The game is 100% polished,i think that should be end of conversation.
There are some aspects of the game i don't like and i would like to see combat done with more depth but the game is imo the best game on the market right now.
No it is not GW2 just because it is f2p and no WS is not going to be the best game.There is something in EVERY game for each of us,i am sure everyone can find that game,but for rating sake and polish,FFXIV is number 1 right now.That does not mean it does EVERYTHING the best there are several areas it takes a back seat.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
You don't have to be the best in everything to be the best one out there. Because then there would never be "the best one" since no game can meet such ridiculous demands. Defeats the point of "best one" entirely. The only way for it to make sense is to look at the whole package, but that would mean ARR actually has a good shot at being "the best one" and that obviously doesn't suit your agenda so too bad.
Don't you think you're contradicting yourself with the above statement?
neobahamut20 said this game is "the best" barring combat, I listed several aspect that's obviously weaker than other titles. Then you defend ARR for "you don't have to be the best in everything to be the best one out there".
Right, so I can tell you SWTOR/GW2/WOW/"insert your MMO title here with 1 strong aspect but not perfect" is the best MMORPG because "you don't have to be the best in everything to be the best".
Not counting battle system and art, IMO ARR has better endgame than GW2 and better dungeons than SWTOR, but SWTOR has better story/lving experience and GW2 has better exploration/PVP. No game has the best in everything, but saying ARR is the best without having everything when GW2/SWTOR is obviously not allowed to be the best on this site because they have 1 negative aspect being overemphasized is just fan boyism and unfair.
It's more like you picked the what you like in ARR, and ignored every other negative aspect of the game because ARR is still the best with flaws. Then when it comes to other MMO like SWTOR or GW2 or w/e other AAA titles, you ignored their positive aspect and overemphasized the weak part so ARR can be "the best". When honest people pointed out the flaws in ARR, they're "haters" and shouldn't be on the forum.
IMO I think a good MMO needs talent tree/character build/complicated skill system and big open world to explore/do activity with because it's RPG. ARR has none of those, by your logic I can overemphasize the lack of RPG element and claim other titles are better?
Actually you very explicitly stated that if every aspect isn't better than others, the game can't be considered "the best one out there." I called you out on that extremely flawed opinion, because it makes zero sense, regardless of the game in question. The concept is hardly specific to FFXIV.
You can make the argument that SWTOR/GW2/WOW is the best MMORPG because the same logic applies to every game. I never claimed you can't.
Actually that is an infinitely sounder thing to do because then ARR can actually be compared to a certain game with concrete attributes, not just "MMO's in general". Obviously no game is going to win that comparison because you can pick and choose the cream of the crop for every attribute. But you never brought anything concrete to the discussion, simply extremely ambiguous claims with no basis. "Other games do X and Y better" is such a meaningful contribution that I must applaud you.
Last but not the least to quote myself "ARR actually has a good shot at being "the best one"" which is not me saying ARR is the best one out there.
I specifically pointed out the weakness and strength of ARR, instead of blanket statement like "This game is the best barring combat" or "This game set a standard post launch"(which obviously I disagree with). If "other games do X and Y better" doesn't contribute much, I'm not sure how "this game set a standard post launch" without saying why contribute more.
Or it's more like if I'm against fanboy's opinion here, so it's not concrete opinion?
I'm also not sure which opinion is more flawed: Saying a game isn't best at everything, thus it's not the best, or saying a game can be the best without being the best at everything.
By logic my opinion isn't flawed. No game can be the best at everything, thus the best game doesn't exist unless specific parameter is used to determine which game is the best. I never claim X title is the best game. But if I HAVE to pick a best game and convince someone that game is the best, I'd use specific parameter we all agree on and hard to deny, such as sub number, it's impact to the industry, overall production level to claim a title is the best.....certainly not something like "you don't need to be the best at everything to be the best"
When I called neobahamut out by questioning this game being the best, the parameter was "everything barring combat", , not just it's a vague parameter that most of us can't agree with each other, it also falls short compare with other games.
