No, according to him its interesting because : ...
OP: Its a different opinion about GW2...
Me: It might be different, but uninformed like the OP himself admits, so whats the point of linking it?
Its about the reason he finds it interesting. This is why most ppl respond to the OP. Stop missing the point please.
Again where in interesting does it say it has to be well-informed? Please try to understand my post. Im not bloody discussing the definition 'interesting'. If you want to discuss that, quote someone else. Stop trying to drag me into a discussion Im not interested in.
It's a different and interesting opinion. Nobody is denying, not even the OP, that it was uninformed. Which lead me to my question about his intention. But my question is apparently not valid, because you refuse to discuss it even after quoting me all the time.
The OP just said it was interesting and different, no other judgements given. Repeating for emphasis? A judgement doesnt have to be literally written down btw. I.e. passive agressiveness.
Why does this have to be questioned so deeply? It's just a random blog post. Are you really interested what drives me to question this? This is personal and should be put in post messages. But dont bother, I would not reply you.
Why are people attacking the OP or even the blogger over it? Why are people implying the OP had some sort of ulterior motive? Why do you think I know why others are attacking the OP? Ask someone else please.
No, according to him its interesting because : ...
OP: Its a different opinion about GW2...
Me: It might be different, but uninformed like the OP himself admits, so whats the point of linking it?
Its about the reason he finds it interesting. This is why most ppl respond to the OP. Stop missing the point please.
Again where in interesting does it say it has to be well-informed?
It's a different and interesting opinion. Nobody is denying, not even the OP, that it was uninformed.
The OP just said it was interesting and different, no other judgements given.
Why does this have to be questioned so deeply? It's just a random blog post.
Why are people attacking the OP or even the blogger over it? Why are people implying the OP had some sort of ulterior motive?
Again: it's just a random blog post.
Because people have obviously drank the A-net kool-aid. Who cares how it plays or feels? A-net told me otherwise...
He was quoting me, so I feel having to set this straight. I dont give a shit what others think of GW2. But its a different thing if they are not informed well and are spouting nonsense. That blog was nonsense. Which makes the opinion of the writer about GW2 useless. For this reason its useless to link if it is supposed to be only about ' shedding a different light' . Oh, and for Gobla, please try to find the context this time (Shedding a different light, as in a different wel informed opinion...not just a different opinion).
Now, that makes me question the motive of the OP for posting it.
Seriously though, she has no idea what she's talking about and it's pretty clear through out the entire post.
To me this looks like it didn't really matter what information she might have had prior. As she was obviously saying how it felt even in the face of the designer telling her something else. That's an impression on how it felt, which is a different thing than reading up on dev provided info. They can say they have no questing, but if it feels like you're questing, well you know.. a duck is a duck even if you want to call it a chicken.
The quote I'm referring to..
"And I don't care how many times this content designer told me "GW2 doesn't have quests." That personal story line looks and feels EXACTLY like questing. And to make things worse, those aren't shared with the people you group with. At character creation, you start branching along some story line. I guess if you play with a partner (like I do) you could create identical story lines so you could play together."
The rest of what she said was more or less voicing concerns about what she saw, again prior information is a moot point, they can say up and down how they want it to feel and perform, it's what players actually experience that matters.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Again where in interesting does it say it has to be well-informed? Please try to understand my post. Im not bloody discussing the definition 'interesting'. If you want to discuss that, quote someone else. Stop trying to drag me into a discussion Im not interested in.
It's a different and interesting opinion. Nobody is denying, not even the OP, that it was uninformed. Which lead me to my question about his intention. But my question is apparently not valid, because you refuse to discuss it even after quoting me all the time.
The OP just said it was interesting and different, no other judgements given. Repeating for emphasis? A judgement doesnt have to be literally written down btw. I.e. passive agressiveness.
Why does this have to be questioned so deeply? It's just a random blog post. Are you really interested what drives me to question this? This is personal and should be put in post messages. But dont bother, I would not reply you.
Why are people attacking the OP or even the blogger over it? Why are people implying the OP had some sort of ulterior motive? Why do you think I know why others are attacking the OP? Ask someone else please.
Again: it's just a random blog post.
Look dude, no need to get your panties in a twitch.
If I quote you on a public forum then obviously my reply isn't directed purely at you. If it was I would have, as you say, send you a PM.
You're implying that the OP has some ulterior motive in sharing that blog post. You're saying the OP is passive agressive. You're not going against any of the arguments. You're going against the person. You're attacking the OP.
I understand your post fine. You're trying to discredit the OP not by attacking his/her post itself or even the blog linked but by implying an ulterior motive in posting and suggesting passive agressiveness in the poster.
I don't care if you're interested in this discussion, if you're not then don't reply. Simple as that. But I am interested in sharing my opinion about you, and others, attacking not the post but the poster.
Is it a major deal? Of course not, this is a random forum. Who cares really what's happening here. But I'll still post my piece of mind when you attack the poster and not the post. Simple as that.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
He was quoting me, so I feel having to set this straight. I dont give a shit what others think of GW2. But its a different thing if they are not informed well and are spouting nonsense. That blog was nonsense. Which makes the opinion of the writer about GW2 useless. For this reason its useless to link if it is supposed to be only about ' shedding a different light' . Oh, and for Gobla, please try to find the context this time (Shedding a different light, as in a different wel informed opinion...not just a different opinion).
Now, that makes me question the motive of the OP for posting it.
Then maybe next time don't question the motive of the OP but the actual blog post linked?
Discredit the arguments. Not the poster.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
Fair enough, lets see how "misinformed" she is about the game.
She states the DE felt like the rift events. This is a personal feeling when she played them, Wether they are or not is difficult to tell without playing them, either way this is how she views them.
She states the personal storyline feels exactly like a quest to her. Again an opinoin based on the game. The only part she may be misinformed on is that other people can join the quest. Assuming again that we are sure this is possible. I guess we only have devs at this point to look to for that. Unless a gamescom or something can confirm this.
Do skills work on global CD? i dunno, do we have a post where it says they don't?
She liked the fight on thing (or whatever it's called) I guess that was misinformation as well. Unless thats in game?
She had an issue with the character movement. This is entirely possible with a unfinished game good knows SW;ToR had this problem in it's early development stages as well so it's not impossible that could happen here as well.
