That says a lot to me, you haven't seen one justifiable critique of GW2? I've seen several.. I've seen fair questions asked about their design decisions, I've seen fair questions asked about their B2P philosphy, I've seen fair questions asked about their support, I've seen fair accounts of peoples experience with Ncsoft and the concerns it raises.
The only fair criticism I have seen on the design decision that has any merit is will the game be fun to play after 6 months. Please show me the rest of these design decision that are truly justifiable critiques of an unreleased game.
No true world PVP, for those it bothers it is a justifiable critique. No mounts, instead instant teleporting, justifiable critique. No tanks, justified critique, no dedicated healers justifiable critique.
Just because you or I don't feel a game needs these features, or that it is fine A-net is not adding (some of) them. It doesn't change that those who voice these complaints are justified in offering their critque of the game. They're not trolling, they're not causing problems, they're just voicing what they like to see in games.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
No true world PVP, for those it bothers it is a justifiable critique. No mounts, instead instant teleporting, justifiable critique. No tanks, justified critique, no dedicated healers justifiable critique.
Just because you or I don't feel a game needs these features, or that it is fine A-net is not adding (some of) them. It doesn't change that those who voice these complaints are justified in offering their critque of the game. They're not trolling, they're not causing problems, they're just voicing what they like to see in games.
And how is someone’s preferences considered constructive criticism? If every game developer is suppose to consider all of this as constructive criticism well then they better just start making clones of a game with all systems in it so no one feels left out. Yeah I can see that working out real well if that is considered legit constructive criticism all developers should look at.
Well then I guess all games should have open form world PVP, and every game should have a RVR setup like DAOC for those that like that. Plus every game should have instance PVP, solo and forced grouping, permadeath, strict death penalties, no death penalties, story, no story, structured classes, non-structured classes, quest, dynamic events, RP events, non-RP events, no levels, levels, skill base, non-skill base, mounts, teleports, a beam that shots out of your bum and kills everything is sight! Yep that sounds like a great game to me, hear that developers just make one game that has all of this and then start cloning it so everyone is happy!
How the hell did someone’s personal preference ever get to the point that it is considered constructive criticism that all developers should pay attention to while designing their game? Sounds great screw having a vision of the game you want to make, let’s all just pander to the masses and their constructive criticisms!
Ah screw it everyone’s point of view is now considered constructive criticism that any business should use to help make decisions. Hear that coke you suck, I want a vanilla cherry chocolate flavored coke and until I get it you suck giant monkey balls. And since my preference is considered constructive criticism you should consider, I better get the damn thing or I will bitch and moan and cry on forums until I do! RAWR!
/walks off to the moon since apparently he cannot find common sense on this planet!
And how is someone’s preferences considered constructive criticism? If every game developer is suppose to consider all of this as constructive criticism well then they better just start making clones of a game with all systems in it so no one feels left out. Yeah I can see that working out real well if that is considered legit constructive criticism all developers should look at.
Well then I guess all games should have open form world PVP, and every game should have a RVR setup like DAOC for those that like that. Plus every game should have instance PVP, solo and forced grouping, permadeath, strict death penalties, no death penalties, story, no story, structured classes, non-structured classes, quest, dynamic events, RP events, non-RP events, no levels, levels, skill base, non-skill base, mounts, teleports, a beam that shots out of your bum and kills everything is sight! Yep that sounds like a great game to me, hear that developers just make one game that has all of this and then start cloning it so everyone is happy!
How the hell did someone’s personal preference ever get to the point that it is considered constructive criticism that all developers should pay attention to while designing their game? Sounds great screw having a vision of the game you want to make, let’s all just pander to the masses and their constructive criticisms!
Ah screw it everyone’s point of view is now considered constructive criticism that any business should use to help make decisions. Hear that coke you suck, I want a vanilla cherry chocolate flavored coke and until I get it you suck giant monkey balls. And since my preference is considered constructive criticism you should consider; I better get the damn thing or I will bitch and moan and cry on forums until I do! RAWR!
/walks off to the moon since apparently he cannot find common sense on this planet!
We're talking forum posters here, and the critique they offer, as well as the discussions that come from it. If it generates a good discussion it is constructive critique. This has nothing to do with what developers should do or how games should be made, it's about the act of discussing games.
Edit: as an aside, all critique is based on "personal preference"......
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
We're talking forum posters here, and the critique they offer, as well as the discussions that come from it. If it generates a good discussion it is constructive critique. This has nothing to do with what developers should do or how games should be made, it's about the act of discussing games.
Edit: as an aside, all critique is based on "personal preference"......
Actually, I would agree that sharing your opinions on a subject that is a matter of preference isn't really constructive criticism as such.
Sort of like seeing an orange and going 'I like apples'. That's not exactly constructive. IT's hardly even criticism, it's just stating one's preference.
... not that I think there's anything wrong with discussion of preferences! I'm all for it. In fact, I'm fine with people saying things like 'I dislike (insert design element of GW2) because I prefer (Insert alternative design element). I'm personally willing to discuss such things with people, but maybe I'm crazy.
... but if somebody shows you a painting and you say 'Oh. I don't like paintings of cars, I like paintings of airplanes', that is just a statement of preference in subject matter. Of course, if the person says 'The problem with your painting of an airplane is it looks like a car', they probably don't really understand what's going on....
... constructive criticism would be more like 'There's too much negative space in this painting, it throws off the balance'. :T
... oh, and so far as your edit goes (I'm not going to edit in your edit), that's only true to a degree.
If your criticism of somebody's say.... boxing style is 'you spend too much time blocking with your face', while it might be possible to have a preference for that style of defense, some things can be safely considered to be 'good' vs. 'bad' for reasons more than mere personal preference.