Your logic is more flawed. Your arguement is based on the fact that no game can be the best at everything, but one game has to be the best. Thus pretty much any game has a chance to be the best without setting a specific parameter. "You don't have to be the best at everything to be the best" makes 0 sense to me because I can just pull out a total trash game and claim this game is the best because this game still fits the parameter you set.
I did not say anything against your claim of ARR having a "good shot" at being the best, it's against the logic of "you don't have to be the best at everything to be the best" and "this game is the best barring combat".
I specifically pointed out the weakness and strength of ARR, instead of blanket statement like "This game is the best barring combat" or "This game set a standard post launch"(which obviously I disagree with). If "other games do X and Y better" doesn't contribute much, I'm not sure how "this game set a standard post launch" without saying why contribute more.
Or it's more like if I'm against fanboy's opinion here, so it's not concrete opinion?
I'm also not sure which opinion is more flawed: Saying a game isn't best at everything, thus it's not the best, or saying a game can be the best without being the best at everything.
By logic my opinion isn't flawed. No game can be the best at everything, thus the best game doesn't exist unless specific parameter is used to determine which game is the best. I never claim X title is the best game. But if I HAVE to pick a best game and convince someone that game is the best, I'd use specific parameter we all agree on and hard to deny, such as sub number, it's impact to the industry, overall production level to claim a title is the best.....certainly not something like "you don't need to be the best at everything to be the best"
When I called neobahamut out by questioning this game being the best, the parameter was "everything barring combat", , not just it's a vague parameter that most of us can't agree with each other, it also falls short compare with other games.
Your logic is more flawed. Your arguement is based on the fact that no game can be the best at everything, but one game has to be the best. Thus pretty much any game has a chance to be the best without setting a specific parameter. "You don't have to be the best at everything to be the best" makes 0 sense to me because I can just pull out a total trash game and claim this game is the best because this game still fits the parameter you set.
I did not say anything against your claim of ARR having a "good shot" at being the best, it's against the logic of "you don't have to be the best at everything to be the best" and "this game is the best barring combat".
I can't really help you if you can't see the obvious flaw in your perspective. The former means there can be no "best game", the latter leaves the option for the best game to exist since the parameters aren't set to be impossible to match to begin with. You CAN sum up the attributes of a game and come to an average conclusion. It's as simple as that.
Best at everything =/= the best game. Like I said above, determining the best game is possible using simple 5th grader math. I'm not sure if you fail to understand the concept or if you choose to deny it but either way it exists. This is the parameter and it means that no trash game can be the best because on average it still sucks. This should be obvious but I can see that it makes zero sense to you.
1st in combat, 7th in graphics, 5th in story, 3rd in music, 8th in content, 2nd in crafting
3rd in combat, 2nd in graphics, 2nd in story, 5th in music, 4th in content, 10th in crafting
Count the average, determine "the best game".
Claiming that the guy you quoted is a fanboy is a stretch. But obviously it fits your agenda so that's what you do.
Either way since you seem to be using the definition loosely you may as well be the hater. Regardless of the validity of said statement or not. If you ask me, though, I'd rather not go there.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
I specifically pointed out the weakness and strength of ARR, instead of blanket statement like "This game is the best barring combat" or "This game set a standard post launch"(which obviously I disagree with). If "other games do X and Y better" doesn't contribute much, I'm not sure how "this game set a standard post launch" without saying why contribute more.
Or it's more like if I'm against fanboy's opinion here, so it's not concrete opinion?
I'm also not sure which opinion is more flawed: Saying a game isn't best at everything, thus it's not the best, or saying a game can be the best without being the best at everything.
By logic my opinion isn't flawed. No game can be the best at everything, thus the best game doesn't exist unless specific parameter is used to determine which game is the best. I never claim X title is the best game. But if I HAVE to pick a best game and convince someone that game is the best, I'd use specific parameter we all agree on and hard to deny, such as sub number, it's impact to the industry, overall production level to claim a title is the best.....certainly not something like "you don't need to be the best at everything to be the best"
When I called neobahamut out by questioning this game being the best, the parameter was "everything barring combat", , not just it's a vague parameter that most of us can't agree with each other, it also falls short compare with other games.
