@Gorb said:
Struggling to not see the hypocrisy in calling people out for name-calling with this. I'm involved in this topic, so no moderation here, but I find it weird you consistently hinge your language on such aggressive use, but you're one of the first to call out perceived foul play.
Maybe discussions would be better if there was less vitriol on all sides? A discussion is only as good as the least constructive in it, on any "side".
I find it weird how you're so consistent in pointing out my "aggressive language", yet so oblivious to it when it's coming from the other side of the debate. Just a small sample of what I'm talking about in the last page or so would be:
Katitof said:
You're completely delusional here.
CANNED_F3TUS said:
Yeah lets forget the hate train of petulant troll kin and nostalgia "i wanted a reskin" babies that could have something to do with DoW 3s rough start.
Would you care to explain how my comment is more aggressive than the above? If this were an even remotely isolated case, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, but I can't say you have an ounce of credibility for being objective on this forum anymore. What's especially disturbing, however, is your comment follows an accusation only a few posts ago about me trying to bait you and get personal...weird.
As for my specific comment to Canned_F3tus, I was reminding him of the extensive and VERY heated discussions he got himself into on the Steam forums prior to release. Given the effort and lengths he went to arguing against the MOBA criticism, I find it strange that he's determined now that DoW III's problems are content-based. He saw first-hand the initial impressions for the game on Steam and he got himself so worked up over it that he was banned. I don't know what else to call what he was doing there other than "vitriol" either. Given that you're the moderator there too, perhaps you have a better term?
I understand your point of view, @Amoc, but they're not the ones criticising your language or behaviour. There's nothing stopping you, it just doesn't seem morally or even logically consistent.
As for any accusations, I feel my question was fair. You were under no obligation to answer, and your line of questioning was absolutely focused on a personal qualifier rather than any actual gameplay-related debate. Factually so. So, eh. Nothing disturbing about it. You've pointed out that jumping to conclusions is a bad idea before, and again, I would say maybe halt that line of thought here too? On your own advice?
I don't know. There are some people that argue with me on this forum because I'm me, or because I'm a moderator, or both. You are increasingly, sadly, hitting that kind of demographic. And I am genuinely sad because any lost attempt at neutral conversation where all ideas are entertained equally is bad for this place.
I mean, you're still not debating the game. You never do. You simply debate peoples' behaviours instead. Which would be fine, if you tolerated that in kind. It would be a healthy debate, getting to the bottom of what frustrated each of the relevant parties. But that never happens. And that frustrates me, I'll freely admit, which is why I reply perhaps more than I should, instead of remaining out of it
@CANNED_F3TUS said:
Just because 250k people buy it and dont play it all at the same time makes dow 3 an inherently bad game. Some people indeed played it but there wasnt enough for them to hold on to the game. If we are going to start throwing numbers around we also have to consider other numbers.
Just a follow-up:
There's almost no such thing as an "inherently bad game". I guess you could qualify a lot of the shovel-ware and abandon-ware we see on Steam as "inherently bad", or buggy messes pushed out early that barely work, but it's hard to have an objective argument about what makes a game "inherently good" or "inherently bad". What we can discuss, however, is whether folks like or dislike different design features, and there's some pretty resounding and consistent criticism.
The argument, however, that we can't acknowledge the scale and consistency of one set of criticism just because there's other separate criticisms, however, is foolish. You're right that we can't generate empirical/objective consensus, much like we can't "prove" why the Pontiac Aztek failed. Was it an "inherently bad vehicle?" Perhaps, or perhaps not. Did it fail because it was an unbelievably ugly vehicle? Was it the price? Was it just a lousy concept from the start? We can't really say. What's clear is that both sides of the market it was attempting to straddle wanted nothing to do with it.
Donnie Darko. Or any other entertainment product classified with a cult following or status.
Cars are not video games, you see. They serve a purpose beyond mere entertainment. They need to get you from A to B, with preferably either a decent mileage or a ridiculous amount of horsepower. Looking good comes further down the line (for most people on a budget looking for a vehicle to drive with. Collectors are another kettle of fish).
I like this you see, I really do. This is debatable! It avoids the whole "objective argument" thing, much as you preferred to there, and it gets into more comparable examples of what entertainment products people like, their longevity, and what it means for this game going forwards. Films are a pretty good example because they rarely get "patched", and some of the more famous examples tend to be, uh, badly-received patches (as much as I love it, Star Wars is a good example here).
