he is writing an article.. it is his job to be unbiased... .
I dont know if I honestly believe this. I have never seen a games magazine give a negative preview. I have seen a few negative points mentioned but almost universally they are positive and make you want to play the game. The trouble is, gamer magazines make money from advertising and game companies advertise. You dont want to make a company mad by being honest that you hated their game in the preview because then they wont invite you to the next game to preview and they might not advertise in your magazine as much.
ign does it all the time and I only know that from looking up random games when I come across them. Now they are not a gaming magazine but I would think an honest review would be welcomed more than one like this. That could possibly be me being idealistic but there ya go. The company would probably still be advertising with them just because its good business.
yeah you fight bandits, centaurs and dragons with a fluffy bunny like creature called asura. Whats up with double standards? if you are trying to prove that GW2 is griity and mature what about cute looking asura?
Why do people find the Asura cute? Sure they have cute voices but I found them pretty freaky in GW1 with their piranha teeth
Guess you didn't stare in those big cute eyes long enough lol
I guess not! Will have to stare longer I guess
As for the rest of the article by the way, apart from the inclusion of his rant about female armour, I didn't find it that different then most others I have read.
why are so many bent out of shape about this article? because he didn't put gw2 on a pedestal? you guys need to get some thicker skin, and stop getting so defensive. i took it as a fair preview, he hardly spoke ill of the game. he gave his opinion of a beta weekend. as more people are going to start playing the game, and giving their opinions, not everyone will call it Jesus. as a non-fanboy, but someone who is looking forward to this game, it was a nice preview. he baasically told us stuff we already know. the game is gonna be good, but not without faults.
Bingo... a review has to be 100% positive even if 10% negative fans will lynch the reviewer.
I don't see why would I want to make a fugly woman since I'll be playing with my character... I don't see what's so wrong with having good looking female characters in game (since you can really customize and do a lot with it.. From stunningly beautiful to freakishly ugly) to some reasonable limit... You can't make a norn scarface if that's what you want, but in which mmorpg CAN you do that?
Charr... There's not much difference between female and male charr... You can't even tell the difference untill you give it a closer look Female charrs are a bit thinner and not so bulky but it's hard to tell untill you learn what to look at xD
BTW, are you saying all female soldiers or warriors should look ugly? Like you never saw a beautiful woman in uniform... I sure did...
You failed to comprehend my point completely. I have said repeatedly that I do not want to take away the beauty, but ADD variety to races that SHOULD have variety. Currently you cannot make even a pudgy female or one that is overly distinctive facial wise in the game... Again for no GOOD reason. If there was something in the lore, that would be a legitimate reason, but there is nothing like that and it certainly is not reflected in males and females equally.
So if a person wants to play a fat/ugly female the options are limited when they are fairly easy to add into a game. Currently males typically have much more freedom in this regard than females. The question is why?
I have yet to see any videos in GW2 that show Norn or Human sliders which achieve this basic concept. I find it odd and it certainly CONTRIBUTES to the hostile environment for female gamers. Something many of the people foaming at the mouth over my posts fail to comprehend. It is a game... So pushing an environment that objectifies and paints women in a certain light to promote pubescent dry humping is not something that should be encouraged. How many female gamers play male characters because they get tired of PMs asking "Are you really a girl?" or "S/A?" There is a predetory element to this kind of mindset which apparently several responding to this thread have no issue with. That in it self is disturbing.
I have taken a rather moderate position on this and what I get is apparently weak willed boys claiming I want to ruin their gaming experience. Adding the ability to tone down or vary appearance is not a negative thing. It certainly could help some players avoid the idiots clamering to cyber every digital toon with a 30 waist and double Ds. Also please defend games like Tera which have toons that are essentially 8 yr old girls dressed in animal ears and panties...
Now GW2 is certainly less provocative, but the previewer has a legitimate point. It won't stop me from playing GW2 (but did contribute to me completely avoiding Tera), however my OPINION which is all I expressed is not any less valid. Want to bet a C-Bill that there will be toons dancing in their underwear in the major cities asking for gold and items? That really adds to the game don't you think?
the only one crying and foaming at the mouth is you. And most of us don't really care what you think. You don't answer questions directed at you. Nore do you even want to talk about it. You have yet to explain why being FAT is a good option. You have yet to explain how in a very active world that is GW2 a FAT person would even be able to function (fight). There is no way a FAT person would be able to jump around, run all day. or fight for hours. So come on explain that.
It has been shown that you can pick your outfits.
And yes adding options for looks does have negative effect on a game. Just look at Aion and the horrable char you can make in that game.
lol and you don't think there will be a buch of FAT guys dancing around if it was added?