Your logic is more flawed. Your arguement is based on the fact that no game can be the best at everything, but one game has to be the best. Thus pretty much any game has a chance to be the best without setting a specific parameter. "You don't have to be the best at everything to be the best" makes 0 sense to me because I can just pull out a total trash game and claim this game is the best because this game still fits the parameter you set.
I did not say anything against your claim of ARR having a "good shot" at being the best, it's against the logic of "you don't have to be the best at everything to be the best" and "this game is the best barring combat".
I can't really help you if you can't see the obvious flaw in your perspective. The former means there can be no "best game", the latter leaves the option for the best game to exist since the parameters aren't set to be impossible to match to begin with. You CAN sum up the attributes of a game and come to an average conclusion. It's as simple as that.
Best at everything =/= the best game. Like I said above, determining the best game is possible using simple 5th grader math. I'm not sure if you fail to understand the concept or if you choose to deny it but either way it exists. This is the parameter and it means that no trash game can be the best because on average it still sucks. This should be obvious but I can see that it makes zero sense to you.
1st in combat, 7th in graphics, 5th in story, 3rd in music, 8th in content, 2nd in crafting
3rd in combat, 2nd in graphics, 2nd in story, 5th in music, 4th in content, 10th in crafting
Count the average, determine "the best game".
Claiming that the guy you quoted is a fanboy is a stretch. But obviously it fits your agenda so that's what you do.
Either way since you seem to be using the definition loosely you may as well be the hater. Regardless of the validity of said statement or not. If you ask me, though, I'd rather not go there.
My perspective isn't too different from what you just said. If a game gets 9/10 in 1 aspect, 6/10 or 7/10 in everything else, a few 3/10, fat chances are it's not going to be the best because the weaker aspect affected the avg score.
If a game scores 9/10 or 8/10 in most of the area, it'd have a good chance to be the best. Thus a game with many aspect better or on par with other title is the best, a title with many aspect worse than other titles can't be the best.
I don't see how this contradict what I said to neobahamut. When a game obviously have many 6/10 or 7/10 attribute, and a few even less than 5/10, how'd it be the best?
Unless you purposely ignored certain 5/10 category because it's not important to whoever likes this game.
My perspective isn't too different from what you just said. If a game gets 9/10 in 1 aspect, 6/10 or 7/10 in everything else, a few 3/10, fat chances are it's not going to be the best because the weaker aspect affected the avg score.
If a game scores 9/10 or 8/10 in most of the area, it'd have a good chance to be the best. Thus a game with many aspect better or on par with other title is the best, a title with many aspect worse than other titles can't be the best.
I don't see how this contradict what I said to neobahamut. When a game obviously have many 6/10 or 7/10 attribute, and a few even less than 5/10, how'd it be the best?
Unless you purposely ignored certain 5/10 category because it's not important to whoever likes this game.
You clearly said that the game has to be the best at everything to be considered the best game. Thus it wouldn't matter if the game is 8/10 in all aspects as long as any other game is better in one aspect. The criterium "best at everything" would no longer apply.
Even being 5 or 6 out of ten in many aspects does not mean it can't be the best game. As long as other MMO's can't do any better than that. No game is flawless and every single game out there has aspects that deserve a five out of ten.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
My perspective isn't too different from what you just said. If a game gets 9/10 in 1 aspect, 6/10 or 7/10 in everything else, a few 3/10, fat chances are it's not going to be the best because the weaker aspect affected the avg score.
If a game scores 9/10 or 8/10 in most of the area, it'd have a good chance to be the best. Thus a game with many aspect better or on par with other title is the best, a title with many aspect worse than other titles can't be the best.
I don't see how this contradict what I said to neobahamut. When a game obviously have many 6/10 or 7/10 attribute, and a few even less than 5/10, how'd it be the best?
Unless you purposely ignored certain 5/10 category because it's not important to whoever likes this game.
You clearly said that the game has to be the best at everything to be considered the best game. Thus it wouldn't matter if the game is 8/10 in all aspects as long as any other game is better in one aspect. The criterium "best at everything" would no longer apply.
Even being 5 or 6 out of ten in many aspects does not mean it can't be the best game. As long as other MMO's can't do any better than that. No game is flawless and every single game out there has aspects that deserve a five out of ten.