@ Gorb
I understand your point of view, @Amoc, but they're not the ones criticising your language or behaviour. There's nothing stopping you, it just doesn't seem morally or even logically consistent.
I wasn't complaining about their language Gorb. You were complaining about mine, which was tame by comparison. This naturally led me to point out the logical and moral inconsistency of your complaining. It's an example of how unreasonable your bias has grown.
@ Gorb
I mean, you're still not debating the game. You never do. You simply debate peoples' behaviours instead. Which would be fine, if you tolerated that in kind. It would be a healthy debate, getting to the bottom of what frustrated each of the relevant parties. But that never happens. And that frustrates me, I'll freely admit, which is why I reply perhaps more than I should, instead of remaining out of it
For you to accuse me of hypocrisy is frankly pathetic. Full stop.
As for debating behavior, there's really not much else to do with you. You've apparently decided that you're getting attacked because you're the moderator or whatever, but that's a convenient excuse and deflects from the simple fact that you're literally one of maybe 2-3 of the most unapologetic and biased defenders of the game on the forum. You can't go to the lengths you do defending literally every feature of the game and attempt to discredit almost literally every single bit of criticism and then hide behind the mantle of "moderator". That's a cheap, intellectually vacant tactic and you know better.
Discussing the game would be great, but you don't seem willing to discuss it except for on your terms, which tends to derail/disqualify any/all criticism as valid/fair and paints into a general category along the lines of "troll/malcontent", "nostalgist" or "wanna SC2 clone". I've been down that road too many times with you since release and you've apparently kept it up in stride.
@Gorb said:
Struggling to not see the hypocrisy in calling people out for name-calling with this. I'm involved in this topic, so no moderation here, but I find it weird you consistently hinge your language on such aggressive use, but you're one of the first to call out perceived foul play.
Maybe discussions would be better if there was less vitriol on all sides? A discussion is only as good as the least constructive in it, on any "side".
I find it weird how you're so consistent in pointing out my "aggressive language", yet so oblivious to it when it's coming from the other side of the debate. Just a small sample of what I'm talking about in the last page or so would be:
Katitof said:
You're completely delusional here.
CANNED_F3TUS said:
Yeah lets forget the hate train of petulant troll kin and nostalgia "i wanted a reskin" babies that could have something to do with DoW 3s rough start.
Would you care to explain how my comment is more aggressive than the above? If this were an even remotely isolated case, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, but I can't say you have an ounce of credibility for being objective on this forum anymore. What's especially disturbing, however, is your comment follows an accusation only a few posts ago about me trying to bait you and get personal...weird.
As for my specific comment to Canned_F3tus, I was reminding him of the extensive and VERY heated discussions he got himself into on the Steam forums prior to release. Given the effort and lengths he went to arguing against the MOBA criticism, I find it strange that he's determined now that DoW III's problems are content-based. He saw first-hand the initial impressions for the game on Steam and he got himself so worked up over it that he was banned. I don't know what else to call what he was doing there other than "vitriol" either. Given that you're the moderator there too, perhaps you have a better term?
I dont ever remember being banned from steam forum lol. But it might have been a hot minute.
@jonoliveira12 said:
I disagree, TWW2 offers 4 new factions, plenty of gameplay refinements over TWW1, several new mechanics, and an entire new large Campaign.
Technically it can still be considered as DLC, but main point was that it doesn't matter what some group of people think when majority quietly enjoys the product which is very well done.
I also disagree with Warcraft 3 being an improvement over Warcraft 2, since War3 is way too hero-centric, and has a bunch of unfixable design issues (leveling mechanics, several items, specially the aura granting ones, and Agiliy stat heroes being vastly more powerful than the other 2 stat build types).
If War3 had been so successful in multiplayer (which was, and is, dominated by custom games, rather than melee), then Blizzard would have modelled Starcraft 2 after it, instead of taking RTS design back to the 90s.