We're talking forum posters here, and the critique they offer, as well as the discussions that come from it. If it generates a good discussion it is constructive critique. This has nothing to do with what developers should do or how games should be made, it's about the act of discussing games.
Edit: as an aside, all critique is based on "personal preference"......
Well then we are looking at this from two different angles, you are looking at constructive criticism as something that spawns discussion with fans, while I see constructive criticism as something to improve the item you are discussing. If you re-read my first response that started this discussion you might be able to see that now.
Originally posted by AKASlaphappy
Like I said the only thing to criticize or praise right now is the design ideas for GW2, most of the people that like MMOs have not played GW2 for any length of time to be able to give worthwhile feedback. In fact most of the criticism on this site comes down to DEs are just glorified PQs or you can’t dodge attacks in GW2. If you can call that valuable feedback for a developer you are smoking some nice stuff. In fact most of the stuff said on this site about GW2 amounts to a whole lot of nothing, because none of us have played it for extended period of times yet. Until people start playing the game there is no such thing as giving constructive criticism, it is just a bunch of people spouting their opinions as fact!
Now maybe you can point me to the threads with this constructive criticism you mentioned that discuss the merits of both the good and the bad side of GW2 designs. Because the only criticism I see is a bunch of cow droppings that smell so bad it could kill a pig at 1000 feet.
As for your edit I do not believe that good constructive criticism can come from personal preference. As an example I hate the holy trinity with a passion, but if I was asked to give a report on it with good constructive criticism I would make sure I highlighted the good things about it that people like. For example I would mention the way the holy trinity makes group structure organized and proficient because everyone knows their defined roles. No constructive criticism can come from someone that is so blind that they cannot see another point of view. Because without the ability to see both sides, and weigh the pros and cons, you are just either giving a rant or offering lip service. You are not helping out the item you were asked to look at, in other words you are not giving constructive criticism!
I can look at the design of the GW2 and see the pros and cons of the game, and I have my doubts in certain areas. I also know that until launch and I get to play the game for a few months those doubts will not go away. Of course I have my preference on things I would like them to change, but those preferences are not constructive criticism on the game design! In other words to me my preferences and everyone else’s is a bunch of hot air that will not matter when the game launches. If I like the game or hate it when I play it that is what will matter, and all of the I wish it had this or that will not matter one damn bit.
We're talking forum posters here, and the critique they offer, as well as the discussions that come from it. If it generates a good discussion it is constructive critique. This has nothing to do with what developers should do or how games should be made, it's about the act of discussing games.
Edit: as an aside, all critique is based on "personal preference"......
Actually, I would agree that sharing your opinions on a subject that is a matter of preference isn't really constructive criticism as such.
Sort of like seeing an orange and going 'I like apples'. That's not exactly constructive. IT's hardly even criticism, it's just stating one's preference.
... not that I think there's anything wrong with discussion of preferences! I'm all for it. In fact, I'm fine with people saying things like 'I dislike (insert design element of GW2) because I prefer (Insert alternative design element). I'm personally willing to discuss such things with people, but maybe I'm crazy.
... but if somebody shows you a painting and you say 'Oh. I don't like paintings of cars, I like paintings of airplanes', that is just a statement of preference in subject matter. Of course, if the person says 'The problem with your painting of an airplane is it looks like a car', they probably don't really understand what's going on....
... constructive criticism would be more like 'There's too much negative space in this painting, it throws off the balance'. :T
I completely disagree, that seems to be a play on semantics to me, a way to discount a topic of discussion.
If poster A says: I'm not really into the concept of GW2, I feel they should have designed world PVP differently. I'd prefer PVP that was server based. IE: My friends and enemies share an environment. This is a critique based on personal preference and it's stated in a way to promote constructive discussion in a forum envronment. As that's what we're trying to do here ( well most anyway)
They criticized the choice A-net made with their design and constructively offered what they'd rather see. That is constructive criticism.. The above could be taken straight out of a future review for GW2 which is nothing but a critique.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I completely disagree, that seems to be a play on semantics to me, a way to discount a topic of discussion.
If poster A says: I'm not really into the concept of GW2, I feel they should have designed world PVP differently. I'd prefer PVP that was server based. IE: My friends and enemies share an environment. This is a critique based on personal preference and it's stated in a way to promote constructive discussion in a forum envronment. As that's what we're trying to do here ( well most anyway)
They criticized the choice A-net made with their design and constructively offered what they'd rather see. That is constructive criticism.. The above could be taken straight out of a future review for GW2 which is nothing but a critique.
Ok I am curious now. So if you were eating an apple pie and I said I prefer cherry cheese cake and all other pies and cakes should be thrown out, this is constructive criticism to you?
Honestly if I read a review that said that, I would never go back to that site again. That is just a person’s opinion just dressed up as constructive criticism. Now if journalist weighed the pros and cons of both sides of the PVP argument and said what he likes and would change about both, then I would take that as constructive criticism about the PVP system in MMOs. And it would not be some idiot trying to shove his opinion down my throat!
We're talking forum posters here, and the critique they offer, as well as the discussions that come from it. If it generates a good discussion it is constructive critique. This has nothing to do with what developers should do or how games should be made, it's about the act of discussing games.
Edit: as an aside, all critique is based on "personal preference"......
Well then we are looking at this from two different angles, you are looking at constructive criticism as something that spawns discussion with fans, while I see constructive criticism as something to improve the item you are discussing. If you re-read my first response that started this discussion you might be able to see that now.
Originally posted by AKASlaphappy
Like I said the only thing to criticize or praise right now is the design ideas for GW2, most of the people that like MMOs have not played GW2 for any length of time to be able to give worthwhile feedback. In fact most of the criticism on this site comes down to DEs are just glorified PQs or you can’t dodge attacks in GW2. If you can call that valuable feedback for a developer you are smoking some nice stuff. In fact most of the stuff said on this site about GW2 amounts to a whole lot of nothing, because none of us have played it for extended period of times yet. Until people start playing the game there is no such thing as giving constructive criticism, it is just a bunch of people spouting their opinions as fact!
