Peter is the Wolf on the Bad Webcomics Wiki

[Happygun]

Not sure if this is old news (it didn't crop up on a search of the forums) but Peter is the Wolf has an entry on the . Not a flattering review, needless to say.

http://badwebcomicswiki.shoutwiki.com/w ... s_the_Wolf

[ThomasNewton12]

Oh, that really hasn't been mentioned yet? That's been there forever - remember wikis like that are a "let's all whine about things" forum. For example, other webcomics there include Cyanide and Happiness, VGcats, TwoKinds, Dominic Deegan, etc. Again, it's a "we have nothing better to do than whine about things on the Internet" situation.

[Ganthan]

I would still be plenty happy about a review like that simply because it'll bring in a few more readers. It's not like it's going to drive away people already reading it.

[bar1scorpio]

Oh knew about this one. Like it. They make a point to say we're not scum, just pervs. Early on.in their forums, they seemd to think it has a place their on principle, not on any particular lack quality. Just wish it were more quotable. We could b always use some text blurbs to go on the back of book 2.

[Podoboo]

Yeah, reading the article, it's pretty obvious they went into the comic with the intention for mining it for criticism, and there wasn't much they could come up with. They keep falling back to their misquote of "best blowjob ever" which lasted all of two, maybe three pages, not the unbearably long time they make it out to be. They deliberately ignore the cognitive differences between human Sarah and were-Sarah which are explained and shows why that particular moment of "therapeutic screwing" helped. They even blatantly contradict themselves by claiming she takes to were life with no trauma, and then later mention that some of the darker aspects of the comic include "Sarah's angst about her whole life being ruined," which clearly shows that it is an issue addressed in the comic.

They give half concession after half concession, and spin every single angle they can. They give Jean as an example of the overly blatant art style, though she's really more of an exception than a rule as to how the characters dress. Hell, given that it's a "porn comic" and Jean is the only incredibly slutty human, it's pretty good compared to other stuff. I get they're trying to stick PitW there "on principle" but when you have to twist information and ignore facts and make the worst of acceptable things, maybe you should reconsider whether or not your principles stand up.

[Ganthan]

This review isn't half as scathing as the one linked to at the bottom of the page: . This guy seems to just hate everything.

He calls the porn 'mind-shreddingly vile'. Now that's an ironic condemnation to make, given that it's boatloads tamer than some of Kris's other work out there.

He clearly hates furries with a passion and hurls insults at them throughout the review. I don't even consider Pitw a 'furry' comic because it's mostly humans who only 'go fuzzy' now and then. In fact he attacks the frequent transformations as well, claiming he can't keep track of characters. Sounds more like he's got a really shitty memory.

It's okay to not like things, but there's no need to be a about it.

[Podoboo]

That second one is actually pretty hilarious.

Sarah is just about the only character with a major physical disconnect between her forms. everyone else really just does look like a furrier version of themselves.

The two "spies" he showed, the first I believe is Sarah's dad, and the second is a joke about cryptozoologiss.

It was around the point when he linked to the "inconsistencies of human characters" to a page that really doesn't explain anything about the point he was trying to make that I stopped paying attention.

[bar1scorpio]

That's the point of a lot of these. (updating from phone again, pardon my spelling.) What I live about the Bad Webcomics Wiki one in particular is it's a literal m deforestation of Punch Clock Villainy. They have to tear into us; we're furries, it's porn. If nothing else, it'll drive he casual reader to comic on a lark.

[ThomasNewton12]

If we're making this a general PitW review thread, . Despite the name of site, the review actually seems mostly positive.