Now, i didn't say WC3 was perfect, no it wasn't. And to be fair WC2 wasn't either, and even SC:BW had SO much absolute BS mechanics, that it will take a while to list. But bringing 4 unique races into the game with unique mechanics, adding heroes, creeps on the map, items, etc and masterfully tying it all up with classic Bliz RTS formula is not a small feat. WC3 and TFT have featured in quite huge number of tournies, and was very popular both in and out of e-Sports, btw it's still quite popular. In one of my local gaming communities, there are still dedicated servers, weekly/monthly tournaments and never any lack of players for that.
As to why Bliz made SC2 instead of WC4, I think there are many reasons, like having World of Warcraft MMO and not having anything SC related for a while. It's pretty logical, if they went for WC4 release, they would be hit by less interest from casual crowd who's interested in story and single player content, since all of them would rather stick with WoW, while SC had open fields for that and fans were starving for sequel. Also SC2 was safer bet since they had guaranteed playerbase worldwide and in S. Korea in particular. So literally biggest reasons why there's no WC4 yet is because of WoW and because they can't keep two big different RTS in shipshape for e-Sport, too much money and workload. But as I said, since they didn't bring much new in SC2, there was a lot of hate, which didn't hinder this game in any possible way.
On the sidenote, Bliz are slow, but I'm sure they will roll out WC4 when they're ready, and it will be glorious. Then I'd really enjoy how all those "boo, hoo, RTS dead genre" would look like. It the same as some "experts" have been telling big AAA companies that cRPG is dead genre and only utterly braindead actions like Dragon Age or Mass Effect can have any audience. But that's funny how some Kickstarter campaigns on games like PoE2 or W3 are fully funded in days and hours. Divinity Original Sin 2 released recently and gets only praise. As I always have been saying: quality is everything, and you will always find your audience, the better product - the bigger.
@jonoliveira12 said:
I disagree, TWW2 offers 4 new factions, plenty of gameplay refinements over TWW1, several new mechanics, and an entire new large Campaign.
Technically it can still be considered as DLC, but main point was that it doesn't matter what some group of people think when majority quietly enjoys the product which is very well done.
I also disagree with Warcraft 3 being an improvement over Warcraft 2, since War3 is way too hero-centric, and has a bunch of unfixable design issues (leveling mechanics, several items, specially the aura granting ones, and Agiliy stat heroes being vastly more powerful than the other 2 stat build types).
If War3 had been so successful in multiplayer (which was, and is, dominated by custom games, rather than melee), then Blizzard would have modelled Starcraft 2 after it, instead of taking RTS design back to the 90s.
Now, i didn't say WC3 was perfect, no it wasn't. And to be fair WC2 wasn't either, and even SC:BW had SO much absolute BS mechanics, that it will take a while to list. But bringing 4 unique races into the game with unique mechanics, adding heroes, creeps on the map, items, etc and masterfully tying it all up with classic Bliz RTS formula is not a small feat. WC3 and TFT have featured in quite huge number of tournies, and was very popular both in and out of e-Sports, btw it's still quite popular. In one of my local gaming communities, there are still dedicated servers, weekly/monthly tournaments and never any lack of players for that.
As to why Bliz made SC2 instead of WC4, I think there are many reasons, like having World of Warcraft MMO and not having anything SC related for a while. It's pretty logical, if they went for WC4 release, they would be hit by less interest from casual crowd who's interested in story and single player content, since all of them would rather stick with WoW, while SC had open fields for that and fans were starving for sequel. Also SC2 was safer bet since they had guaranteed playerbase worldwide and in S. Korea in particular. So literally biggest reasons why there's no WC4 yet is because of WoW and because they can't keep two big different RTS in shipshape for e-Sport, too much money and workload. But as I said, since they didn't bring much new in SC2, there was a lot of hate, which didn't hinder this game in any possible way.
On the sidenote, Bliz are slow, but I'm sure they will roll out WC4 when they're ready, and it will be glorious. Then I'd really enjoy how all those "boo, hoo, RTS dead genre" would look like. It the same as some "experts" have been telling big AAA companies that cRPG is dead genre and only utterly braindead actions like Dragon Age or Mass Effect can have any audience. But that's funny how some Kickstarter campaigns on games like PoE2 or W3 are fully funded in days and hours. Divinity Original Sin 2 released recently and gets only praise. As I always have been saying: quality is everything, and you will always find your audience, the better product - the bigger.
