S.F. Jude Terror wrote:
Well, while iPads are the majority of tablets and have a more square screen, most other tablets plus most modern smartphones all have the same "widescreen" screen ratio, I.E. if you turn them sideways into landscape mode, they are proportionally the same size (around 16:9, like an HD tv. So it would seem to make sense to format for this, as it would work well on phones, tablets, widescreen computer monitors, people viewing it on the browser on their playstation on their HD tv, etc.
the iPad, for whatever reason, has a 4:3 screen, like an old school television. You could letterbox it on this and it would look fine.
Or if you must design it for the iPad, then set up a mode that will letterbox it on other screens so that it is convenient to read.
Tablets are great for reading comics in a well designed reading program. This is not one of those.
The reason it would make sense to optimize it for these devices is because these devices are where people are purchasing apps that cost $1-$4 by the raping assload. Seems like the perfect place to sell digital comics.
Let's just agree the site is poorly designed and clunky!
I had this long-form review written about why everything is wrong with the new medium Waid and Quesada are so excited about (and erroneously assert is the same medium as print comics), and it was full of a lot of Marshall McLuhan and none of you would have wanted to read all that anyway. Suffice it to say, I found these new "innovations" to be cheap gimmicks, and I think they on some level incentivize clicking through the material quickly like the early video games that used the exact same model. The site itself is sort of obviously even to me not innovative, see: The Techno-Gospel According To Jude above. And if you want to capitalize on the digital medium and everything it is capable of, clunky motion comics ain't it. We have real animation now.
But when it comes to comics, I'll stick with the medium I like and trust the long-term viability of (and profit from as well as enjoy).
Now, the story itself. It's a What If Batman story to go with Waid's What If Superman story that recently wrapped up with a schmaltzy but undoubtedly heartfelt tribute to Siegel and Shuster, who the average non-Superman fan has probably never heard of. These deconstructions of superhero archetypes seem written exclusively for long-time comics readers to me, I can't imagine they would be likely to appeal to anyone outside that niche group. The same people who liked Irredeemable would like this if they read it, but how many people is that really? It all seemed pretty dull to me, and the artwork and color palettes were unsurprising and in the case of the background detail, underwhelming. Give us some depth! I think part of the reason it failed to truly provide an atmosphere for me as a reader though, other than the wide swaths of blue-green on either side of the screen often clashing with both the composition and the hues peripherally, is that contrary to what Waid promises with intent to Thrillbent, this just isn't a more-intimate or interactive way to read comics at all to me. It's distancing and too easy to become distracted from.
The story so far is typical Mark Waid and caters to an ever-shrinking demographic, the new way to read comics is inferior to the old way in part because too much of modern daily life is already spent mindlessly clicking through things on the internet and the experience of reading comics shouldn't be equivalent to that.
Unsure how to score this. I could score it on the story content alone or I could subtract points for the experience of reading it and end up in the negative numbers probably. Well, since it inspired me to read all my McLuhan again on the can..5