How is being FAT a good image for girls/boys to have? You keep bring up real life. Sorry but if your so obsesed with how you look in a game, how is that healthy?
By the way no one is painting women in any type of light. Its a game, get over it. Also all you want to talk about is the women, what about the its view of men? Not all men are built the way GW2 shows them.
I don't think the fanboys really understand how great this review really was. See if he set himself up to fail , but came out with a postive review then the game wins. If i was a dev i would ask someone that hated my game to play what they thought was the worst and tell me the truth, anyone can pick the best and have a great review and fake the rest.
look at it like a movie preveiw. all the action and graphics and you think wow that was cool, then you get to the show and after 96 min you think crap, i seen all the good stuff in the preview.. he choose what you say was less the prefect and still had good things to say and thought it was going to be a good game WIN WIN WIN.. so clam down and think .
/facepalm.. you dont get it. I wouldn't read a movie review from say a guy movie critic.. HATES chick flicks but he goes to see one anyways so he can write a review, he may end up enjoying it but I still wouldn't read it because he set himself up to not enjoy it.
Obviously it is you that does not get it.
Despite making and playing a character that he is not really happy with looks wise, he writes an overall good preview, that show's GW2 to be a good, fun game in his opinion.
Anything else is irrelevant.
But keep clutching at straws to negate the article, what will you say next, that the article is not valid because the guy that wrote it has blonde hair?
I'm still wondering what she meant by "the guy's not even a gamer, look at his facebook, which out of morbid curiosity I did, and I was left with, WTH does this have to do with being a gamer?
not one liked game, ect you can learn a lot about a person from their FB page. Also I removed that bit the second the site stopped lagging at let me =P its not even in the quote so ppl are probably confused.
haha are you serious? I have no liked games on FB either, guess Im not a gamer as well lol
As I said, clutching at straws...
"etc" and also I REMOVED THE LINE ANYWAYS AS ITS NOT APPROPRIATE... not going into the details as again.. its not appropriate no matter what I think of his article.
not one liked game, ect you can learn a lot about a person from their FB page. Also I removed that bit the second the site stopped lagging at let me =P its not even in the quote so ppl are probably confused.
I don't think I have one liked game myself on facebook,.if I do it was only to win something as I've seen a lot of contests linked to facebook likes, not sure if I've ever done so or not.
But really my facebook says nothing on anything I like, nor do, those who see it, know those things anyway.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'm kind of glad the reviewer was a fanboi of another game, because even despite that the reviewer seemed to come out of it liking the game and feeling it had a lot of positive things. I'd much rather a little criticism, than being told it's the best game ever and it's gonna blow everything else away..only to be disappointed when it comes out.
I don't want an over-hyping fanboi of the game playing and reviewing it. That happened with SWTOR and no good came from it. The game was a terrible WoW clone, it was rubbish. With the budget and talent the game had it shouldn't have been, but that's another story.
This article only proves one thing: ArenaNet doesn't write checks in exchange for positive previews. EA did.
The article is very positive..why the hell Anet needs to write check? or they already did based on positive article.
I don't think you even read the whole thing.
I'm being slightly facetious. I did read the article and it does turn out to be positive. But read this same reviewer's opinion of TOR - and if that doesn't make you go "Hmmmmmm," then I don't know what would.
Why he would start off with inanities about playing a female character and not having the choice to make an older woman, whereas when he reviewed TOR (a game that only gives you about eight different choices in character creation - there are carbon copies to the brim in SWTOR) there were no negatives mentioned. Particulary not about perceived shallow character choices.
I learned not to believe anyones Preview, ohhh how they said AoC was amazing, and SWTOR was incredible, these companies are a joke, best preview is your own, play it then you decide, never listen to anyone. end of story
This article only proves one thing: ArenaNet doesn't write checks in exchange for positive previews. EA did.
The article is very positive..why the hell Anet needs to write check? or they already did based on positive article.
I don't think you even read the whole thing.
I'm being slightly facetious. I did read the article and it does turn out to be positive. But read this same reviewer's opinion of TOR - and if that doesn't make you go "Hmmmmmm," then I don't know what would.
Why he would start off with inanities about playing a female character and not having the choice to make an older woman, whereas when he reviewed TOR (a game that only gives you about eight different choices in character creation - there are carbon copies to the brim in SWTOR) there were no negatives mentioned. Particulary not about perceived shallow character choices.
That, objectively, is very suspicious.
You are just trying too hard to find faults here. The character creating of GW2 is but a slight improvement especially for human race. Will it change in future or not who knows but his disliking of how human looks has nothing to do with TOR.
I think people who just hate TOR and pretty obsessed with it try to find connections even when they do not exist. Also expectations with GW2 are pretty high so i don't blame people for expecting a bit more out of character creation in GW2, isn't that what GW2 is all about? improving on existing features?
