, such as art style, soundtrack, etc. has to support these things for me to consider them worth a higher score. A show loses points for being significantly flawed in any of these aspects in a way the negatively impacts the core strengths of the show. Random technical stuff comes after that, and I only take points off here if it's really bad.
That said, I also write short bits on why I feel the way I do about it. I also don't think my ratings are any sort of end all be all nor do I think they are objective. In many ways, its somewhat of just a ranking of my favorite shows.
Yes, this is how words work. I call a shoe a shoe because it meets a certain number of criteria that I consider to be a shoe. Words do not have intrinsic meanings, they have definitions.
Good writing, characterization, theming, etc, in general. But to actually pin down all of the things that I think can make something good would take far more time and effort than I am willing to invest into a post on this image board.
Yes, of course. But the criteria for a shoe are useful, because they generally help determine whether something can be worn on the foot and effectively serve the functions you attribute to a "shoe". Those for "good" are less so - I don't see why anyone would bother determining whether something was "objectively good," or why we'd have a thread discussing that.
Plus, most people attribute a sense other than just that list of criteria to "good" - something that is "good" is usually thought to be superior to other things, which is not true if we really think of "good" in an objective sense.
Fair enough. I've been speaking about things being "good" in far too platonic a fashion. That said, I still believe there are specific aspects that can make one thing better than another, and that they are not arbitrary.
Every anime should be judged differently. Some anime try to be funny, some try to be actiony, some try to be relaxing, etc. Anime can be appreciated for its artistic merit, even if it's not directly enjoyable in a "fun" sense. Some anime can be appreciated in a "so bad it's good" kind of way, too. Some anime can be appreciated just because it looks pretty. I find that keeping all of this in mind and having an open mind allows me to enjoy many different genres.
>people saying that because anime means "animation", that animation quality is the main factor in quality
Then why are you guys watching TV anime? Even the best of it is garbage on average compared to anime or international animated films or old OVAs.