No cosmetic system aka appearance tab, does it have an appearace tab? with talk of allowing you to change gear via an item to make it look like something else i don't see it, could have easily missed it though
First one was an opinion based on what she saw
Second may be true it may not. I certainly don't know for certain. She seems to think so though
Third, the skills could go one way or another unless theres a link, which has yet to be provided to counter it.
Fourth one seems ot be correct,
Fifth one could entirely be possible
Unless theres an appearance tab the last one is also correct.
Seems to me shes got a pretty decent grasp of the game so far. Some of it's opinoin naturally but unless theres some written proof i got the feeling thats how the game generally is. Granted DE are most likely more involved then Rift's rift but you still go to an area, fight the mosters in that area till the next stage triggers. It has a few more changes depending on how well you accomplish the task such as theres a full on victory, mostly victorious, somewhat victorious and total failure where as in rift your only completely success for fail completely. However from what i understand it still plays out like DE do. You go into an area where something is going on and you fight in that area till a requirement is met.
She may be wrong in one or two areas i don't know. I don't follow the game as closely as others, but she didn't really say the game was bad, just that she prefered Lotro over GW2, but would need more then 40 mins of time to tell for certain.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
The review was interesting because it was funny at best, I'll give you that.
But let's break it down shall we?
It seems like Rift got a jump on GW2. The GW2 events felt very much like Rift - although the content designer I talked to said the GW2 system is more fixed in size, scale and location. Similar approach to "grouping," as in, GW2 doesn't even require the public groups. Kills are shared, xp is shared, loot is shared. All you have to do is hit it - which makes me a little concerned about slackers/griefers.
Obviously this lady has no idea what she is talking about; 1 and 1500. These are the different events in Rift and GW2 respectively (actually the 1500 figure was from last year so they probably have even more now). I wouldn't call Rift's dynamic events anything more than dynamic grinding since they only spawn mobs, ok they have tentacles above their heads which somehow turns them into dynamic events? Are you kidding me? Secondly, there is a reason why GW2 does not necessarily require grouping for the small events and it's simple. There are NO other quests to do besides the storyline. So they have to make some doable for even just one person. Say you make a new character 1 year post release and find yourself alone in the start, how are you supposed to progress? This is common sense. Concerning his comment about slacking, ArenaNet has explained a thousand times that it is based on contribution, which again proves she has absolutely no information on the game even after playing it.
And I don't care how many times this content designer told me "GW2 doesn't have quests." That personal story line looks and feels EXACTLY like questing. And to make things worse, those aren't shared with the people you group with. At character creation, you start branching along some story line. I guess if you play with a partner (like I do) you could create identical story lines so you could play together.
Yes, let's beat a dead horse here some more. The developers said they have no quests other than the presonal storyline. She hangs from a statement some dev said which is not false at all
Skills have a global cooldown, like Rift. My Warrior chick had a skill that looked EXACTLY like the animation used for Rift's Bullrush charge. I had a nice self-heal, very spammable, and the health meter is a circle instead of a bar.
She is, not surprisingly, wrong again. Skills don't have a global cooldown, it all depends on how fast the skill's animation ends so you can begin your next one. She didn't even realise that even after playing the demo. Next on, some weird statement about Rift's warrior charge, I have no idea what skill of GW2 she is talking about here and wouldn't be shocked if she is wrong.
The Fight On or whatever they called it was really cool - if you are dying you are given a "last chance" and if you succeed you get invulnerability! That was very cool. The moose that zoned into a rock and back out again, and then dropped a sword that was a definite upgrade, was not so cool. Made me very concerned about itemization and loot.
I suppose here she is talking about the first "important" encounter she stamped upon which is the rock boss (the last step of a dynamic event after you kill some centaurs and cross a small bridge, most people who have been following GW2 have probably seen that one on a video), it dropped a nice upgrade which was inevitable since she was low level and this somehow turned into bad itemization. No further comments.
Lovely to look at. My character was very pretty. However, the run animation was really bad - she looked like she had a tummyache, all bent over. GW2 has no mounts and relies on class-based run speed buffs. Swift travel is via the map to rally points. Death penalty is money - even in the tutorial, dying cost me 8 copper.
The run animation isn't bad, however, when the character is strafing it feels a bit like he is floating, also some bad pathing is present as shown in the Lion Arch's video, a matter of polishing if you ask me.
No cosmetic system. When oh when will these mmo's learn? GW2 allows you to keep the look of a particular piece of gear, but it is not slotted as a separate cosmetic. The armour has multiple dye areas which was really nice. Unfortunately, the starting armour for my Norn Warrior chick looked remarkably like the new LotRO captain set.
The cosmetic and appearance system in GW2 is remarkable I would say, you can dye your armor and change the appearance of your armor and your weapon to another item's appearance (I should add that most MMOs don't allow for appearance change of a weapon). Apparently, ArenaNet copied Lotro when it comes to the Norn Warrior starting armor, right Clarysta?
I'll try it again in beta, when I can play for more than 40 minutes. It may be that Rift will be on a 2nd or 3rd update by then, which would probably put Rift ahead of GW2. Right now, GW2 = Rift < LotRO.
I should probably not say something against that statement, apparently she hasn't played anything other than these MMOs, which is obvious since she keeps comparing everything and anything to her beloved Lotro.
I don't immidiately disqualify a negative review, but one that spouts misinformation is up for massive bashing from my part and I don't consider myself a definite fan of GW2.
Again where in interesting does it say it has to be well-informed? Please try to understand my post. Im not bloody discussing the definition 'interesting'. If you want to discuss that, quote someone else. Stop trying to drag me into a discussion Im not interested in.
It's a different and interesting opinion. Nobody is denying, not even the OP, that it was uninformed. Which lead me to my question about his intention. But my question is apparently not valid, because you refuse to discuss it even after quoting me all the time.
The OP just said it was interesting and different, no other judgements given. Repeating for emphasis? A judgement doesnt have to be literally written down btw. I.e. passive agressiveness.
Why does this have to be questioned so deeply? It's just a random blog post. Are you really interested what drives me to question this? This is personal and should be put in post messages. But dont bother, I would not reply you.
Why are people attacking the OP or even the blogger over it? Why are people implying the OP had some sort of ulterior motive? Why do you think I know why others are attacking the OP? Ask someone else please.