That is not what I meant. What I meant was, that Warcraft 3 melee was not good enough for Blizzard to implement it's mechanics (heroes, level ups, items, creeps) in Starcraft 2, and instead returned to the Warcraft 2/Starcraft Brood War formula.
To settle the semantics, hopefully, this is how I see it:
Calling people delusional, cry babies, "biased defender" . . . these are all labels. You're calling someone names, or being called names. I didn't say any of it was good. But all I did was point out hypocrisy, which if you're going to rank things on severity, as you attempted to CANNED_F3TUS, is not the same thing. Neither is consistently applying rather explicit inferences to peoples' actions (normally along the lines of mental health, as is your apparent preference). Saying your actions are hypocritical, or you are being hypocritical, is not calling you names. It's not even inferring you're not mentally healthy, or the ideas you hold are such.
And if I ever do, you're absolutely free to use the Report function. As is anyone else. As I said, I'm not moderating this thread due to my involvement. Best of luck in communicating your points to others.
My critique was in reference your galling hypocrisy and your regularly biased interpretations of forum etiquette. You accuse me of getting personal on these forums, yet can't help it yourself. You accuse me of bad forum etiquette and aggressive language, but give a free pass to the posters I'm directly responding to, whose comments were far more explicit (and who curiously agree with your opinions). To then call me a hypocrite for providing examples of YOUR hypocrisy and bias is just jaw-dropping. I couldn't care less about name calling and labels most of the time. What I do care about is how selectively you apply your standards of foreign etiquette based on whether you generally agree with the poster.
Ultimately the issue I have with you is your shameful bias. I've never really been able to decide if a lot of your forum responses are intentionally disingenuous, or just lacking perspective. Because you generally write thoughtfully, it's hard to believe that you ACTUALLY can't see the hypocrisy in accusing me of getting personal. It's also hard to believe that your constant misinterpretation of people's arguments (ie. "You just want a SC2 clone, or a vDOW remake etc" is honest/genuine given how many times you've been corrected by so many different people, yet still you persist.
The response you provided, however,
@Gorb
To settle the semantics, hopefully, this is how I see it:
leads me to the conclusion that you ACTUALLY believe your posting here is fair-minded and level-headed debate rather than the thinly-veiled passive-aggressiveness that it appears to be. That REALLY is how you "see it".
@jonoliveira12 said:
That is not what I meant. What I meant was, that Warcraft 3 melee was not good enough for Blizzard to implement it's mechanics (heroes, level ups, items, creeps) in Starcraft 2, and instead returned to the Warcraft 2/Starcraft Brood War formula.
It painfully sounds like you think WC3 was a failure. Do you even believe that yourself? And do you have any data to prove that SC melee was more popular worldwide during WC3 era?
As a side not, having two distinct gameplay models and not trying to reskin one into another, as Relic tried this with DOW II, doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.
Menu
Comments
Amoc
I find it weird how you're so consistent in pointing out my "aggressive language", yet so oblivious to it when it's coming from the other side of the debate. Just a small sample of what I'm talking about in the last page or so would be:
Katitof said:
CANNED_F3TUS said:
Would you care to explain how my comment is more aggressive than the above? If this were an even remotely isolated case, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, but I can't say you have an ounce of credibility for being objective on this forum anymore. What's especially disturbing, however, is your comment follows an accusation only a few posts ago about me trying to bait you and get personal...weird.
As for my specific comment to Canned_F3tus, I was reminding him of the extensive and VERY heated discussions he got himself into on the Steam forums prior to release. Given the effort and lengths he went to arguing against the MOBA criticism, I find it strange that he's determined now that DoW III's problems are content-based. He saw first-hand the initial impressions for the game on Steam and he got himself so worked up over it that he was banned. I don't know what else to call what he was doing there other than "vitriol" either. Given that you're the moderator there too, perhaps you have a better term?
Gorb
I understand your point of view, @Amoc, but they're not the ones criticising your language or behaviour. There's nothing stopping you, it just doesn't seem morally or even logically consistent.
As for any accusations, I feel my question was fair. You were under no obligation to answer, and your line of questioning was absolutely focused on a personal qualifier rather than any actual gameplay-related debate. Factually so. So, eh. Nothing disturbing about it. You've pointed out that jumping to conclusions is a bad idea before, and again, I would say maybe halt that line of thought here too? On your own advice?