I like how GW2 fans deflect any criticism regarding GW2 towards TOR..as if it gives it a free pass.
This article only proves one thing: ArenaNet doesn't write checks in exchange for positive previews. EA did.
The article is very positive..why the hell Anet needs to write check? or they already did based on positive article.
I don't think you even read the whole thing.
I'm being slightly facetious. I did read the article and it does turn out to be positive. But read this same reviewer's opinion of TOR - and if that doesn't make you go "Hmmmmmm," then I don't know what would.
Why he would start off with inanities about playing a female character and not having the choice to make an older woman, whereas when he reviewed TOR (a game that only gives you about eight different choices in character creation - there are carbon copies to the brim in SWTOR) there were no negatives mentioned. Particulary not about perceived shallow character choices.
That, objectively, is very suspicious.
You are just trying too hard to find faults here. The character creating of GW2 is but a slight improvement especially for human race. Will it change in future or not who knows but his disliking of how human looks has nothing to do with TOR.
I think people who just hate TOR and pretty obsessed with it try to find connections even when they do not exist. Also expectations with GW2 are pretty high so i don't blame people for expecting a bit more out of character creation in GW2, isn't that what GW2 is all about? improving on existing features?
I like how GW2 fans deflect any criticism regarding GW2 towards TOR..as if it gives it a free pass.
Since when has GW2 been about improving on existing features? It was not GW2 fans or people on this forum that dragged TOR into this, the author did, he is the one that was compairing the two. While I do agree that the options in the character creation is lacking for some races. I also understand that they are going for an artistic style, and thats the reason you have body types and not sliders. This might also explain the lack of older, or perhaps ugly options. They are really treating the game like an art project in terms of visuals. So i am willing to have limmited options, in order to maintain that artistic style
This article only proves one thing: ArenaNet doesn't write checks in exchange for positive previews. EA did.
The article is very positive..why the hell Anet needs to write check? or they already did based on positive article.
I don't think you even read the whole thing.
I'm being slightly facetious. I did read the article and it does turn out to be positive. But read this same reviewer's opinion of TOR - and if that doesn't make you go "Hmmmmmm," then I don't know what would.
Why he would start off with inanities about playing a female character and not having the choice to make an older woman, whereas when he reviewed TOR (a game that only gives you about eight different choices in character creation - there are carbon copies to the brim in SWTOR) there were no negatives mentioned. Particulary not about perceived shallow character choices.
That, objectively, is very suspicious.
You are just trying too hard to find faults here. The character creating of GW2 is but a slight improvement especially for human race. Will it change in future or not who knows but his disliking of how human looks has nothing to do with TOR.
I think people who just hate TOR and pretty obsessed with it try to find connections even when they do not exist. Also expectations with GW2 are pretty high so i don't blame people for expecting a bit more out of character creation in GW2, isn't that what GW2 is all about? improving on existing features?
I like how GW2 fans deflect any criticism regarding GW2 towards TOR..as if it gives it a free pass.
Since when has GW2 been about improving on existing features? It was not GW2 fans or people on this forum that dragged TOR into this, the author did, he is the one that was compairing the two. While I do agree that the options in the character creation is lacking for some races. I also understand that they are going for an artistic style, and thats the reason you have body types and not sliders. This might also explain the lack of older, or perhaps ugly options. They are really treating the game like an art project in terms of visuals. So i am willing to have limmited options.
He made but two obscure references to TOR. people need to read the whole article first. he would have said 'TOR' randomly in article somewhere and it would produce same result. Doesn't change the fact that article is very positive.
I am telling you what i have understood after reading the opinions of fans on these forums that GW2 is about improving and innovating the existing features. So yes GW2 will have to bear the brunt of these high expectations.
You can have artistic style and still have sliders. I don't even know how sliders make it less artistic.For first time i ever read that to make visuals an art project one has to be satisfied with limited options.
This article only proves one thing: ArenaNet doesn't write checks in exchange for positive previews. EA did.
The article is very positive..why the hell Anet needs to write check? or they already did based on positive article.
I don't think you even read the whole thing.
I'm being slightly facetious. I did read the article and it does turn out to be positive. But read this same reviewer's opinion of TOR - and if that doesn't make you go "Hmmmmmm," then I don't know what would.
Why he would start off with inanities about playing a female character and not having the choice to make an older woman, whereas when he reviewed TOR (a game that only gives you about eight different choices in character creation - there are carbon copies to the brim in SWTOR) there were no negatives mentioned. Particulary not about perceived shallow character choices.
That, objectively, is very suspicious.
You are just trying too hard to find faults here. The character creating of GW2 is but a slight improvement especially for human race. Will it change in future or not who knows but his disliking of how human looks has nothing to do with TOR.