Again: it's just a random blog post.
Look dude, no need to get your panties in a twitch.
If I quote you on a public forum then obviously my reply isn't directed purely at you. If it was I would have, as you say, send you a PM.
You're implying that the OP has some ulterior motive in sharing that blog post. You're saying the OP is passive agressive. You're not going against any of the arguments. You're going against the person. You're attacking the OP.
I understand your post fine. You're trying to discredit the OP not by attacking his/her post itself or even the blog linked but by implying an ulterior motive in posting and suggesting passive agressiveness in the poster.
I don't care if you're interested in this discussion, if you're not then don't reply. Simple as that. But I am interested in sharing my opinion about you, and others, attacking not the post but the poster.
Is it a major deal? Of course not, this is a random forum. Who cares really what's happening here. But I'll still post my piece of mind when you attack the poster and not the post. Simple as that.
No you first try to start a semantics discussion about the word 'interesting' and completely missed my point.
Underlined part makes me wonder if you even read my original reply (the one you quoted) to the OP's second post , not to mention that you are contradicting yourself. This shows me that you are uninformed too But in this case, about my posts. I did exactly that what you claim I didn't do.
Anyone who tries to be objective about a game doesnt post uninformed negative opinions into that game's forum.
And you, you just like to fight with other posters.
Not to discredit the OP (who must surely be rolling in "social credit" on these forums due to links provided/topics started)
But I'd retitle HER blog: "Uncritical ""first impressions"" of GW2".
Impression is more accurate than review! And uncritical because it's hard to understand if eg she means "Personal Stories felt like quests to me" is they felt like quests in other mmos or they felt like quests in single-player RPGs to me. The first is a bad thing (quests in mmos are very low on story and setting) and the second is actually how they should feel with cut scene chatter and char development and forking decisions and changing environs etc. They are still quests but are they really giving a feeling of just being standard quests in other mmos that need to be ticked off the list? It's hard to really know what she is talking about and what she experienced/expected from PS. Is the underlying combat kill these move on what felt same old same old?
She notes that ArenaNet said they have moved on from quests but these felt the same. Is she aware PS -> rpg, DE -> multiplayer is effectively why ArenaNet say they don't use the quest mechanic? It's still themepark stuff but in what context? It's too nebulous; I don't enjoy quests but I still do not know if I will enjoy PSs from reading this if that's all I know except that they are instanced... so why are they instanced would be the next q?
Basically, this is just another low quality critique if you are looking for one on GW2 and the most interesting thing by default is that this is another example of the dearth of good quality critique/criticism of GW2. She's possibly got a useful impression on the running animation as other have said similar things. : )
He was quoting me, so I feel having to set this straight. I dont give a shit what others think of GW2. But its a different thing if they are not informed well and are spouting nonsense. That blog was nonsense. Which makes the opinion of the writer about GW2 useless. For this reason its useless to link if it is supposed to be only about ' shedding a different light' . Oh, and for Gobla, please try to find the context this time (Shedding a different light, as in a different wel informed opinion...not just a different opinion).
Now, that makes me question the motive of the OP for posting it.
Then maybe next time don't question the motive of the OP but the actual blog post linked?
Discredit the arguments. Not the poster.
I bloody did in my original OP's quote. Its in the post where you first quoted me. That and the fact that the OP admitted it, was the main reason for me to question his motives. And who are you to tell someone else what is allowed to be posted about?
You do this in almost every thread I see you post. You ignore/forget what has been written in other posts you quoted.
No you first try to start a semantics discussion about the word 'interesting' and completely missed my point.
Underlined part makes me wonder if you even read my original reply (the one you quoted) to the OP's second post , not to mention that you are contradicting yourself. This shows me that you are uninformed too But in this case, about my posts. I did exactly that what you claim I didn't do.
Anyone who tries to be objective about a game doesnt post uninformed negative opinions into that game's forum.
And you, you just like to fight with other posters.
Read it again to see if I'm contradicting myself:
not by attacking his/her post itself or even the blog linked but by implying an ulterior motive in posting and suggesting passive agressiveness in the poster.
attacking not the post but the poster.
They say the exact same thing. No contradiction.
And my point about the definition of 'interesting' was that it says nowhere that an interesting post has to be an informed post. There's absolutely nothing wrong with posting uninformed information as long as you accept new information when it comes along. Yet you and others are questioning the OP for sharing a simple link? Really?
Anyone who tries to be objective accepts new information as it comes along. Objective does not equal all-knowing. The GW2 forums aren't a special club where you can only post after reading at least 200 pages of GW2 information and watching over 100 hours of videos. Anyone can post as long as discussions stay civil. Civil meaning you don't start attacking the person but keep to his arguments.
And yes, I enjoy arguing with people who attack the person and not his/her arguments.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
I bloody did in my original OP's quote. Its in the post where you first quoted me. That and the fact that the OP admitted it, was the main reason for me to question his motives. And who are you to tell someone else what is allowed to be posted about?
You do this in almost every thread I see you post. You ignore/forget what has been written in other posts you quoted.
And did I raise any objections to you questioning the blog post? No.
Did I raise objections to you questioning the OP's motives? Yes.
Just because you did one thing right doesn't make the other less wrong. You don't attack the poster, You don't start questioning his motives just because it's something you don't agree with and find uninformed.
And I'm a random forum poster. I share what opinions I want. Just like I can't tell you what to post, you can't tell me what to post. That right is reserved to the mods. My opinion is that you should keep to the arguments, not the person. Simple as that.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
No you first try to start a semantics discussion about the word 'interesting' and completely missed my point.
Underlined part makes me wonder if you even read my original reply (the one you quoted) to the OP's second post , not to mention that you are contradicting yourself. This shows me that you are uninformed too But in this case, about my posts. I did exactly that what you claim I didn't do.
Anyone who tries to be objective about a game doesnt post uninformed negative opinions into that game's forum.
And you, you just like to fight with other posters.
Read it again to see if I'm contradicting myself:
not by attacking his/her post itself or even the blog linked but by implying an ulterior motive in posting and suggesting passive agressiveness in the poster.
attacking not the post but the poster.
They say the exact same thing. No contradiction.