This is my first post:
"Not really, there are games with better PVP, better character development, better story, better exploration and better crafting.
ARR has fun dungeons and exciting primal battle, pretty animation and good music, every other aspect other games done it better."
Basically hinting certain aspect of ARR is nothing to write home about....it's not even 8/10 in many category.
This is 2nd post about this subject:
"It is relevant if you want highest quality when playing for certain aspect. And that doesn't make the game "best one out there for now" if it doesn't make every aspect better than others.
And I find 2.1 patch nothing exciting, personally, especially that crappy PVP."
Basically saying some people may not play an MMO for mediocre aspect. It has nothing to do with "A game must be 10/10 for everything to be the best". What I mean was, if I want to play PVP, or read a good story, or enjoy character development, or explore a big world, I wouldn't play ARR for it. Those aspect doesn't have to be the same game, it doesn't matter now that most titles are F2P and we're not stuck with 1 single game. Which was to counter your POV that players can only play 1 game.
Next post I called you out for contradicting yourself, and no longer continue with "game has to be 10/10" crap.
When do you see me say "A game has to be 10/10 for everything or else it's not the best" or something similar?
I don't claim a game has to be absolutely perfect to be the best, but every other category can't be too terrible, at least it should be way above avg. At least something like 8/10 in most of the category?
And yes, being 5/10 in many aspect can't be the best, even if it avg higher. Scoring a 5/10 means there are certain aspect dev doesn't care as much, or not working hard enough. I'd consider a game with everything 8/10 and avg a 8 a better game than a title score 5/10 for 3+ category but avg 8.1.
A student with 80% avg and passed every single subject is a good student. A student with 81% avg but failed 3 subject because he scored 50% is an university dropout.
You clearly said that the game has to be the best at everything to be considered the best game.
This is 2nd post about this subject:
"It is relevant if you want highest quality when playing for certain aspect. And that doesn't make the game "best one out there for now" if it doesn't make every aspect better than others.
When do you see me say "A game has to be 10/10 for everything or else it's not the best" or something similar?
"If every aspect isn't better, it's not the best game." These are your words, straight out of the quote you provided.
We are not talking about students. We are talking about MMORPG's where no one "passes" every subject.
I recommend you to quit this farce while you're still only this much behind.
To the above poster: Of course its only an opinion at best, but what makes it a laughable opinion is that Bluewhitehell doesn't base it on anything (outside extremely vague "other games" haha). Which would really be the only way to see whether his opinion has any validity or not.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
You clearly said that the game has to be the best at everything to be considered the best game.
This is 2nd post about this subject:
"It is relevant if you want highest quality when playing for certain aspect. And that doesn't make the game "best one out there for now" if it doesn't make every aspect better than others.
When do you see me say "A game has to be 10/10 for everything or else it's not the best" or something similar?
"If every aspect isn't better, it's not the best game." These are your words, straight out of the quote you provided.
We are not talking about students. We are talking about MMORPG's where no one "passes" every subject.
I recommend you to quit this farce while you're still only this much behind.
To the above poster: Of course its only an opinion at best, but what makes it a laughable opinion is that Bluewhitehell doesn't base it on anything (outside extremely vague "other games" haha). Which would really be the only way to see whether his opinion has any validity or not.
What you quote is different from what you said. More like you twisted my word so you can play with words and argue further.
"You clearly said that the game has to be the best at everything to be considered the best game. "
This means a game has to be 10/10 at everything to be the best, which isn't what I meant when I reply to neobahamut. I think it's ok if certain aspect is slightly weaker, but not too weak.
And that doesn't make the game "best one out there for now" if it doesn't make every aspect better than others.
This means, none combat aspect doesn't make the game best, because none combat aspect isn't better than others either. Neobahamut hinted that every aspect(that's not combat) of this game is the best, which I disagree. So I used same term as he did saying it's in fact not better than other games. That does not have equal meaning as "you must be 10/10 for every category".