I think people who just hate TOR and pretty obsessed with it try to find connections even when they do not exist. Also expectations with GW2 are pretty high so i don't blame people for expecting a bit more out of character creation in GW2, isn't that what GW2 is all about? improving on existing features?
I like how GW2 fans deflect any criticism regarding GW2 towards TOR..as if it gives it a free pass.
Since when has GW2 been about improving on existing features? It was not GW2 fans or people on this forum that dragged TOR into this, the author did, he is the one that was compairing the two. While I do agree that the options in the character creation is lacking for some races. I also understand that they are going for an artistic style, and thats the reason you have body types and not sliders. This might also explain the lack of older, or perhaps ugly options. They are really treating the game like an art project in terms of visuals. So i am willing to have limmited options.
He made but two obscure references to TOR. people need to read the whole article first. he would have said 'TOR' randomly in article somewhere and it would produce same result. Doesn't change the fact that article is very positive.
I am telling you what i have understood after reading the opinions of fans on these forums that GW2 is about improving and innovating the existing features. So yes GW2 will have to bear the brunt of these high expectations.
You can have artistic style and still have sliders. I don't even know how sliders make it less artistic.For first time i ever read that to make visuals an art project one has to be satisfied with limited options.
*scratches head*
Well since you don't understand.
Norn and Humans have very similar looks. If they gave us sliders it would make it possible to make a human look like a short Norn and a Norn look like a tall human. This would break the artistic style they are doing. By having body types they make sure that Norns don't just look like tall humans and humans don't look like just short Norns.
I jumped into this thread to defend female armour :P As far as I can see the reviewer never mentioned TOR in reference to female characters or am I missing something? He mentioned AION, Lineage and Disney.I can find the reference regarding the story comparison and I can't say I disagree seeing as that's the only part of TOR I liked. I also prefered the cut scenes in GW1 to the story direction in GW2 but hey ho, people don't like cut scenes. Maybe I'm the only one who doesn't mind them.
This article only proves one thing: ArenaNet doesn't write checks in exchange for positive previews. EA did.
The article is very positive..why the hell Anet needs to write check? or they already did based on positive article.
I don't think you even read the whole thing.
I'm being slightly facetious. I did read the article and it does turn out to be positive. But read this same reviewer's opinion of TOR - and if that doesn't make you go "Hmmmmmm," then I don't know what would.
Why he would start off with inanities about playing a female character and not having the choice to make an older woman, whereas when he reviewed TOR (a game that only gives you about eight different choices in character creation - there are carbon copies to the brim in SWTOR) there were no negatives mentioned. Particulary not about perceived shallow character choices.
That, objectively, is very suspicious.
You are just trying too hard to find faults here. The character creating of GW2 is but a slight improvement especially for human race. Will it change in future or not who knows but his disliking of how human looks has nothing to do with TOR.
I think people who just hate TOR and pretty obsessed with it try to find connections even when they do not exist. Also expectations with GW2 are pretty high so i don't blame people for expecting a bit more out of character creation in GW2, isn't that what GW2 is all about? improving on existing features?
I like how GW2 fans deflect any criticism regarding GW2 towards TOR..as if it gives it a free pass.
Since when has GW2 been about improving on existing features? It was not GW2 fans or people on this forum that dragged TOR into this, the author did, he is the one that was compairing the two. While I do agree that the options in the character creation is lacking for some races. I also understand that they are going for an artistic style, and thats the reason you have body types and not sliders. This might also explain the lack of older, or perhaps ugly options. They are really treating the game like an art project in terms of visuals. So i am willing to have limmited options.
He made but two obscure references to TOR. people need to read the whole article first. he would have said 'TOR' randomly in article somewhere and it would produce same result. Doesn't change the fact that article is very positive.
I am telling you what i have understood after reading the opinions of fans on these forums that GW2 is about improving and innovating the existing features. So yes GW2 will have to bear the brunt of these high expectations.
You can have artistic style and still have sliders. I don't even know how sliders make it less artistic.For first time i ever read that to make visuals an art project one has to be satisfied with limited options.
*scratches head*
Well since you don't understand.
Norn and Humans have very similar looks. If they gave us sliders it would make it possible to make a human look like a short Norn and a Norn look like a tall human. This would break the artistic style they are doing. By having body types they make sure that Norns don't just look like tall humans and humans don't look like just short Norns.
You are talking about height and size of body and i am talking about over all customization while making your character.
This article only proves one thing: ArenaNet doesn't write checks in exchange for positive previews. EA did.
The article is very positive..why the hell Anet needs to write check? or they already did based on positive article.
I don't think you even read the whole thing.