And my point about the definition of 'interesting' was that it says nowhere that an interesting post has to be an informed post. There's absolutely nothing wrong with posting uninformed information as long as you accept new information when it comes along. Yet you and others are questioning the OP for sharing a simple link? Really?
Anyone who tries to be objective accepts new information as it comes along. Objective does not equal all-knowing. The GW2 forums aren't a special club where you can only post after reading at least 200 pages of GW2 information and watching over 100 hours of videos. Anyone can post as long as discussions stay civil. Civil meaning you don't start attacking the person but keep to his arguments.
And yes, I enjoy arguing with people who attack the person and not his/her arguments.
Oh , we are back at the beginning of the cycle. Hooray:/ And yes, you are right about that not being a contradiction. Its still wrong though. Or do you still think I only attacked the OP without reasoning and ignored the blog?
Again, the OP himself said that the blogger was misinformed. He still didnt invalidate that blog after that. So, thats why I started to question his motive using reasoning. I leave room here to be wrong, you realise that right? I dont claim it, I question it.
I never was uncivil to the OP. I was to that idiot blogger though and to you.
I dont think GW2 forums is special either. I would've posted this in any game's forum. Provided I was informed enough about the game of course.
Fair enough, lets see how "misinformed" she is about the game.
She states the DE felt like the rift events. This is a personal feeling when she played them, Wether they are or not is difficult to tell without playing them, either way this is how she views them.
Yes that is her view and that is all well and good.
She states the personal storyline feels exactly like a quest to her. Again an opinoin based on the game. The only part she may be misinformed on is that other people can join the quest. Assuming again that we are sure this is possible. I guess we only have devs at this point to look to for that. Unless a gamescom or something can confirm this.
It is possible to join other people's Personal Storyline quests, it has been said on many occassions.
Do skills work on global CD? i dunno, do we have a post where it says they don't?
They do not have a global cooldown, GW1 never had one, GW2 doesn't have one either. If they did, we would already know about it because A LOT of people have played GW2.
She liked the fight on thing (or whatever it's called) I guess that was misinformation as well. Unless thats in game?
"Downed State" not misinformation but the part where you go invulnerable is wrong. The only time you can do that is when you use a particular skill and that skill is only available to the Elementalist.
She had an issue with the character movement. This is entirely possible with a unfinished game good knows SW;ToR had this problem in it's early development stages as well so it's not impossible that could happen here as well.
The hunched walking stance, like someone said in the comments on her blog, is created by you having your weapon out although it could also be bad running animations, don't know, would have to see her playthrough to know about that.
No cosmetic system aka appearance tab, does it have an appearace tab? with talk of allowing you to change gear via an item to make it look like something else i don't see it, could have easily missed it though
There is no appearance tab, just the extensive colour customization for your armour. The town clothes or the transmutation stones could be something she you might liken to the Appearance tab but as of right now, there's nothing like that.
Oh , we are back at the beginning of the cycle. Hooray:/ And yes, you are right about that not being a contradiction. Its still wrong though. Or do you still think I only attacked the OP without reasoning and ignored the blog?
Again, the OP himself said that the blogger was misinformed. He still didnt invalidate that blog after that. So, thats why I started to question his motive using reasoning. I leave room here to be wrong, you realise that right? I dont claim it, I question it.
I never was uncivil to the OP. I was to that idiot blogger though and to you.
I dont think GW2 forums is special either. I would've posted this in any game's forum. Provided I was informed enough about the game of course.
You left room to be wrong yet you keep on replying to me when I tell you that I think you are in fact wrong for implying ulterior motives.
You admit yourself now that you attacked the OP which I think is wrong. I don't care how well your reasoning about the blog was before that. You attack only the arguments and never the person. If you attack a dozen arguments with the most flawless logic and then add a single attack to the poster then that attack is still wrong.
And I think that implying ulterior motives and suggesting passive agressiveness, as you did in a later post, is uncivil.
And you yourself admit to being uncivil to both the 'idiot' blogger and myself, which I again think is wrong.
So here I am, possibly futily, criticizing your unprofessional and uncivil behaviour.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
I bloody did in my original OP's quote. Its in the post where you first quoted me. That and the fact that the OP admitted it, was the main reason for me to question his motives. And who are you to tell someone else what is allowed to be posted about?
You do this in almost every thread I see you post. You ignore/forget what has been written in other posts you quoted.
And did I raise any objections to you questioning the blog post? No.
No, you didn't. Instead you wrote : You're trying to discredit the OP not by attacking his/her post itself or even the blog linked but . Telling that I didnt even attack his post or the blog at all.
Did I raise objections to you questioning the OP's motives? Yes.
Just because you did one thing right doesn't make the other less wrong. You don't attack the poster, You don't start questioning his motives just because it's something you don't agree with and find uninformed.
I dont think it is wrong in some occasions. But discussing this would be a topic for a seperate thread.
And I'm a random forum poster. I share what opinions I want. Just like I can't tell you what to post, you can't tell me what to post. That right is reserved to the mods. My opinion is that you should keep to the arguments, not the person. Simple as that.
You are not a mod? Then stop policing this thread. ' You don't attack the poster, You don't start questioning his motives just because it's something you don't agree with and find uninformed.'
I bloody did in my original OP's quote. Its in the post where you first quoted me. That and the fact that the OP admitted it, was the main reason for me to question his motives. And who are you to tell someone else what is allowed to be posted about?
You do this in almost every thread I see you post. You ignore/forget what has been written in other posts you quoted.
And did I raise any objections to you questioning the blog post? No.
Did I raise objections to you questioning the OP's motives? Yes.
Just because you did one thing right doesn't make the other less wrong. You don't attack the poster, You don't start questioning his motives just because it's something you don't agree with and find uninformed.
And I'm a random forum poster. I share what opinions I want. Just like I can't tell you what to post, you can't tell me what to post. That right is reserved to the mods. My opinion is that you should keep to the arguments, not the person. Simple as that.
I agree with this guy... the gobla dude.
He typically posts in an effort to seee things in a different light or "between the lines", but in this case he is 100% right.
What we have here is people getting defensive because of a comment they made about a comment. Instead of acting hurt and defensive, wouldn't life be better if you just said "Granted, BUT" instead of "NUH UH".
Here is how i've read this thread:
People are attacking the motives of the blog, rightfully so.