Now maybe you can point me to the threads with this constructive criticism you mentioned that discuss the merits of both the good and the bad side of GW2 designs. Because the only criticism I see is a bunch of cow droppings that smell so bad it could kill a pig at 1000 feet.
As for your edit I do not believe that good constructive criticism can come from personal preference. As an example I hate the holy trinity with a passion, but if I was asked to give a report on it with good constructive criticism I would make sure I highlighted the good things about it that people like. For example I would mention the way the holy trinity makes group structure organized and proficient because everyone knows their defined roles. No constructive criticism can come from someone that is so blind that they cannot see another point of view. Because without the ability to see both sides, and weigh the pros and cons, you are just either giving a rant or offering lip service. You are not helping out the item you were asked to look at, in other words you are not giving constructive criticism!
I can look at the design of the GW2 and see the pros and cons of the game, and I have my doubts in certain areas. I also know that until launch and I get to play the game for a few months those doubts will not go away. Of course I have my preference on things I would like them to change, but those preferences are not constructive criticism on the game design! In other words to me my preferences and everyone else’s is a bunch of hot air that will not matter when the game launches. If I like the game or hate it when I play it that is what will matter, and all of the I wish it had this or that will not matter one damn bit.
Partly true, I feel there are many forms of constructive criticism only one of which being something that spawns discussion. Another form of course is writing a review on a game, another offering feeback in testing, another telling a friend to turn the drums down in their mix, or vocals up. To me all of that is constructive criticism. As I see it there are many other forms as well.
I just figured we were discussing posting habits here as that's what we were discussing to begin with. If I lost you somewhere I apologize.
I do disagree on the second portion of this. As a review is nothing but personal preference, as well as a film critics analaysis. It's all based on opinion, professional or not.
Of course constructive critique requires an ability to see the whole picture as well as an understanding others may not agree, that's what separates a constructive conversation from one that isn't.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I completely disagree, that seems to be a play on semantics to me, a way to discount a topic of discussion.
If poster A says: I'm not really into the concept of GW2, I feel they should have designed world PVP differently. I'd prefer PVP that was server based. IE: My friends and enemies share an environment. This is a critique based on personal preference and it's stated in a way to promote constructive discussion in a forum envronment. As that's what we're trying to do here ( well most anyway)
They criticized the choice A-net made with their design and constructively offered what they'd rather see. That is constructive criticism.. The above could be taken straight out of a future review for GW2 which is nothing but a critique.
Ah, but I'm not discounting it as a topic of discussion. I think it's important. I'm just not sure it qualifies as constructive criticism under the way I shelve things in my head.
I look at it as a relative of somebody playing a fighting game, and their 'constructive criticism' is that there's not enough FPS usage of guns like Halo.
A little more drastic of an example, but in my head, I sort it the same way.
I can at least say I agree with you that it isn't an irrelevant form of discussion. I think people's personal tastes are worth talking about. I even think somebody can say 'I'd rather see this sort of gameplay' (The thing I dislike about football is that it isn't chess, for example.), but I personally see it as more useful to acknowledge that people have different tastes, and that some people might be served better by different games.
Well, there's a line drawn somewhere, and we all draw it at seperate places. Just don't think I'm trying to invalidate people's opinions by saying it tends more towards a matter of taste. Oh well. :T
edit: I think I'm kind of sorting it in my head like I sort criticisms when I show somebody a drawing. Criticisms that could lead to discussion, but don't help me personally are things like 'I don't like your choice of subject matter'.
Things like 'your line weight could use more variance' is very useful. :T
That says a lot to me, you haven't seen one justifiable critique of GW2? I've seen several.. I've seen fair questions asked about their design decisions, I've seen fair questions asked about their B2P philosphy, I've seen fair questions asked about their support, I've seen fair accounts of peoples experience with Ncsoft and the concerns it raises.
The only fair criticism I have seen on the design decision that has any merit is will the game be fun to play after 6 months. Please show me the rest of these design decision that are truly justifiable critiques of an unreleased game.
No true world PVP, for those it bothers it is a justifiable critique. No mounts, instead instant teleporting, justifiable critique. No tanks, justified critique, no dedicated healers justifiable critique.
Just because you or I don't feel a game needs these features, or that it is fine A-net is not adding (some of) them. It doesn't change that those who voice these complaints are justified in offering their critque of the game. They're not trolling, they're not causing problems, they're just voicing what they like to see in games.
And those people have a gazillion other games to go play. No sense in critiqueing a game because it does or doesnt have features that you're used to. (unless its SWToR becuase lets face it do we need another failed WoW clone).
Those are reasons why I have faith in this game. Innovation is the key to progress and GW2 has innovation oozing out their ears.
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
I completely disagree, that seems to be a play on semantics to me, a way to discount a topic of discussion.
If poster A says: I'm not really into the concept of GW2, I feel they should have designed world PVP differently. I'd prefer PVP that was server based. IE: My friends and enemies share an environment. This is a critique based on personal preference and it's stated in a way to promote constructive discussion in a forum envronment. As that's what we're trying to do here ( well most anyway)
They criticized the choice A-net made with their design and constructively offered what they'd rather see. That is constructive criticism.. The above could be taken straight out of a future review for GW2 which is nothing but a critique.
Ok I am curious now. So if you were eating an apple pie and I said I prefer cherry cheese cake and all other pies and cakes should be thrown out, this is constructive criticism to you?