I'm being slightly facetious. I did read the article and it does turn out to be positive. But read this same reviewer's opinion of TOR - and if that doesn't make you go "Hmmmmmm," then I don't know what would.
Why he would start off with inanities about playing a female character and not having the choice to make an older woman, whereas when he reviewed TOR (a game that only gives you about eight different choices in character creation - there are carbon copies to the brim in SWTOR) there were no negatives mentioned. Particulary not about perceived shallow character choices.
That, objectively, is very suspicious.
You are just trying too hard to find faults here. The character creating of GW2 is but a slight improvement especially for human race. Will it change in future or not who knows but his disliking of how human looks has nothing to do with TOR.
I think people who just hate TOR and pretty obsessed with it try to find connections even when they do not exist. Also expectations with GW2 are pretty high so i don't blame people for expecting a bit more out of character creation in GW2, isn't that what GW2 is all about? improving on existing features?
I like how GW2 fans deflect any criticism regarding GW2 towards TOR..as if it gives it a free pass.
Since when has GW2 been about improving on existing features? It was not GW2 fans or people on this forum that dragged TOR into this, the author did, he is the one that was compairing the two. While I do agree that the options in the character creation is lacking for some races. I also understand that they are going for an artistic style, and thats the reason you have body types and not sliders. This might also explain the lack of older, or perhaps ugly options. They are really treating the game like an art project in terms of visuals. So i am willing to have limmited options.
He made but two obscure references to TOR. people need to read the whole article first. he would have said 'TOR' randomly in article somewhere and it would produce same result. Doesn't change the fact that article is very positive.
I am telling you what i have understood after reading the opinions of fans on these forums that GW2 is about improving and innovating the existing features. So yes GW2 will have to bear the brunt of these high expectations.
You can have artistic style and still have sliders. I don't even know how sliders make it less artistic.For first time i ever read that to make visuals an art project one has to be satisfied with limited options.
*scratches head*
Well since you don't understand.
Norn and Humans have very similar looks. If they gave us sliders it would make it possible to make a human look like a short Norn and a Norn look like a tall human. This would break the artistic style they are doing. By having body types they make sure that Norns don't just look like tall humans and humans don't look like just short Norns.
You are talking about height and size of body and i am talking about over all customization while making your character.
And another person that fails at reading.
Ok lets try this again. Body type is the only thing that is keeping Norns and Humans from looking the same (taking hight out of it). Ok NOW do you get it? Just so you know body type does effect your customization. and i was not just talking about body shap. facial features, and everything that involves char customization
This article only proves one thing: ArenaNet doesn't write checks in exchange for positive previews. EA did.
The article is very positive..why the hell Anet needs to write check? or they already did based on positive article.
I don't think you even read the whole thing.
I'm being slightly facetious. I did read the article and it does turn out to be positive. But read this same reviewer's opinion of TOR - and if that doesn't make you go "Hmmmmmm," then I don't know what would.
Why he would start off with inanities about playing a female character and not having the choice to make an older woman, whereas when he reviewed TOR (a game that only gives you about eight different choices in character creation - there are carbon copies to the brim in SWTOR) there were no negatives mentioned. Particulary not about perceived shallow character choices.
That, objectively, is very suspicious.
If his complaint was solely geared toward Human options it is no surprise that he wouldn't have the same complaint about TOR. As it has many different human-esque options (every race is essentially that), I had no complaint about TOR in this area; as a person who plays pretty much only Human's in RPG's/MMO's, I felt right at home in character creation.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Ok lets try this again. Body type is the only thing that is keeping Norns and Humans from looking the same (taking hight out of it). Ok NOW do you get it? Just so you know body type does effect your customization.
It is very hard to have a discussion with obnoxious people but i will try again. The guy who wrote the article isn't just taking about size and height . You just developed a strawman here which had nothign to do with the ongoing discussion regarding having more options in character creation. Yes height and size does matter but there are other things too which can keep the look of NORN intact so that they don't look like human but still look different from other norns.So saying i am ok with limited options and chalking it up to 'artistic style' is just bull.
Ok lets try this again. Body type is the only thing that is keeping Norns and Humans from looking the same (taking hight out of it). Ok NOW do you get it? Just so you know body type does effect your customization.
It is very hard to have a discussion with obnoxious people but i will try again. The guy who wrote the article isn't just taking about size and height . You just developed a strawman here which had nothign to do with the ongoing discussion regarding having more options in character creation. Yes height and size does matter but there other things to which can keep the look of NORN intact so that they don't look like human but still look different from other norns.So saying i am ok with limited options is just bull.