The Blog = the OP's motives in some peoples eyes. I find this wrong.
Gobla comes along and says, "I think he was just sharing the blog post with us". Gobla proceeded to defend his stance.
Everyone else says, "HE CLEARLY HAS ULTERIOR MOTIVES".
Gobla says, "Maybe he just found it interesting that the blogger comes from the stance that he comes from."
Everyone else, "Residual heat from other forum posts is making me a bit cranky towards you, Gobla".
So you see, really we are arguing... just to argue. How about we get back to disassembling the blog post? That looks like a better topic to read in my eyes.
People think it's fun to pretend your a monster. Me I spend my life pretending I'm not. - Dexter Morgan
Oh , we are back at the beginning of the cycle. Hooray:/ And yes, you are right about that not being a contradiction. Its still wrong though. Or do you still think I only attacked the OP without reasoning and ignored the blog?
Again, the OP himself said that the blogger was misinformed. He still didnt invalidate that blog after that. So, thats why I started to question his motive using reasoning. I leave room here to be wrong, you realise that right? I dont claim it, I question it.
I never was uncivil to the OP. I was to that idiot blogger though and to you.
I dont think GW2 forums is special either. I would've posted this in any game's forum. Provided I was informed enough about the game of course.
You left room to be wrong yet you keep on replying to me when I tell you that I think you are in fact wrong for implying ulterior motives.
Just writing 'fact' doesn't mean you actually brought a fact to the table.
You admit yourself now that you attacked the OP which I think is wrong. I don't care how well your reasoning about the blog was before that. You attack only the arguments and never the person. If you attack a dozen arguments with the most flawless logic and then add a single attack to the poster then that attack is still wrong.
It was all argument and not baseless attack. This : 'You admit yourself now that you attacked the OP' is utter bullshit. I didn't admit this at all.
And I think that implying ulterior motives and suggesting passive agressiveness, as you did in a later post, is uncivil.
Oh right. The passive agressiveness was just an example to illustrate a point for you btw. I never claimed that the OP was showing that. I only questioned his motive, I never claimed anything about that.
And you yourself admit to being uncivil to both the 'idiot' blogger and myself, which I again think is wrong.
Throwing the first stone are we? Or did I 'get my panties in a bunch again, dude? 'Hypocrite.
So here I am, possibly futily, criticizing your unprofessional and uncivil behaviour.
Yeah. Policing the thread in a very professional and civil way. Like the mods asked you to.
Oh , we are back at the beginning of the cycle. Hooray:/ And yes, you are right about that not being a contradiction. Its still wrong though. Or do you still think I only attacked the OP without reasoning and ignored the blog?
Again, the OP himself said that the blogger was misinformed. He still didnt invalidate that blog after that. So, thats why I started to question his motive using reasoning. I leave room here to be wrong, you realise that right? I dont claim it, I question it.
I never was uncivil to the OP. I was to that idiot blogger though and to you.
I dont think GW2 forums is special either. I would've posted this in any game's forum. Provided I was informed enough about the game of course.
You left room to be wrong yet you keep on replying to me when I tell you that I think you are in fact wrong for implying ulterior motives.
Just writing 'fact' doesn't mean you actually brought a fact to the table.
You admit yourself now that you attacked the OP which I think is wrong. I don't care how well your reasoning about the blog was before that. You attack only the arguments and never the person. If you attack a dozen arguments with the most flawless logic and then add a single attack to the poster then that attack is still wrong.
It was all argument and not baseless attack. This : 'You admit yourself now that you attacked the OP' is utter bullshit. I didn't admit this at all.
And I think that implying ulterior motives and suggesting passive agressiveness, as you did in a later post, is uncivil.
Oh right. The passive agressiveness was just an example to illustrate a point for you btw. I never claimed that the OP was showing that. I only questioned his motive, I never claimed anything about that.
And you yourself admit to being uncivil to both the 'idiot' blogger and myself, which I again think is wrong.
Throwing the first stone are we? Or did I 'get my panties in a bunch again, dude? 'Hypocrite.
So here I am, possibly futily, criticizing your unprofessional and uncivil behaviour.
Yeah. Policing the thread in a very professional and civil way. Like the mods asked you to.
Read the orange parts of your post again...... (ulterior: "Lying beyond what is evident, revealed, or avowed, especially being concealed intentionally so as to deceive: an ulterior motive.") You're claiming that the OP is claiming one motive (interesting and different post) but seems to really be having a different one.
And of course, you're in no way or form suggesting passive agressiveness here (suggesting: "To make evident indirectly; intimate or imply")
Originally posted by someforumguy
The OP just said it was interesting and different, no other judgements given. Repeating for emphasis? A judgement doesnt have to be literally written down btw. I.e. passive agressiveness.
Getting your panties in a bunch is a common phrase used when someone is overreacting, as I think you are by feeling horribly insulted by me. But if you're really feeling that badly insulted then I apologize for that, it's not my intention to insult you. It's merely my intention to criticize you.
And as I said before, if I want to criticize your posts then it's my freedom to do so. I don't need the mods or your permission to do so.
But I think we (yes we, you replied as much to me as I to you) have taken this thread off-topic more then enough. I suggest we call an end to it or continue it in PM if you feel the need to do so.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
It's old i know but i figure might as well get a different perspective then GW2 is awsome all the time
Take what you will from it.
Shattered Steel 1996
Baldur's Gate 1998
Baldur's Gate: Tales of the Sword Coast 1999
MDK2 2000
Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn 2000
Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal 2001
Neverwinter Nights 2002
Neverwinter Nights: Shadows of Undrentide 2003
Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark 2003
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 2003
Jade Empire 2005
Mass Effect 2007
Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood 2008
Mass Effect Galaxy 2009
Dragon Age: Origins 2009
Mass Effect 2 2010
Dragon Age: Origins – Awakening 2010
Dragon Age II 2011
I kind of figured that someone who isn't looking at the game all teary eyed would say it gives off a Rift/WoW vibe. Every video I have watched gives me the same feeling, but there is still some time for it to find it's own unique aspect that separates it from the rest.
Oh , we are back at the beginning of the cycle. Hooray:/ And yes, you are right about that not being a contradiction. Its still wrong though. Or do you still think I only attacked the OP without reasoning and ignored the blog?