Honestly if I read a review that said that, I would never go back to that site again. That is just a person’s opinion just dressed up as constructive criticism. Now if journalist weighed the pros and cons of both sides of the PVP argument and said what he likes and would change about both, then I would take that as constructive criticism about the PVP system in MMOs and it would not be some idiot trying to shove his opinion down my throat.
It's all in context:
Is "no I want cherry pie" a critique? No, It's a request..
On the flip side "hey mom can you please make apple pie this time, you always make cherry, Mandy and I are both sick of that." That's a request and a critique.
Is "GW2 Sucks! I hate themeparks!" a critique? No it's more of a statement of preference.
On the flip side of that. "The MMO genre needs to change things up a little. Themepark or not, something has to change. GW2 looks like it may be offering that change. I applaud their effort in this regard and am looking forward to GW2"
The writer starts off with a critique on the genre, he follows that up with an observation, and ends his thought with another critique of Anets decision.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I completely disagree, that seems to be a play on semantics to me, a way to discount a topic of discussion.
If poster A says: I'm not really into the concept of GW2, I feel they should have designed world PVP differently. I'd prefer PVP that was server based. IE: My friends and enemies share an environment. This is a critique based on personal preference and it's stated in a way to promote constructive discussion in a forum envronment. As that's what we're trying to do here ( well most anyway)
They criticized the choice A-net made with their design and constructively offered what they'd rather see. That is constructive criticism.. The above could be taken straight out of a future review for GW2 which is nothing but a critique.
Ah, but I'm not discounting it as a topic of discussion. I think it's important. I'm just not sure it qualifies as constructive criticism under the way I shelve things in my head.
I look at it as a relative of somebody playing a fighting game, and their 'constructive criticism' is that there's not enough FPS usage of guns like Halo.
A little more drastic of an example, but in my head, I sort it the same way.
I can at least say I agree with you that it isn't an irrelevant form of discussion. I think people's personal tastes are worth talking about. I even think somebody can say 'I'd rather see this sort of gameplay' (The thing I dislike about football is that it isn't chess, for example.), but I personally see it as more useful to acknowledge that people have different tastes, and that some people might be served better by different games.
Well, there's a line drawn somewhere, and we all draw it at seperate places. Just don't think I'm trying to invalidate people's opinions by saying it tends more towards a matter of taste. Oh well. :T
edit: I think I'm kind of sorting it in my head like I sort criticisms when I show somebody a drawing. Criticisms that could lead to discussion, but don't help me personally are things like 'I don't like your choice of subject matter'.
Things like 'your line weight could use more variance' is very useful. :T
Well at least we agree on something, I must say this convo was far more interesting than the rest of this thread, so I thank you both on that .
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Partly true, I feel there are many forms of constructive criticism only one of which being something that spawns discussion. Another form of course is writing a review on a game, another offering feeback in testing, another telling a friend to turn the drums down in their mix, or vocals up. To me all of that is constructive criticism. As I see it there are many other forms as well.
I just figured we were discussing posting habits here as that's what we were discussing to begin with. If I lost you somewhere I apologize.
I do disagree on the second portion of this. As a review is nothing but personal preference, as well as a film critics analaysis. It's all based on opinion, professional or not.
Of course constructive critique requires an ability to see the whole picture as well as an understanding others may not agree, that's what separates a constructive conversation from one that isn't.
As for the part in green you never lost me we just have different viewpoints. I always was saying that 99.9% of the forum post about any pre-release game is a bunch of hog wash that has nothing to do with constructive criticism. You just see it as an opening for discussion while I was judging the comments based on their value as constructive criticism
As for the part in red none of this is constructive criticism it is just criticism.
As for reviews I do not see any of them as constructive criticism, they are just criticism and nothing more, reviews are not given to improve a game they are given to judge a game.
I think the following is the disconnect between our views of constructive criticism. From Webster’s dictionary:
Definition of CONSTRUCTIVE: promoting improvement or development <constructive criticism>
A review does not inherently promote improvement or development! Stating your preferences does not promote improvement or development for the item you are trying to improve, because everyone has different preferences. Giving feedback on a game you are testing does promote improvement or development so it is constructive, but none of us on here are doing that for GW2. Telling a friend to turn down drums down in their mix or vocals up does promote improvement or development…
The big difference is does the criticism promote improvement or development, most of the crap on this board offer as criticism does not. Since no one here has played the game or even knows all the details about it. Again how can you offer something to improve or help development when you do not know all the facts? That is like going to NASA and saying hey I know how to improve your shuttles even though I do not know how your shuttles actually work! You can discuss it but that does not make it constructive criticism!
Also a review can promote improvement or development (in patches) if every person that reviews it says the same thing. But if only five review say there is a flaw and the rest say it is great, no developer is going to take it as constructive criticism, they will just take it as opinion. So not all reviews are constructive and not all reviews are just idle criticism.
A review does not promote improvement or development! Stating your preferences does not promote improvement or development for the item you are trying to improve, because everyone has different preferences. Giving feedback on a game you are testing does promote improvement or development so it is constructive, but none of us on here are doing that for GW2. Telling a friend to turn down drums down in their mix or vocals up does promote improvement or development…
The big difference is does the criticism promote improvement or development, most of the crap on this board offer as criticism does not. Since no one here has played the game or even knows all the details about it. Again how can you offer something to improve or help development when you do not know all the facts? That is like going to NASA and saying hey I know how to improve your shuttles even though I do not know how your shuttles actually work! You can discuss it but that does not make it constructive criticism!
Also a review can promote improvement or development (in patches) if every person that reviews it says the same thing. But if only five review say there is a flaw and the rest say it is great, no developer is going to take it as constructive criticism, they will just take it as opinion. So not all reviews are constructive and not all reviews are just idle criticism.