It's basically the same thing as saying "My Math and Science is terrible because I got 30%, but even if I ignore my math and science, I'm still not the best student because my every other subject isn't better than other student either(Other student got 80%, I only got 60%).If my other subject isn't better than others(I got 60% others got 80%), I can't be the best. I can't be the best not because I didn't fit the "I must be 10/10 for everything to be the best student" criteria, but because the score avg was dragged down.
I'm not sure what part you don't understand about "you can't be the best if you got 60% and others got 80%".
It does not set an impossible goal to reach, unlike "you must be 10/10 at everything" statement. It only stated that a game won't be the best because of score lower than others.
Of course, whether other games ended up avg lower than ARR or not is another issue, maybe in the end ARR still avg higher in your mind. If you disagree with my POV, bring it up and we can discuss about it. But what I said has different meaning as "you must be 10/10 at everything to be the best." and you really don't need to twist the meaning of my words so you can win this internet argument.
I don't think the best game needs to fit the criteria of being perfect in every aspect, but I do believe it has to do better than most. I also think we have slightly different POV toward "being the best". I rarely claim a game is the best, unless I have facts accepted by the majority to back it up. I certainly don't claim a game that doesn't do basic aspect properly the best. Or else any low budge MMO can focus on 1~2 aspect, make it awesome as hell. Ignore everything else and still get a shot at being the best just because the avg score gets higher with that 1~2 awesome aspect. This is MMO, not student. That doesn't mean I can ignore the flaws if the flaws are terrible to a point that it's hard to tolerate.
About your so called "laughable vague opinion", I think nothing can beat your "ARR set a standard only WoW can match". I can write a 1000 word essay explaining why ARR's certain aspect is weak, why story doesn't work very well and start a writing lesson on this forum, or explain why ARR's PVP is shallow and unbalanced and so on, or why the game has weak staying power that no "I haven't enter coil yet" can justify. But clearly even you agreed that ARR has weaker aspect, and the flaws have been mentioned over and over on the forum too. So there's no need to beat a dead horse, since my POV would probably be the same as majority of negative opinion on this forum.
Obviously my opinion is "laughable" to you because you don't agree with it.
I've yet see Hyan explain why ARR is the best based on numbers and facts, since your claim is rather new. I see no point to continue this farce too(funny that I agree with you about this), if you insist to play with words instead of offer some meaningful contribution toward the topic. I won't reply anymore pointless argument about the definition of being the best and so on. ARR fits your criteria, it doesn't fit mine(and not getting 10/10 for everything isn't the reason), /end thread.
My perspective isn't too different from what you just said. If a game gets 9/10 in 1 aspect, 6/10 or 7/10 in everything else, a few 3/10, fat chances are it's not going to be the best because the weaker aspect affected the avg score.
If a game scores 9/10 or 8/10 in most of the area, it'd have a good chance to be the best. Thus a game with many aspect better or on par with other title is the best, a title with many aspect worse than other titles can't be the best.
I don't see how this contradict what I said to neobahamut. When a game obviously have many 6/10 or 7/10 attribute, and a few even less than 5/10, how'd it be the best?
Unless you purposely ignored certain 5/10 category because it's not important to whoever likes this game.
You clearly said that the game has to be the best at everything to be considered the best game. Thus it wouldn't matter if the game is 8/10 in all aspects as long as any other game is better in one aspect. The criterium "best at everything" would no longer apply.
Even being 5 or 6 out of ten in many aspects does not mean it can't be the best game. As long as other MMO's can't do any better than that. No game is flawless and every single game out there has aspects that deserve a five out of ten.
This is my first post:
"Not really, there are games with better PVP, better character development, better story, better exploration and better crafting.
ARR has fun dungeons and exciting primal battle, pretty animation and good music, every other aspect other games done it better."
Basically hinting certain aspect of ARR is nothing to write home about....it's not even 8/10 in many category.
This is 2nd post about this subject:
"It is relevant if you want highest quality when playing for certain aspect. And that doesn't make the game "best one out there for now" if it doesn't make every aspect better than others.
And I find 2.1 patch nothing exciting, personally, especially that crappy PVP."