Again, the OP himself said that the blogger was misinformed. He still didnt invalidate that blog after that. So, thats why I started to question his motive using reasoning. I leave room here to be wrong, you realise that right? I dont claim it, I question it.
I never was uncivil to the OP. I was to that idiot blogger though and to you.
I dont think GW2 forums is special either. I would've posted this in any game's forum. Provided I was informed enough about the game of course.
You left room to be wrong yet you keep on replying to me when I tell you that I think you are in fact wrong for implying ulterior motives.
Just writing 'fact' doesn't mean you actually brought a fact to the table.
You admit yourself now that you attacked the OP which I think is wrong. I don't care how well your reasoning about the blog was before that. You attack only the arguments and never the person. If you attack a dozen arguments with the most flawless logic and then add a single attack to the poster then that attack is still wrong.
It was all argument and not baseless attack. This : 'You admit yourself now that you attacked the OP' is utter bullshit. I didn't admit this at all.
And I think that implying ulterior motives and suggesting passive agressiveness, as you did in a later post, is uncivil.
Oh right. The passive agressiveness was just an example to illustrate a point for you btw. I never claimed that the OP was showing that. I only questioned his motive, I never claimed anything about that.
And you yourself admit to being uncivil to both the 'idiot' blogger and myself, which I again think is wrong.
Throwing the first stone are we? Or did I 'get my panties in a bunch again, dude? 'Hypocrite.
So here I am, possibly futily, criticizing your unprofessional and uncivil behaviour.
Yeah. Policing the thread in a very professional and civil way. Like the mods asked you to.
Read the orange parts of your post again...... (ulterior: "Lying beyond what is evident, revealed, or avowed, especially being concealed intentionally so as to deceive: an ulterior motive.") You're claiming that the OP is claiming one motive (interesting and different post) but seems to really be having a different one.
And of course, you're in no way or form suggesting passive agressiveness here (suggesting: "To make evident indirectly; intimate or imply")
Originally posted by someforumguy
The OP just said it was interesting and different, no other judgements given. Repeating for emphasis? A judgement doesnt have to be literally written down btw. I.e. passive agressiveness.
Getting your panties in a bunch is a common phrase used when someone is overreacting, as I think you are by feeling horribly insulted by me. But if you're really feeling that badly insulted then I apologize for that, it's not my intention to insult you. It's merely my intention to criticize you.
And as I said before, if I want to criticize your posts then it's my freedom to do so. I don't need the mods or your permission to do so.
But I think we (yes we, you replied as much to me as I to you) have taken this thread off-topic more then enough. I suggest we call an end to it or continue it in PM if you feel the need to do so.
That remark read like an insult or at least read as condescending (especially with the 'dude' on the end), but my first language isn't English so I'll give you the benefit of doubt.
I wont go into the rest, because I agree that we should stop.
Comments
Again where in interesting does it say it has to be well-informed?
It's a different and interesting opinion. Nobody is denying, not even the OP, that it was uninformed.
The OP just said it was interesting and different, no other judgements given.
Why does this have to be questioned so deeply? It's just a random blog post.
Why are people attacking the OP or even the blogger over it? Why are people implying the OP had some sort of ulterior motive?
Again: it's just a random blog post.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
Because people have obviously drank the A-net kool-aid. Who cares how it plays or feels? A-net told me otherwise...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
He was quoting me, so I feel having to set this straight. I dont give a shit what others think of GW2. But its a different thing if they are not informed well and are spouting nonsense. That blog was nonsense. Which makes the opinion of the writer about GW2 useless. For this reason its useless to link if it is supposed to be only about ' shedding a different light' . Oh, and for Gobla, please try to find the context this time (Shedding a different light, as in a different wel informed opinion...not just a different opinion).
Now, that makes me question the motive of the OP for posting it.
To me this looks like it didn't really matter what information she might have had prior. As she was obviously saying how it felt even in the face of the designer telling her something else. That's an impression on how it felt, which is a different thing than reading up on dev provided info. They can say they have no questing, but if it feels like you're questing, well you know.. a duck is a duck even if you want to call it a chicken.
The quote I'm referring to..
"And I don't care how many times this content designer told me "GW2 doesn't have quests." That personal story line looks and feels EXACTLY like questing. And to make things worse, those aren't shared with the people you group with. At character creation, you start branching along some story line. I guess if you play with a partner (like I do) you could create identical story lines so you could play together."
The rest of what she said was more or less voicing concerns about what she saw, again prior information is a moot point, they can say up and down how they want it to feel and perform, it's what players actually experience that matters.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Look dude, no need to get your panties in a twitch.
If I quote you on a public forum then obviously my reply isn't directed purely at you. If it was I would have, as you say, send you a PM.
You're implying that the OP has some ulterior motive in sharing that blog post. You're saying the OP is passive agressive. You're not going against any of the arguments. You're going against the person. You're attacking the OP.
I understand your post fine. You're trying to discredit the OP not by attacking his/her post itself or even the blog linked but by implying an ulterior motive in posting and suggesting passive agressiveness in the poster.
I don't care if you're interested in this discussion, if you're not then don't reply. Simple as that. But I am interested in sharing my opinion about you, and others, attacking not the post but the poster.
Is it a major deal? Of course not, this is a random forum. Who cares really what's happening here. But I'll still post my piece of mind when you attack the poster and not the post. Simple as that.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
Then maybe next time don't question the motive of the OP but the actual blog post linked?
Discredit the arguments. Not the poster.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
Fair enough, lets see how "misinformed" she is about the game.
She states the DE felt like the rift events. This is a personal feeling when she played them, Wether they are or not is difficult to tell without playing them, either way this is how she views them.
She states the personal storyline feels exactly like a quest to her. Again an opinoin based on the game. The only part she may be misinformed on is that other people can join the quest. Assuming again that we are sure this is possible. I guess we only have devs at this point to look to for that. Unless a gamescom or something can confirm this.
Do skills work on global CD? i dunno, do we have a post where it says they don't?
She liked the fight on thing (or whatever it's called) I guess that was misinformation as well. Unless thats in game?
She had an issue with the character movement. This is entirely possible with a unfinished game good knows SW;ToR had this problem in it's early development stages as well so it's not impossible that could happen here as well.