Well we agree then (in a way) as no I don't view anything we say here to be something for use in development. Nor do i find reviews to be. Though they are constructive in informing like minded people of what to expect from a game.
As far as constructive criticism here goes, it promotes improvement over most conversations, as a constructive poster and other constructive posters can have civil discourse without getting hot and bothered, such as what we're doing right now (we of course aren't offering any criticism, we're just having a civil discussion). That's the difference between constructive criticism and non constructive when we're talking about forum topics. One form promotes positive discourse, one promotes negative.
Maybe I have the wrong idea about what constructive criticism is, honestly I'm not that worried about looking it up right now ha!.
That said going back to what started this whole sidestep we took (omiting the word critique for now :P). We seem to basically agree that a lot of what happens around here is not constructive, this goes for both sides of the argument. All I was saying was some posters are able to start topics that aren't agressivly bemoaning Anet, instead they go about offering their opinions of the game in a sound way that can be informative and promote a good discussion.
Edit- btw, you really like to take someone to task don't ya? :P..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
3) Dynamic events - Consequences of win or fail, no more grind of same spots all over again and fetch me x items, kill x monsters
...
....
I don't think this is accurate. Even ANet themselves stated that there will still be fetch and kill quests. Its just that this time around, when you help a merchant exterminate the pests, the pests actually stays exterminated, and I'm counting on ANet to NOT have the event reset within that day. Maybe give it a week or so before I see the same kill pests quest again.
They coundl't wrap their minds around the fact anet can't make a great mmo. In fact GW was mostly bad, ever since the first expansion gw was considred bad pvp. Will GW2 be great pve, I bet it will. Thats what they pushed and tried to perfect in GW w/o consideration to the pvp. Thats why there is almost noone from the original team that left blizzard.
GW2 will in fact on both the small scale(which they call structured to make it sound 1337), to the large scale, where they failed miserably in GW.
It will just another fantasy mmo, with big dragons.
If you ever played the tempest of set from AoC you will understand skills that have no target are actually EASIER to use that skills with a target. The whole pvpness that was anet is gone and this is just another homogonized mmo cash grab, ala every expansion they put out.
It will fall flat on its head and the hype they keep putting out seems to tell the tale that they know it.
They coundl't wrap their minds around the fact anet can't make a great mmo. In fact GW was mostly bad, ever since the first expansion gw was considred bad pvp. Will GW2 be great pve, I bet it will. Thats what they pushed and tried to perfect in GW w/o consideration to the pvp. Thats why there is almost noone from the original team that left blizard.
GW2 will in fact on both the small scale(which they call structured to make it sound 1337), to the large scale, where they failed miserably in GW.
It will just another fantasy mmo, with big dragons.
If you ever played the tempest of set from AoC you will understand skills that have no target are actually EASIER to use that skills with a target. The whole pvpness that was anet is gone and this is just another homogonized mmo cash grab, ala every expansion they put out.
It will fall flat on its head and the hype they keep putting out seems to tell the tale that they know it.
Do you have anything to back up what you're saying about PVP in GW1? Most I knew thought that was the games only redeemable quality and I'd agree. I'll have to admit I stopped playing after the second release and have only dabbled between Prophecies and it from time to time since.
However not once that I have went back has there been an issue of low PVP, and I'm talking about the first two releases here. If those lands/BG's are still occupied I find it hard to believe the later areas aren't. I'm sure the PVP is still booming there as well. Seems like a contradiction to my own eyes and ears here.
On top of that, if it's not obvious I frequent forums, not once have I seen anything that would back up what you're saying about the mass PVP exodus of GW1, that game has always been reported as healthy in terms of PVP.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Definition of CONSTRUCTIVE: promoting improvement or development <constructive criticism>
So the question is, does anyone in their right mind honestly believe that thread #3646893 on an almost identical topic "Why I Hate (Game X)" is the tiniest bit constructive in any fashion?
Why would you avoid posting in thread #3646892, and start a fresh thread? Is it all just LOOK AT MEEEEE attention seeking?
"I want to fight; I think I'll post another anti-Game X thread, people will surely applaud my originality.".
Of course not, lol which might be why we're discussing something else entirely.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
They coundl't wrap their minds around the fact anet can't make a great mmo. In fact GW was mostly bad, ever since the first expansion gw was considred bad pvp. Will GW2 be great pve, I bet it will. Thats what they pushed and tried to perfect in GW w/o consideration to the pvp. Thats why there is almost noone from the original team that left blizzard.
GW2 will in fact on both the small scale(which they call structured to make it sound 1337), to the large scale, where they failed miserably in GW.
It will just another fantasy mmo, with big dragons.
If you ever played the tempest of set from AoC you will understand skills that have no target are actually EASIER to use that skills with a target. The whole pvpness that was anet is gone and this is just another homogonized mmo cash grab, ala every expansion they put out.
It will fall flat on its head and the hype they keep putting out seems to tell the tale that they know it.
It depends on how you define good and bad. Since everything is trivial and opinion based, we shall only only look at facts. GW1 has sold more copies than just about every other MMO besides WoW. Also, to be clear, compare how much GW1 sold compared to other non-MMO game is still incredibly impressive. The game was not perfect, but it wasn't "mostly bad."
They call it structured PvP as to not confuse it with open PvP. This is actually NOT a good thing in the eyes of a lot of players. A lot of players still want open PvP. ArenaNet don't want to advertise it as open PvP, and so "structured PvP" was born.
Skills with no target are easier to use, but a lot harder to use effectively. Spamming skills doesn't require skill. Therefore, it doesn't require skills to spam skills in GW2. However, hitting a target is a lot easier with a skill that aims as opposed to one that doesn't aim. Heard of aimbot? Makes the game easier, not harder.