I love it when poeple can't bring up a counter argument they always say "strawman". I was not talking about just height or body shape. The fact is that Norn and Humans look very similar, if we were given full options on changing thier features than we could make them look the same (not counting hight). How am i grasping at straws? Oh and if you could read i said i didn't like how it had limited options, but i am willing to take limited options if A.Net (you know the ones that are creating the game, and the artistic feel of the game) feels its needed.
The only thing keeping them from looking the same are their physical features. Only way of making sure they look different is if you limit the physical features options you give the players.
the only one crying and foaming at the mouth is you. And most of us don't really care what you think. You don't answer questions directed at you. Nore do you even want to talk about it. You have yet to explain why being FAT is a good option. You have yet to explain how in a very active world that is GW2 a FAT person would even be able to function (fight). There is no way a FAT person would be able to jump around, run all day. or fight for hours. So come on explain that.
It has been shown that you can pick your outfits.
And yes adding options for looks does have negative effect on a game. Just look at Aion and the horrable char you can make in that game.
lol and you don't think there will be a buch of FAT guys dancing around if it was added?
How is being FAT a good image for girls/boys to have? You keep bring up real life. Sorry but if your so obsesed with how you look in a game, how is that healthy?
By the way no one is painting women in any type of light. Its a game, get over it. Also all you want to talk about is the women, what about the its view of men? Not all men are built the way GW2 shows them.
Lets go over your questions.
1) How can someone fat fight?
I find this rather funny. You are playing a fantasy game where 80 lb girls can twirl around 2H hammers which weigh just as much as they do without effort, yet you have an issue with fat people and stamina? I would say if one is allowed why not both? I am simply saying both options should be allowed... Apparently this is beyond reasonable for you.
2) Will there be a bunch of fat guys dancing?
Fair question and probably there will be a few. Will they be objectified like the tween female characters? No. Will there be as many? No. Will they purpetuate a hostile environment toward a specific sex of gamers? No.
3) How is being fat a good image for girls/boys to have?
Once again how is an unrealistic body type good for girls/boys either? If you take issue with fat (love how you keep capitalizing the word) body types having a negative impact you would also have to have a negative opinion on all unrealistic body types or be a hypocrite. Your not a hypocrite are you? You keep repeating the mantra "It is just a game" so there is your answer. There is no negative issue because it is just a game and not a political statement with stats. I am simply advocating the inclusion of multiple options, not just ones that let immature boys spank it while leveling. Not really too much to ask.
You obviously have not read my posts or you would know I have talked about both men and women. If you had been paying attention I said that it would be nice if both had the same options. Currently males have more with a wider range. This is usually not supported by lore so can only be contributed to negative real world cultural stereotypes. I wonder how long it would take for you to complain if you could only play a character which looked like Justin Beiber. Would you use the same justifications as you are for female toons. Maybe, but I doubt it.
So there you have it... I answered all the questions you posed to me. Many of these answers were in my previous posts. Lets see if you fully read this one.
-Atziluth-
- Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
Ok lets try this again. Body type is the only thing that is keeping Norns and Humans from looking the same (taking hight out of it). Ok NOW do you get it? Just so you know body type does effect your customization.
It is very hard to have a discussion with obnoxious people but i will try again. The guy who wrote the article isn't just taking about size and height . You just developed a strawman here which had nothign to do with the ongoing discussion regarding having more options in character creation. Yes height and size does matter but there are other things too which can keep the look of NORN intact so that they don't look like human but still look different from other norns.So saying i am ok with limited options and chalking it up to 'artistic style' is just bull.
Why didn't this same reviewer have the same critcisms about the minimal character customization in SWTOR, a game that pales in comparison to the customization options in GW2?
Ok lets try this again. Body type is the only thing that is keeping Norns and Humans from looking the same (taking hight out of it). Ok NOW do you get it? Just so you know body type does effect your customization.
It is very hard to have a discussion with obnoxious people but i will try again. The guy who wrote the article isn't just taking about size and height . You just developed a strawman here which had nothign to do with the ongoing discussion regarding having more options in character creation. Yes height and size does matter but there other things to which can keep the look of NORN intact so that they don't look like human but still look different from other norns.So saying i am ok with limited options is just bull.
I love it when poeple can't bring up a counter argument they always say "strawman". I was not talking about just height or body shape. The fact is that Norn and Humans look very similar, if we were given full options on changing thier features than we could make them look the same (not counting hight). How am i grasping at straws? Oh and if you could read i said i didn't like how it had limited options, but i am willing to take limited options if A.Net (you know the ones that are creating the game, and the artistic feel of the game) feels its needed.
Yes YOU were but that doesn't mean that the original point made by author was wrong or less accurate considering you wrapped it all nicely into 'i am ok with limited options since they are trying to keep artisitic style of visuals'. So you jumbled up the original point of lack of optimization with your own strawman to arrive to this ridiculous conclusion.