No cosmetic system aka appearance tab, does it have an appearace tab? with talk of allowing you to change gear via an item to make it look like something else i don't see it, could have easily missed it though
First one was an opinion based on what she saw
Second may be true it may not. I certainly don't know for certain. She seems to think so though
Third, the skills could go one way or another unless theres a link, which has yet to be provided to counter it.
Fourth one seems ot be correct,
Fifth one could entirely be possible
Unless theres an appearance tab the last one is also correct.
Seems to me shes got a pretty decent grasp of the game so far. Some of it's opinoin naturally but unless theres some written proof i got the feeling thats how the game generally is. Granted DE are most likely more involved then Rift's rift but you still go to an area, fight the mosters in that area till the next stage triggers. It has a few more changes depending on how well you accomplish the task such as theres a full on victory, mostly victorious, somewhat victorious and total failure where as in rift your only completely success for fail completely. However from what i understand it still plays out like DE do. You go into an area where something is going on and you fight in that area till a requirement is met.
She may be wrong in one or two areas i don't know. I don't follow the game as closely as others, but she didn't really say the game was bad, just that she prefered Lotro over GW2, but would need more then 40 mins of time to tell for certain.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
The review was interesting because it was funny at best, I'll give you that.
But let's break it down shall we?
It seems like Rift got a jump on GW2. The GW2 events felt very much like Rift - although the content designer I talked to said the GW2 system is more fixed in size, scale and location. Similar approach to "grouping," as in, GW2 doesn't even require the public groups. Kills are shared, xp is shared, loot is shared. All you have to do is hit it - which makes me a little concerned about slackers/griefers.
Obviously this lady has no idea what she is talking about; 1 and 1500. These are the different events in Rift and GW2 respectively (actually the 1500 figure was from last year so they probably have even more now). I wouldn't call Rift's dynamic events anything more than dynamic grinding since they only spawn mobs, ok they have tentacles above their heads which somehow turns them into dynamic events? Are you kidding me? Secondly, there is a reason why GW2 does not necessarily require grouping for the small events and it's simple. There are NO other quests to do besides the storyline. So they have to make some doable for even just one person. Say you make a new character 1 year post release and find yourself alone in the start, how are you supposed to progress? This is common sense. Concerning his comment about slacking, ArenaNet has explained a thousand times that it is based on contribution, which again proves she has absolutely no information on the game even after playing it.
And I don't care how many times this content designer told me "GW2 doesn't have quests." That personal story line looks and feels EXACTLY like questing. And to make things worse, those aren't shared with the people you group with. At character creation, you start branching along some story line. I guess if you play with a partner (like I do) you could create identical story lines so you could play together.
Yes, let's beat a dead horse here some more. The developers said they have no quests other than the presonal storyline. She hangs from a statement some dev said which is not false at all
Skills have a global cooldown, like Rift. My Warrior chick had a skill that looked EXACTLY like the animation used for Rift's Bullrush charge. I had a nice self-heal, very spammable, and the health meter is a circle instead of a bar.
She is, not surprisingly, wrong again. Skills don't have a global cooldown, it all depends on how fast the skill's animation ends so you can begin your next one. She didn't even realise that even after playing the demo. Next on, some weird statement about Rift's warrior charge, I have no idea what skill of GW2 she is talking about here and wouldn't be shocked if she is wrong.
The Fight On or whatever they called it was really cool - if you are dying you are given a "last chance" and if you succeed you get invulnerability! That was very cool. The moose that zoned into a rock and back out again, and then dropped a sword that was a definite upgrade, was not so cool. Made me very concerned about itemization and loot.
I suppose here she is talking about the first "important" encounter she stamped upon which is the rock boss (the last step of a dynamic event after you kill some centaurs and cross a small bridge, most people who have been following GW2 have probably seen that one on a video), it dropped a nice upgrade which was inevitable since she was low level and this somehow turned into bad itemization. No further comments.
Lovely to look at. My character was very pretty. However, the run animation was really bad - she looked like she had a tummyache, all bent over. GW2 has no mounts and relies on class-based run speed buffs. Swift travel is via the map to rally points. Death penalty is money - even in the tutorial, dying cost me 8 copper.
The run animation isn't bad, however, when the character is strafing it feels a bit like he is floating, also some bad pathing is present as shown in the Lion Arch's video, a matter of polishing if you ask me.
No cosmetic system. When oh when will these mmo's learn? GW2 allows you to keep the look of a particular piece of gear, but it is not slotted as a separate cosmetic. The armour has multiple dye areas which was really nice. Unfortunately, the starting armour for my Norn Warrior chick looked remarkably like the new LotRO captain set.
The cosmetic and appearance system in GW2 is remarkable I would say, you can dye your armor and change the appearance of your armor and your weapon to another item's appearance (I should add that most MMOs don't allow for appearance change of a weapon). Apparently, ArenaNet copied Lotro when it comes to the Norn Warrior starting armor, right Clarysta?
I'll try it again in beta, when I can play for more than 40 minutes. It may be that Rift will be on a 2nd or 3rd update by then, which would probably put Rift ahead of GW2. Right now, GW2 = Rift < LotRO.
I should probably not say something against that statement, apparently she hasn't played anything other than these MMOs, which is obvious since she keeps comparing everything and anything to her beloved Lotro.
I don't immidiately disqualify a negative review, but one that spouts misinformation is up for massive bashing from my part and I don't consider myself a definite fan of GW2.
No you first try to start a semantics discussion about the word 'interesting' and completely missed my point.
Underlined part makes me wonder if you even read my original reply (the one you quoted) to the OP's second post , not to mention that you are contradicting yourself. This shows me that you are uninformed too
But in this case, about my posts. I did exactly that what you claim I didn't do.
Anyone who tries to be objective about a game doesnt post uninformed negative opinions into that game's forum.
And you, you just like to fight with other posters.
Not to discredit the OP (who must surely be rolling in "social credit" on these forums due to links provided/topics started)
But I'd retitle HER blog: "Uncritical ""first impressions"" of GW2".
Impression is more accurate than review! And uncritical because it's hard to understand if eg she means "Personal Stories felt like quests to me" is they felt like quests in other mmos or they felt like quests in single-player RPGs to me. The first is a bad thing (quests in mmos are very low on story and setting) and the second is actually how they should feel with cut scene chatter and char development and forking decisions and changing environs etc. They are still quests but are they really giving a feeling of just being standard quests in other mmos that need to be ticked off the list? It's hard to really know what she is talking about and what she experienced/expected from PS. Is the underlying combat kill these move on what felt same old same old?