Basically saying some people may not play an MMO for mediocre aspect. It has nothing to do with "A game must be 10/10 for everything to be the best". What I mean was, if I want to play PVP, or read a good story, or enjoy character development, or explore a big world, I wouldn't play ARR for it. Those aspect doesn't have to be the same game, it doesn't matter now that most titles are F2P and we're not stuck with 1 single game. Which was to counter your POV that players can only play 1 game.
Next post I called you out for contradicting yourself, and no longer continue with "game has to be 10/10" crap.
When do you see me say "A game has to be 10/10 for everything or else it's not the best" or something similar?
I don't claim a game has to be absolutely perfect to be the best, but every other category can't be too terrible, at least it should be way above avg. At least something like 8/10 in most of the category?
And yes, being 5/10 in many aspect can't be the best, even if it avg higher. Scoring a 5/10 means there are certain aspect dev doesn't care as much, or not working hard enough. I'd consider a game with everything 8/10 and avg a 8 a better game than a title score 5/10 for 3+ category but avg 8.1.
A student with 80% avg and passed every single subject is a good student. A student with 81% avg but failed 3 subject because he scored 50% is an university dropout.
Well you know its all opinions on whether story, pvp, crafting and so on are the best anyway.
Opinions are opinions, and it's not wrong to share opinions on the forum, as long as the opinion is presented in a good way.
But if someone acted up and bitter all over the forum on this site, label any opinion he disagree as "fooling yourself", "laughable", "ignorant" and go defensive toward any negative opinion toward his favorite game with zero respect toward other's opinion, or even start twisting other's word, it won't convince anyone.
If you don't like the game move on. If a patch catches your interest give it another shot. But, no game will ever be the best in every single aspect it's just not possible not to mention not all of it can be completely controlled by a the developers. Like one of the reasons I love FFXIV is in my experience the community is much more friendly than most MMOs now a days.
I often assume that people can tell the difference between claims that I make that are opinions versus claims of fact, without needing me to explicitly point out the difference.
Originally posted by Quizzical I often assume that people can tell the difference between claims that I make that are opinions versus claims of fact, without needing me to explicitly point out the difference.
There's several good aspects to acting this way too.
You can first state what you want to say as an objective truthfact-sort of way. "This is how it is, and that is what will happen."
Now if somebody starts to actually argue with said truthfacts (so you'd have to *gulp* argue back), you can always go back and say it was all opinions bro. Period.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Comments
The game is 100% polished,i think that should be end of conversation.
There are some aspects of the game i don't like and i would like to see combat done with more depth but the game is imo the best game on the market right now.
No it is not GW2 just because it is f2p and no WS is not going to be the best game.There is something in EVERY game for each of us,i am sure everyone can find that game,but for rating sake and polish,FFXIV is number 1 right now.That does not mean it does EVERYTHING the best there are several areas it takes a back seat.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I specifically pointed out the weakness and strength of ARR, instead of blanket statement like "This game is the best barring combat" or "This game set a standard post launch"(which obviously I disagree with). If "other games do X and Y better" doesn't contribute much, I'm not sure how "this game set a standard post launch" without saying why contribute more.
Or it's more like if I'm against fanboy's opinion here, so it's not concrete opinion?
I'm also not sure which opinion is more flawed: Saying a game isn't best at everything, thus it's not the best, or saying a game can be the best without being the best at everything.
By logic my opinion isn't flawed. No game can be the best at everything, thus the best game doesn't exist unless specific parameter is used to determine which game is the best. I never claim X title is the best game. But if I HAVE to pick a best game and convince someone that game is the best, I'd use specific parameter we all agree on and hard to deny, such as sub number, it's impact to the industry, overall production level to claim a title is the best.....certainly not something like "you don't need to be the best at everything to be the best"
When I called neobahamut out by questioning this game being the best, the parameter was "everything barring combat", , not just it's a vague parameter that most of us can't agree with each other, it also falls short compare with other games.
Your logic is more flawed. Your arguement is based on the fact that no game can be the best at everything, but one game has to be the best. Thus pretty much any game has a chance to be the best without setting a specific parameter. "You don't have to be the best at everything to be the best" makes 0 sense to me because I can just pull out a total trash game and claim this game is the best because this game still fits the parameter you set.