Comments
ign does it all the time and I only know that from looking up random games when I come across them. Now they are not a gaming magazine but I would think an honest review would be welcomed more than one like this. That could possibly be me being idealistic but there ya go. The company would probably still be advertising with them just because its good business.
I guess not! Will have to stare longer I guess
As for the rest of the article by the way, apart from the inclusion of his rant about female armour, I didn't find it that different then most others I have read.
the poster formerly known as melangel :P
Bingo... a review has to be 100% positive even if 10% negative fans will lynch the reviewer.
the only one crying and foaming at the mouth is you. And most of us don't really care what you think. You don't answer questions directed at you. Nore do you even want to talk about it. You have yet to explain why being FAT is a good option. You have yet to explain how in a very active world that is GW2 a FAT person would even be able to function (fight). There is no way a FAT person would be able to jump around, run all day. or fight for hours. So come on explain that.
It has been shown that you can pick your outfits.
And yes adding options for looks does have negative effect on a game. Just look at Aion and the horrable char you can make in that game.
lol and you don't think there will be a buch of FAT guys dancing around if it was added?
How is being FAT a good image for girls/boys to have? You keep bring up real life. Sorry but if your so obsesed with how you look in a game, how is that healthy?
By the way no one is painting women in any type of light. Its a game, get over it. Also all you want to talk about is the women, what about the its view of men? Not all men are built the way GW2 shows them.
"etc" and also I REMOVED THE LINE ANYWAYS AS ITS NOT APPROPRIATE... not going into the details as again.. its not appropriate no matter what I think of his article.
This article only proves one thing: ArenaNet doesn't write checks in exchange for positive previews. EA did.
Re: SWTOR
"Remember, remember - Kakk says 'December.'"
The article is very positive..why the hell Anet needs to write check? or they already did based on positive article.
I don't think you even read the whole thing.
I don't think I have one liked game myself on facebook,.if I do it was only to win something as I've seen a lot of contests linked to facebook likes, not sure if I've ever done so or not.
But really my facebook says nothing on anything I like, nor do, those who see it, know those things anyway.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'm kind of glad the reviewer was a fanboi of another game, because even despite that the reviewer seemed to come out of it liking the game and feeling it had a lot of positive things. I'd much rather a little criticism, than being told it's the best game ever and it's gonna blow everything else away..only to be disappointed when it comes out.
I don't want an over-hyping fanboi of the game playing and reviewing it. That happened with SWTOR and no good came from it. The game was a terrible WoW clone, it was rubbish. With the budget and talent the game had it shouldn't have been, but that's another story.
What happens when you log off your characters????.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
Dark Age of Camelot
I'm being slightly facetious. I did read the article and it does turn out to be positive. But read this same reviewer's opinion of TOR - and if that doesn't make you go "Hmmmmmm," then I don't know what would.
Why he would start off with inanities about playing a female character and not having the choice to make an older woman, whereas when he reviewed TOR (a game that only gives you about eight different choices in character creation - there are carbon copies to the brim in SWTOR) there were no negatives mentioned. Particulary not about perceived shallow character choices.
That, objectively, is very suspicious.
Re: SWTOR
"Remember, remember - Kakk says 'December.'"
hmmm I like both of those games.
An article can be positive and NOT be so because the publisher threw money at a website to get good reviews *coughKaneandlynch*cough
Sadly, they are few and far between. A review that gives even a little negative seems like it stands a good chance of being relatively unbiased.
I ahve to agree about his ToR review though. I read that months ago, and remember things it should have ended with "This ad was funded by..." /Shrug.
You are just trying too hard to find faults here. The character creating of GW2 is but a slight improvement especially for human race. Will it change in future or not who knows but his disliking of how human looks has nothing to do with TOR.
I think people who just hate TOR and pretty obsessed with it try to find connections even when they do not exist. Also expectations with GW2 are pretty high so i don't blame people for expecting a bit more out of character creation in GW2, isn't that what GW2 is all about? improving on existing features?
I like how GW2 fans deflect any criticism regarding GW2 towards TOR..as if it gives it a free pass.
Since when has GW2 been about improving on existing features? It was not GW2 fans or people on this forum that dragged TOR into this, the author did, he is the one that was compairing the two. While I do agree that the options in the character creation is lacking for some races. I also understand that they are going for an artistic style, and thats the reason you have body types and not sliders. This might also explain the lack of older, or perhaps ugly options. They are really treating the game like an art project in terms of visuals. So i am willing to have limmited options, in order to maintain that artistic style
He made but two obscure references to TOR. people need to read the whole article first. he would have said 'TOR' randomly in article somewhere and it would produce same result. Doesn't change the fact that article is very positive.