She notes that ArenaNet said they have moved on from quests but these felt the same. Is she aware PS -> rpg, DE -> multiplayer is effectively why ArenaNet say they don't use the quest mechanic? It's still themepark stuff but in what context? It's too nebulous; I don't enjoy quests but I still do not know if I will enjoy PSs from reading this if that's all I know except that they are instanced... so why are they instanced would be the next q?
Basically, this is just another low quality critique if you are looking for one on GW2 and the most interesting thing by default is that this is another example of the dearth of good quality critique/criticism of GW2. She's possibly got a useful impression on the running animation as other have said similar things. : )
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
I bloody did in my original OP's quote. Its in the post where you first quoted me. That and the fact that the OP admitted it, was the main reason for me to question his motives. And who are you to tell someone else what is allowed to be posted about?
You do this in almost every thread I see you post. You ignore/forget what has been written in other posts you quoted.
Actually i said and I can't believe i'm quoting myself :P
Granted it may be somewhat misinformed.
It MAY be somewhat misinformed.
I didn't say it was misinformed i said theres a possible chance.
Thats up to the fans to provide links to the contrary.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
The post is misinformed from head to toe. Go back and read my breakdown.
Read it again to see if I'm contradicting myself:
not by attacking his/her post itself or even the blog linked but by implying an ulterior motive in posting and suggesting passive agressiveness in the poster.
attacking not the post but the poster.
They say the exact same thing. No contradiction.
And my point about the definition of 'interesting' was that it says nowhere that an interesting post has to be an informed post. There's absolutely nothing wrong with posting uninformed information as long as you accept new information when it comes along. Yet you and others are questioning the OP for sharing a simple link? Really?
Anyone who tries to be objective accepts new information as it comes along. Objective does not equal all-knowing. The GW2 forums aren't a special club where you can only post after reading at least 200 pages of GW2 information and watching over 100 hours of videos. Anyone can post as long as discussions stay civil. Civil meaning you don't start attacking the person but keep to his arguments.
And yes, I enjoy arguing with people who attack the person and not his/her arguments.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
And did I raise any objections to you questioning the blog post? No.
Did I raise objections to you questioning the OP's motives? Yes.
Just because you did one thing right doesn't make the other less wrong. You don't attack the poster, You don't start questioning his motives just because it's something you don't agree with and find uninformed.
And I'm a random forum poster. I share what opinions I want. Just like I can't tell you what to post, you can't tell me what to post. That right is reserved to the mods. My opinion is that you should keep to the arguments, not the person. Simple as that.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
Oh , we are back at the beginning of the cycle. Hooray:/ And yes, you are right about that not being a contradiction. Its still wrong though. Or do you still think I only attacked the OP without reasoning and ignored the blog?
Again, the OP himself said that the blogger was misinformed. He still didnt invalidate that blog after that. So, thats why I started to question his motive using reasoning. I leave room here to be wrong, you realise that right? I dont claim it, I question it.
I never was uncivil to the OP. I was to that idiot blogger though and to you.
I dont think GW2 forums is special either. I would've posted this in any game's forum. Provided I was informed enough about the game of course.
This is not a game.
You left room to be wrong yet you keep on replying to me when I tell you that I think you are in fact wrong for implying ulterior motives.
You admit yourself now that you attacked the OP which I think is wrong. I don't care how well your reasoning about the blog was before that. You attack only the arguments and never the person. If you attack a dozen arguments with the most flawless logic and then add a single attack to the poster then that attack is still wrong.
And I think that implying ulterior motives and suggesting passive agressiveness, as you did in a later post, is uncivil.
And you yourself admit to being uncivil to both the 'idiot' blogger and myself, which I again think is wrong.
So here I am, possibly futily, criticizing your unprofessional and uncivil behaviour.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
I agree with this guy... the gobla dude.
He typically posts in an effort to seee things in a different light or "between the lines", but in this case he is 100% right.
What we have here is people getting defensive because of a comment they made about a comment. Instead of acting hurt and defensive, wouldn't life be better if you just said "Granted, BUT" instead of "NUH UH".
Here is how i've read this thread:
People are attacking the motives of the blog, rightfully so.
The Blog = the OP's motives in some peoples eyes. I find this wrong.
Gobla comes along and says, "I think he was just sharing the blog post with us". Gobla proceeded to defend his stance.
Everyone else says, "HE CLEARLY HAS ULTERIOR MOTIVES".
Gobla says, "Maybe he just found it interesting that the blogger comes from the stance that he comes from."
Everyone else, "Residual heat from other forum posts is making me a bit cranky towards you, Gobla".
So you see, really we are arguing... just to argue. How about we get back to disassembling the blog post? That looks like a better topic to read in my eyes.
People think it's fun to pretend your a monster. Me I spend my life pretending I'm not. - Dexter Morgan
Read the orange parts of your post again...... (ulterior: "Lying beyond what is evident, revealed, or avowed, especially being concealed intentionally so as to deceive: an ulterior motive.") You're claiming that the OP is claiming one motive (interesting and different post) but seems to really be having a different one.
And of course, you're in no way or form suggesting passive agressiveness here (suggesting: "To make evident indirectly; intimate or imply")
Getting your panties in a bunch is a common phrase used when someone is overreacting, as I think you are by feeling horribly insulted by me. But if you're really feeling that badly insulted then I apologize for that, it's not my intention to insult you. It's merely my intention to criticize you.
And as I said before, if I want to criticize your posts then it's my freedom to do so. I don't need the mods or your permission to do so.
But I think we (yes we, you replied as much to me as I to you) have taken this thread off-topic more then enough. I suggest we call an end to it or continue it in PM if you feel the need to do so.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
I kind of figured that someone who isn't looking at the game all teary eyed would say it gives off a Rift/WoW vibe. Every video I have watched gives me the same feeling, but there is still some time for it to find it's own unique aspect that separates it from the rest.
That remark read like an insult or at least read as condescending (especially with the 'dude' on the end), but my first language isn't English so I'll give you the benefit of doubt.
I wont go into the rest, because I agree that we should stop.