I did not say anything against your claim of ARR having a "good shot" at being the best, it's against the logic of "you don't have to be the best at everything to be the best" and "this game is the best barring combat".
I can't really help you if you can't see the obvious flaw in your perspective. The former means there can be no "best game", the latter leaves the option for the best game to exist since the parameters aren't set to be impossible to match to begin with. You CAN sum up the attributes of a game and come to an average conclusion. It's as simple as that.
Best at everything =/= the best game. Like I said above, determining the best game is possible using simple 5th grader math. I'm not sure if you fail to understand the concept or if you choose to deny it but either way it exists. This is the parameter and it means that no trash game can be the best because on average it still sucks. This should be obvious but I can see that it makes zero sense to you.
1st in combat, 7th in graphics, 5th in story, 3rd in music, 8th in content, 2nd in crafting
3rd in combat, 2nd in graphics, 2nd in story, 5th in music, 4th in content, 10th in crafting
Count the average, determine "the best game".
Claiming that the guy you quoted is a fanboy is a stretch. But obviously it fits your agenda so that's what you do.
Either way since you seem to be using the definition loosely you may as well be the hater. Regardless of the validity of said statement or not. If you ask me, though, I'd rather not go there.
My perspective isn't too different from what you just said. If a game gets 9/10 in 1 aspect, 6/10 or 7/10 in everything else, a few 3/10, fat chances are it's not going to be the best because the weaker aspect affected the avg score.
If a game scores 9/10 or 8/10 in most of the area, it'd have a good chance to be the best. Thus a game with many aspect better or on par with other title is the best, a title with many aspect worse than other titles can't be the best.
I don't see how this contradict what I said to neobahamut. When a game obviously have many 6/10 or 7/10 attribute, and a few even less than 5/10, how'd it be the best?
Unless you purposely ignored certain 5/10 category because it's not important to whoever likes this game.
You clearly said that the game has to be the best at everything to be considered the best game. Thus it wouldn't matter if the game is 8/10 in all aspects as long as any other game is better in one aspect. The criterium "best at everything" would no longer apply.
Even being 5 or 6 out of ten in many aspects does not mean it can't be the best game. As long as other MMO's can't do any better than that. No game is flawless and every single game out there has aspects that deserve a five out of ten.
This is my first post:
"Not really, there are games with better PVP, better character development, better story, better exploration and better crafting.
ARR has fun dungeons and exciting primal battle, pretty animation and good music, every other aspect other games done it better."
Basically hinting certain aspect of ARR is nothing to write home about....it's not even 8/10 in many category.
This is 2nd post about this subject:
"It is relevant if you want highest quality when playing for certain aspect. And that doesn't make the game "best one out there for now" if it doesn't make every aspect better than others.
And I find 2.1 patch nothing exciting, personally, especially that crappy PVP."
Basically saying some people may not play an MMO for mediocre aspect. It has nothing to do with "A game must be 10/10 for everything to be the best". What I mean was, if I want to play PVP, or read a good story, or enjoy character development, or explore a big world, I wouldn't play ARR for it. Those aspect doesn't have to be the same game, it doesn't matter now that most titles are F2P and we're not stuck with 1 single game. Which was to counter your POV that players can only play 1 game.
Next post I called you out for contradicting yourself, and no longer continue with "game has to be 10/10" crap.
When do you see me say "A game has to be 10/10 for everything or else it's not the best" or something similar?
I don't claim a game has to be absolutely perfect to be the best, but every other category can't be too terrible, at least it should be way above avg. At least something like 8/10 in most of the category?
And yes, being 5/10 in many aspect can't be the best, even if it avg higher. Scoring a 5/10 means there are certain aspect dev doesn't care as much, or not working hard enough. I'd consider a game with everything 8/10 and avg a 8 a better game than a title score 5/10 for 3+ category but avg 8.1.
A student with 80% avg and passed every single subject is a good student. A student with 81% avg but failed 3 subject because he scored 50% is an university dropout.
"If every aspect isn't better, it's not the best game." These are your words, straight out of the quote you provided.
We are not talking about students. We are talking about MMORPG's where no one "passes" every subject.