I am telling you what i have understood after reading the opinions of fans on these forums that GW2 is about improving and innovating the existing features. So yes GW2 will have to bear the brunt of these high expectations.
You can have artistic style and still have sliders. I don't even know how sliders make it less artistic.For first time i ever read that to make visuals an art project one has to be satisfied with limited options.
*scratches head*
Well since you don't understand.
Norn and Humans have very similar looks. If they gave us sliders it would make it possible to make a human look like a short Norn and a Norn look like a tall human. This would break the artistic style they are doing. By having body types they make sure that Norns don't just look like tall humans and humans don't look like just short Norns.
I jumped into this thread to defend female armour :P As far as I can see the reviewer never mentioned TOR in reference to female characters or am I missing something? He mentioned AION, Lineage and Disney.I can find the reference regarding the story comparison and I can't say I disagree seeing as that's the only part of TOR I liked. I also prefered the cut scenes in GW1 to the story direction in GW2 but hey ho, people don't like cut scenes. Maybe I'm the only one who doesn't mind them.
the poster formerly known as melangel :P
You are talking about height and size of body and i am talking about over all customization while making your character.
And another person that fails at reading.
Ok lets try this again. Body type is the only thing that is keeping Norns and Humans from looking the same (taking hight out of it). Ok NOW do you get it? Just so you know body type does effect your customization. and i was not just talking about body shap. facial features, and everything that involves char customization
If his complaint was solely geared toward Human options it is no surprise that he wouldn't have the same complaint about TOR. As it has many different human-esque options (every race is essentially that), I had no complaint about TOR in this area; as a person who plays pretty much only Human's in RPG's/MMO's, I felt right at home in character creation.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It is very hard to have a discussion with obnoxious people but i will try again. The guy who wrote the article isn't just taking about size and height . You just developed a strawman here which had nothign to do with the ongoing discussion regarding having more options in character creation. Yes height and size does matter but there are other things too which can keep the look of NORN intact so that they don't look like human but still look different from other norns.So saying i am ok with limited options and chalking it up to 'artistic style' is just bull.
I love it when poeple can't bring up a counter argument they always say "strawman". I was not talking about just height or body shape. The fact is that Norn and Humans look very similar, if we were given full options on changing thier features than we could make them look the same (not counting hight). How am i grasping at straws? Oh and if you could read i said i didn't like how it had limited options, but i am willing to take limited options if A.Net (you know the ones that are creating the game, and the artistic feel of the game) feels its needed.
The only thing keeping them from looking the same are their physical features. Only way of making sure they look different is if you limit the physical features options you give the players.
Lets go over your questions.
1) How can someone fat fight?
I find this rather funny. You are playing a fantasy game where 80 lb girls can twirl around 2H hammers which weigh just as much as they do without effort, yet you have an issue with fat people and stamina? I would say if one is allowed why not both? I am simply saying both options should be allowed... Apparently this is beyond reasonable for you.
2) Will there be a bunch of fat guys dancing?
Fair question and probably there will be a few. Will they be objectified like the tween female characters? No. Will there be as many? No. Will they purpetuate a hostile environment toward a specific sex of gamers? No.
3) How is being fat a good image for girls/boys to have?
Once again how is an unrealistic body type good for girls/boys either? If you take issue with fat (love how you keep capitalizing the word) body types having a negative impact you would also have to have a negative opinion on all unrealistic body types or be a hypocrite. Your not a hypocrite are you? You keep repeating the mantra "It is just a game" so there is your answer. There is no negative issue because it is just a game and not a political statement with stats. I am simply advocating the inclusion of multiple options, not just ones that let immature boys spank it while leveling. Not really too much to ask.
You obviously have not read my posts or you would know I have talked about both men and women. If you had been paying attention I said that it would be nice if both had the same options. Currently males have more with a wider range. This is usually not supported by lore so can only be contributed to negative real world cultural stereotypes. I wonder how long it would take for you to complain if you could only play a character which looked like Justin Beiber. Would you use the same justifications as you are for female toons. Maybe, but I doubt it.
So there you have it... I answered all the questions you posed to me. Many of these answers were in my previous posts. Lets see if you fully read this one.
-Atziluth-
- Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
Why didn't this same reviewer have the same critcisms about the minimal character customization in SWTOR, a game that pales in comparison to the customization options in GW2?
Odd, yes?
Objectively, yes.
Re: SWTOR
"Remember, remember - Kakk says 'December.'"
Yes YOU were but that doesn't mean that the original point made by author was wrong or less accurate considering you wrapped it all nicely into 'i am ok with limited options since they are trying to keep artisitic style of visuals'. So you jumbled up the original point of lack of optimization with your own strawman to arrive to this ridiculous conclusion.