The combat in GW2 does not rely on die rolls. The only thing left is the actual timing/targetting of the player. You HAVE to block to block and you HAVE to dodge to dodge. Gone are the casual abilities to buff your blocking rate.
Hmm... cash grab by expansions... WoW has a sub AND expansions. LOTRO had a sub AND expansions. Aion did it, Rift did... see my point? Virtually every AAA MMO has a sub, cash shop, AND expansions.
Seriously though, everything you stated is based on opinions. You may not like the direction that ArenaNet is headed, thats totally fine, but to say things like they are cash grabbing and that auto aim is harder than manual aim... it's rediculous.
No true world PVP, for those it bothers it is a justifiable critique. No mounts, instead instant teleporting, justifiable critique. No tanks, justified critique, no dedicated healers justifiable critique.
The thing is those stuff are justifiable for someone new to those features. I mean, for someone from the Wow generation its really justifiable to ask for old style world pvp, i mean its something they have no real experience after all. But for someone that played a lot of world pvp mmos from UO, shadowbane... to today, i think the Anet vision of world pvp not only make sense, but is actually an improvement from the more traditional world pvp, strange isn't it? I don't think they see it as a removal of those features, but rather an improvement. Those people might think not only that the Mist is still world pvp, but it might be better than the usual world pvp from the old school pvp mmo. And i think its exactly the same for mounts and healer tbh. Yes not having mounts but port might be better too, i mean we will see ingame right. No dedicated healer, if you would have played a non trinity mmo, you would probably agree their combat is just superior, more interesting and dynamic, not even to talk about the fact you won't need to LFG anymore, and from balance point of view its really a world between them.
So what sound to be justifiable for some poeple might not be for others, it really depend on your experience here imo. In any case i think everything will be washed once you play the game at release, especially if those things are really improvements, rather than unjustifiable changes as you might think. If they are improvements, then playing in the mist not only will feel like world pvp, but feel as a good world pvp.
Comments
No true world PVP, for those it bothers it is a justifiable critique. No mounts, instead instant teleporting, justifiable critique. No tanks, justified critique, no dedicated healers justifiable critique.
Just because you or I don't feel a game needs these features, or that it is fine A-net is not adding (some of) them. It doesn't change that those who voice these complaints are justified in offering their critque of the game. They're not trolling, they're not causing problems, they're just voicing what they like to see in games.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
And how is someone’s preferences considered constructive criticism? If every game developer is suppose to consider all of this as constructive criticism well then they better just start making clones of a game with all systems in it so no one feels left out. Yeah I can see that working out real well if that is considered legit constructive criticism all developers should look at.
Well then I guess all games should have open form world PVP, and every game should have a RVR setup like DAOC for those that like that. Plus every game should have instance PVP, solo and forced grouping, permadeath, strict death penalties, no death penalties, story, no story, structured classes, non-structured classes, quest, dynamic events, RP events, non-RP events, no levels, levels, skill base, non-skill base, mounts, teleports, a beam that shots out of your bum and kills everything is sight! Yep that sounds like a great game to me, hear that developers just make one game that has all of this and then start cloning it so everyone is happy!
How the hell did someone’s personal preference ever get to the point that it is considered constructive criticism that all developers should pay attention to while designing their game? Sounds great screw having a vision of the game you want to make, let’s all just pander to the masses and their constructive criticisms!
Ah screw it everyone’s point of view is now considered constructive criticism that any business should use to help make decisions. Hear that coke you suck, I want a vanilla cherry chocolate flavored coke and until I get it you suck giant monkey balls. And since my preference is considered constructive criticism you should consider, I better get the damn thing or I will bitch and moan and cry on forums until I do! RAWR!
/walks off to the moon since apparently he cannot find common sense on this planet!
We're talking forum posters here, and the critique they offer, as well as the discussions that come from it. If it generates a good discussion it is constructive critique. This has nothing to do with what developers should do or how games should be made, it's about the act of discussing games.
Edit: as an aside, all critique is based on "personal preference"......
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Actually, I would agree that sharing your opinions on a subject that is a matter of preference isn't really constructive criticism as such.
Sort of like seeing an orange and going 'I like apples'. That's not exactly constructive. IT's hardly even criticism, it's just stating one's preference.
... not that I think there's anything wrong with discussion of preferences! I'm all for it. In fact, I'm fine with people saying things like 'I dislike (insert design element of GW2) because I prefer (Insert alternative design element). I'm personally willing to discuss such things with people, but maybe I'm crazy.
... but if somebody shows you a painting and you say 'Oh. I don't like paintings of cars, I like paintings of airplanes', that is just a statement of preference in subject matter. Of course, if the person says 'The problem with your painting of an airplane is it looks like a car', they probably don't really understand what's going on....
... constructive criticism would be more like 'There's too much negative space in this painting, it throws off the balance'. :T
... oh, and so far as your edit goes (I'm not going to edit in your edit), that's only true to a degree.
If your criticism of somebody's say.... boxing style is 'you spend too much time blocking with your face', while it might be possible to have a preference for that style of defense, some things can be safely considered to be 'good' vs. 'bad' for reasons more than mere personal preference.
Well then we are looking at this from two different angles, you are looking at constructive criticism as something that spawns discussion with fans, while I see constructive criticism as something to improve the item you are discussing. If you re-read my first response that started this discussion you might be able to see that now.
As for your edit I do not believe that good constructive criticism can come from personal preference. As an example I hate the holy trinity with a passion, but if I was asked to give a report on it with good constructive criticism I would make sure I highlighted the good things about it that people like. For example I would mention the way the holy trinity makes group structure organized and proficient because everyone knows their defined roles. No constructive criticism can come from someone that is so blind that they cannot see another point of view. Because without the ability to see both sides, and weigh the pros and cons, you are just either giving a rant or offering lip service. You are not helping out the item you were asked to look at, in other words you are not giving constructive criticism!
