I generally respond to criticism in a positive way and appreciate how most of the more critical reviews I've had for Steve 3 have been constructive and polite in tone. However, yours has managed to genuinely irritate me, so allow me to retort:

Your most recent cartoon is a visual abomination, done almost entirely in monochrome and being around 90% tweened, the other 10% comprising embarrassingly basic frame-by-frame. While you speak of my 'extremely unprofessional' colouring, you've barely used any yourself, despite the fact vibrant colour in certain scenes would have made an excellent contrast between the woman's past and her present. Yes, criticising your work purely because you've criticised mine is a cheap shot, but you come across like you're a master of animation when you can't even apply your criticisms to your own work.

Aside from this, I really cannot stand 'high and mighty' reviews, especially where you've said things like my cartoon is not worthy to be called animation, and that I should 'improve on these points, and you will receive higher reviews'. Oh thank you, master of the visual arts and Newgrounds extraordinaire! Before I had your excellent advice to guide me, I didn't realise that people responded well to improved animation!

Look, I appreciate that this cartoon is not perfect - I did in fact make a lengthy post on my website regarding my own criticisms of the episode, and have since been spending a lot of time reading Richard Williams' guides to animating and trying to learn loads of new techniques for future cartoons. However, there are ways to be critical that mean you don't come across like a hypocritical asshole - you use several throw-away insults when describing my animation and voice acting, essentially saying I can't do it and it doesn't work. Thanks, that's very constructive, and not remotely judgemental given the quality of your own work!

Improve on these points, and you will receive a positive response from me.

Thank you!

T.

1/10

1/10