I recommend you to quit this farce while you're still only this much behind.
To the above poster: Of course its only an opinion at best, but what makes it a laughable opinion is that Bluewhitehell doesn't base it on anything (outside extremely vague "other games" haha). Which would really be the only way to see whether his opinion has any validity or not.
What you quote is different from what you said. More like you twisted my word so you can play with words and argue further.
"You clearly said that the game has to be the best at everything to be considered the best game. "
This means a game has to be 10/10 at everything to be the best, which isn't what I meant when I reply to neobahamut. I think it's ok if certain aspect is slightly weaker, but not too weak.
And that doesn't make the game "best one out there for now" if it doesn't make every aspect better than others.
This means, none combat aspect doesn't make the game best, because none combat aspect isn't better than others either. Neobahamut hinted that every aspect(that's not combat) of this game is the best, which I disagree. So I used same term as he did saying it's in fact not better than other games. That does not have equal meaning as "you must be 10/10 for every category".
It's basically the same thing as saying "My Math and Science is terrible because I got 30%, but even if I ignore my math and science, I'm still not the best student because my every other subject isn't better than other student either(Other student got 80%, I only got 60%). If my other subject isn't better than others(I got 60% others got 80%), I can't be the best. I can't be the best not because I didn't fit the "I must be 10/10 for everything to be the best student" criteria, but because the score avg was dragged down.
I'm not sure what part you don't understand about "you can't be the best if you got 60% and others got 80%".
It does not set an impossible goal to reach, unlike "you must be 10/10 at everything" statement. It only stated that a game won't be the best because of score lower than others.
Of course, whether other games ended up avg lower than ARR or not is another issue, maybe in the end ARR still avg higher in your mind. If you disagree with my POV, bring it up and we can discuss about it. But what I said has different meaning as "you must be 10/10 at everything to be the best." and you really don't need to twist the meaning of my words so you can win this internet argument.
I don't think the best game needs to fit the criteria of being perfect in every aspect, but I do believe it has to do better than most. I also think we have slightly different POV toward "being the best". I rarely claim a game is the best, unless I have facts accepted by the majority to back it up. I certainly don't claim a game that doesn't do basic aspect properly the best. Or else any low budge MMO can focus on 1~2 aspect, make it awesome as hell. Ignore everything else and still get a shot at being the best just because the avg score gets higher with that 1~2 awesome aspect. This is MMO, not student. That doesn't mean I can ignore the flaws if the flaws are terrible to a point that it's hard to tolerate.
About your so called "laughable vague opinion", I think nothing can beat your "ARR set a standard only WoW can match". I can write a 1000 word essay explaining why ARR's certain aspect is weak, why story doesn't work very well and start a writing lesson on this forum, or explain why ARR's PVP is shallow and unbalanced and so on, or why the game has weak staying power that no "I haven't enter coil yet" can justify. But clearly even you agreed that ARR has weaker aspect, and the flaws have been mentioned over and over on the forum too. So there's no need to beat a dead horse, since my POV would probably be the same as majority of negative opinion on this forum.
Obviously my opinion is "laughable" to you because you don't agree with it.
I've yet see Hyan explain why ARR is the best based on numbers and facts, since your claim is rather new. I see no point to continue this farce too(funny that I agree with you about this), if you insist to play with words instead of offer some meaningful contribution toward the topic. I won't reply anymore pointless argument about the definition of being the best and so on. ARR fits your criteria, it doesn't fit mine(and not getting 10/10 for everything isn't the reason), /end thread.
Opinions are opinions, and it's not wrong to share opinions on the forum, as long as the opinion is presented in a good way.
But if someone acted up and bitter all over the forum on this site, label any opinion he disagree as "fooling yourself", "laughable", "ignorant" and go defensive toward any negative opinion toward his favorite game with zero respect toward other's opinion, or even start twisting other's word, it won't convince anyone.
There's several good aspects to acting this way too.
You can first state what you want to say as an objective truthfact-sort of way. "This is how it is, and that is what will happen."
Now if somebody starts to actually argue with said truthfacts (so you'd have to *gulp* argue back), you can always go back and say it was all opinions bro. Period.