I can look at the design of the GW2 and see the pros and cons of the game, and I have my doubts in certain areas. I also know that until launch and I get to play the game for a few months those doubts will not go away. Of course I have my preference on things I would like them to change, but those preferences are not constructive criticism on the game design! In other words to me my preferences and everyone else’s is a bunch of hot air that will not matter when the game launches. If I like the game or hate it when I play it that is what will matter, and all of the I wish it had this or that will not matter one damn bit.
I completely disagree, that seems to be a play on semantics to me, a way to discount a topic of discussion.
If poster A says: I'm not really into the concept of GW2, I feel they should have designed world PVP differently. I'd prefer PVP that was server based. IE: My friends and enemies share an environment. This is a critique based on personal preference and it's stated in a way to promote constructive discussion in a forum envronment. As that's what we're trying to do here ( well most anyway)
They criticized the choice A-net made with their design and constructively offered what they'd rather see. That is constructive criticism.. The above could be taken straight out of a future review for GW2 which is nothing but a critique.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Ok I am curious now. So if you were eating an apple pie and I said I prefer cherry cheese cake and all other pies and cakes should be thrown out, this is constructive criticism to you?
Honestly if I read a review that said that, I would never go back to that site again. That is just a person’s opinion just dressed up as constructive criticism. Now if journalist weighed the pros and cons of both sides of the PVP argument and said what he likes and would change about both, then I would take that as constructive criticism about the PVP system in MMOs. And it would not be some idiot trying to shove his opinion down my throat!
Partly true, I feel there are many forms of constructive criticism only one of which being something that spawns discussion. Another form of course is writing a review on a game, another offering feeback in testing, another telling a friend to turn the drums down in their mix, or vocals up. To me all of that is constructive criticism. As I see it there are many other forms as well.
I just figured we were discussing posting habits here as that's what we were discussing to begin with. If I lost you somewhere I apologize.
I do disagree on the second portion of this. As a review is nothing but personal preference, as well as a film critics analaysis. It's all based on opinion, professional or not.
Of course constructive critique requires an ability to see the whole picture as well as an understanding others may not agree, that's what separates a constructive conversation from one that isn't.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Ah, but I'm not discounting it as a topic of discussion. I think it's important. I'm just not sure it qualifies as constructive criticism under the way I shelve things in my head.
I look at it as a relative of somebody playing a fighting game, and their 'constructive criticism' is that there's not enough FPS usage of guns like Halo.
A little more drastic of an example, but in my head, I sort it the same way.
I can at least say I agree with you that it isn't an irrelevant form of discussion. I think people's personal tastes are worth talking about. I even think somebody can say 'I'd rather see this sort of gameplay' (The thing I dislike about football is that it isn't chess, for example.), but I personally see it as more useful to acknowledge that people have different tastes, and that some people might be served better by different games.
Well, there's a line drawn somewhere, and we all draw it at seperate places. Just don't think I'm trying to invalidate people's opinions by saying it tends more towards a matter of taste. Oh well. :T
edit: I think I'm kind of sorting it in my head like I sort criticisms when I show somebody a drawing. Criticisms that could lead to discussion, but don't help me personally are things like 'I don't like your choice of subject matter'.
Things like 'your line weight could use more variance' is very useful. :T
Because Chuck Norris told me it would be.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation
And those people have a gazillion other games to go play. No sense in critiqueing a game because it does or doesnt have features that you're used to. (unless its SWToR becuase lets face it do we need another failed WoW clone).
Those are reasons why I have faith in this game. Innovation is the key to progress and GW2 has innovation oozing out their ears.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
It's all in context:
Is "no I want cherry pie" a critique? No, It's a request..
On the flip side "hey mom can you please make apple pie this time, you always make cherry, Mandy and I are both sick of that." That's a request and a critique.
Is "GW2 Sucks! I hate themeparks!" a critique? No it's more of a statement of preference.
On the flip side of that. "The MMO genre needs to change things up a little. Themepark or not, something has to change. GW2 looks like it may be offering that change. I applaud their effort in this regard and am looking forward to GW2"
The writer starts off with a critique on the genre, he follows that up with an observation, and ends his thought with another critique of Anets decision.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Well at least we agree on something,
I must say this convo was far more interesting than the rest of this thread, so I thank you both on that 
.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Now to find a troll 3...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation
As for the part in green you never lost me we just have different viewpoints. I always was saying that 99.9% of the forum post about any pre-release game is a bunch of hog wash that has nothing to do with constructive criticism. You just see it as an opening for discussion while I was judging the comments based on their value as constructive criticism
As for the part in red none of this is constructive criticism it is just criticism.
As for reviews I do not see any of them as constructive criticism, they are just criticism and nothing more, reviews are not given to improve a game they are given to judge a game.
I think the following is the disconnect between our views of constructive criticism. From Webster’s dictionary:
Definition of CONSTRUCTIVE: promoting improvement or development <constructive criticism>
A review does not inherently promote improvement or development! Stating your preferences does not promote improvement or development for the item you are trying to improve, because everyone has different preferences. Giving feedback on a game you are testing does promote improvement or development so it is constructive, but none of us on here are doing that for GW2. Telling a friend to turn down drums down in their mix or vocals up does promote improvement or development…
The big difference is does the criticism promote improvement or development, most of the crap on this board offer as criticism does not. Since no one here has played the game or even knows all the details about it. Again how can you offer something to improve or help development when you do not know all the facts? That is like going to NASA and saying hey I know how to improve your shuttles even though I do not know how your shuttles actually work! You can discuss it but that does not make it constructive criticism!
Also a review can promote improvement or development (in patches) if every person that reviews it says the same thing. But if only five review say there is a flaw and the rest say it is great, no developer is going to take it as constructive criticism, they will just take it as opinion. So not all reviews are constructive and not all reviews are just idle criticism.
Well we agree then (in a way) as no I don't view anything we say here to be something for use in development. Nor do i find reviews to be. Though they are constructive in informing like minded people of what to expect from a game.
As far as constructive criticism here goes, it promotes improvement over most conversations, as a constructive poster and other constructive posters can have civil discourse without getting hot and bothered, such as what we're doing right now (we of course aren't offering any criticism, we're just having a civil discussion). That's the difference between constructive criticism and non constructive when we're talking about forum topics. One form promotes positive discourse, one promotes negative.
Maybe I have the wrong idea about what constructive criticism is, honestly I'm not that worried about looking it up right now ha!.
That said going back to what started this whole sidestep we took (omiting the word critique for now :P). We seem to basically agree that a lot of what happens around here is not constructive, this goes for both sides of the argument. All I was saying was some posters are able to start topics that aren't agressivly bemoaning Anet, instead they go about offering their opinions of the game in a sound way that can be informative and promote a good discussion.
Edit- btw, you really like to take someone to task don't ya? :P..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I don't think this is accurate. Even ANet themselves stated that there will still be fetch and kill quests. Its just that this time around, when you help a merchant exterminate the pests, the pests actually stays exterminated, and I'm counting on ANet to NOT have the event reset within that day. Maybe give it a week or so before I see the same kill pests quest again.
Because they seam to offer things that should be in my next gen mmo.
the only actual reason is "because it has to be."
They coundl't wrap their minds around the fact anet can't make a great mmo. In fact GW was mostly bad, ever since the first expansion gw was considred bad pvp. Will GW2 be great pve, I bet it will. Thats what they pushed and tried to perfect in GW w/o consideration to the pvp. Thats why there is almost noone from the original team that left blizzard.
GW2 will in fact on both the small scale(which they call structured to make it sound 1337), to the large scale, where they failed miserably in GW.
It will just another fantasy mmo, with big dragons.
If you ever played the tempest of set from AoC you will understand skills that have no target are actually EASIER to use that skills with a target. The whole pvpness that was anet is gone and this is just another homogonized mmo cash grab, ala every expansion they put out.
It will fall flat on its head and the hype they keep putting out seems to tell the tale that they know it.
Do you have anything to back up what you're saying about PVP in GW1? Most I knew thought that was the games only redeemable quality and I'd agree. I'll have to admit I stopped playing after the second release and have only dabbled between Prophecies and it from time to time since.
However not once that I have went back has there been an issue of low PVP, and I'm talking about the first two releases here. If those lands/BG's are still occupied I find it hard to believe the later areas aren't. I'm sure the PVP is still booming there as well. Seems like a contradiction to my own eyes and ears here.
On top of that, if it's not obvious I frequent forums, not once have I seen anything that would back up what you're saying about the mass PVP exodus of GW1, that game has always been reported as healthy in terms of PVP.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Oh, just forget it.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Of course not, lol which might be why we're discussing something else entirely.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It depends on how you define good and bad. Since everything is trivial and opinion based, we shall only only look at facts. GW1 has sold more copies than just about every other MMO besides WoW. Also, to be clear, compare how much GW1 sold compared to other non-MMO game is still incredibly impressive. The game was not perfect, but it wasn't "mostly bad."
They call it structured PvP as to not confuse it with open PvP. This is actually NOT a good thing in the eyes of a lot of players. A lot of players still want open PvP. ArenaNet don't want to advertise it as open PvP, and so "structured PvP" was born.
Skills with no target are easier to use, but a lot harder to use effectively. Spamming skills doesn't require skill. Therefore, it doesn't require skills to spam skills in GW2. However, hitting a target is a lot easier with a skill that aims as opposed to one that doesn't aim. Heard of aimbot? Makes the game easier, not harder.
The combat in GW2 does not rely on die rolls. The only thing left is the actual timing/targetting of the player. You HAVE to block to block and you HAVE to dodge to dodge. Gone are the casual abilities to buff your blocking rate.
Hmm... cash grab by expansions... WoW has a sub AND expansions. LOTRO had a sub AND expansions. Aion did it, Rift did... see my point? Virtually every AAA MMO has a sub, cash shop, AND expansions.
Seriously though, everything you stated is based on opinions. You may not like the direction that ArenaNet is headed, thats totally fine, but to say things like they are cash grabbing and that auto aim is harder than manual aim... it's rediculous.
The thing is those stuff are justifiable for someone new to those features. I mean, for someone from the Wow generation its really justifiable to ask for old style world pvp, i mean its something they have no real experience after all. But for someone that played a lot of world pvp mmos from UO, shadowbane... to today, i think the Anet vision of world pvp not only make sense, but is actually an improvement from the more traditional world pvp, strange isn't it? I don't think they see it as a removal of those features, but rather an improvement. Those people might think not only that the Mist is still world pvp, but it might be better than the usual world pvp from the old school pvp mmo.
And i think its exactly the same for mounts and healer tbh. Yes not having mounts but port might be better too, i mean we will see ingame right. No dedicated healer, if you would have played a non trinity mmo, you would probably agree their combat is just superior, more interesting and dynamic, not even to talk about the fact you won't need to LFG anymore, and from balance point of view its really a world between them.
So what sound to be justifiable for some poeple might not be for others, it really depend on your experience here imo. In any case i think everything will be washed once you play the game at release, especially if those things are really improvements, rather than unjustifiable changes as you might think. If they are improvements, then playing in the mist not only will feel like world pvp, but feel as a good world pvp.
Ultimately.....I have won this thread because I decided not to post in it.......
wait......
damnit.