I don't know. There are some people that argue with me on this forum because I'm me, or because I'm a moderator, or both. You are increasingly, sadly, hitting that kind of demographic. And I am genuinely sad because any lost attempt at neutral conversation where all ideas are entertained equally is bad for this place.
I mean, you're still not debating the game. You never do. You simply debate peoples' behaviours instead. Which would be fine, if you tolerated that in kind. It would be a healthy debate, getting to the bottom of what frustrated each of the relevant parties. But that never happens. And that frustrates me, I'll freely admit, which is why I reply perhaps more than I should, instead of remaining out of it
Amoc
Just a follow-up:
There's almost no such thing as an "inherently bad game". I guess you could qualify a lot of the shovel-ware and abandon-ware we see on Steam as "inherently bad", or buggy messes pushed out early that barely work, but it's hard to have an objective argument about what makes a game "inherently good" or "inherently bad". What we can discuss, however, is whether folks like or dislike different design features, and there's some pretty resounding and consistent criticism.
The argument, however, that we can't acknowledge the scale and consistency of one set of criticism just because there's other separate criticisms, however, is foolish. You're right that we can't generate empirical/objective consensus, much like we can't "prove" why the Pontiac Aztek failed. Was it an "inherently bad vehicle?" Perhaps, or perhaps not. Did it fail because it was an unbelievably ugly vehicle? Was it the price? Was it just a lousy concept from the start? We can't really say. What's clear is that both sides of the market it was attempting to straddle wanted nothing to do with it.
Gorb
How about a better, more divisive example, @Amoc?
Donnie Darko. Or any other entertainment product classified with a cult following or status.
Cars are not video games, you see. They serve a purpose beyond mere entertainment. They need to get you from A to B, with preferably either a decent mileage or a ridiculous amount of horsepower. Looking good comes further down the line (for most people on a budget looking for a vehicle to drive with. Collectors are another kettle of fish).
I like this you see, I really do. This is debatable! It avoids the whole "objective argument" thing, much as you preferred to there, and it gets into more comparable examples of what entertainment products people like, their longevity, and what it means for this game going forwards. Films are a pretty good example because they rarely get "patched", and some of the more famous examples tend to be, uh, badly-received patches (as much as I love it, Star Wars is a good example here).
Amoc
I wasn't complaining about their language Gorb. You were complaining about mine, which was tame by comparison. This naturally led me to point out the logical and moral inconsistency of your complaining. It's an example of how unreasonable your bias has grown.
For you to accuse me of hypocrisy is frankly pathetic. Full stop.
As for debating behavior, there's really not much else to do with you. You've apparently decided that you're getting attacked because you're the moderator or whatever, but that's a convenient excuse and deflects from the simple fact that you're literally one of maybe 2-3 of the most unapologetic and biased defenders of the game on the forum. You can't go to the lengths you do defending literally every feature of the game and attempt to discredit almost literally every single bit of criticism and then hide behind the mantle of "moderator". That's a cheap, intellectually vacant tactic and you know better.
Discussing the game would be great, but you don't seem willing to discuss it except for on your terms, which tends to derail/disqualify any/all criticism as valid/fair and paints into a general category along the lines of "troll/malcontent", "nostalgist" or "wanna SC2 clone". I've been down that road too many times with you since release and you've apparently kept it up in stride.
Katitof
Key difference:
We focused on argument, you focused on person.
Gorb
See @Amoc, again, both the tone and contents are personal.
You do you. Peace out.
CANNED_F3TUS
I dont ever remember being banned from steam forum lol. But it might have been a hot minute.
Stoner
Technically it can still be considered as DLC, but main point was that it doesn't matter what some group of people think when majority quietly enjoys the product which is very well done.
Now, i didn't say WC3 was perfect, no it wasn't. And to be fair WC2 wasn't either, and even SC:BW had SO much absolute BS mechanics, that it will take a while to list. But bringing 4 unique races into the game with unique mechanics, adding heroes, creeps on the map, items, etc and masterfully tying it all up with classic Bliz RTS formula is not a small feat. WC3 and TFT have featured in quite huge number of tournies, and was very popular both in and out of e-Sports, btw it's still quite popular. In one of my local gaming communities, there are still dedicated servers, weekly/monthly tournaments and never any lack of players for that.
As to why Bliz made SC2 instead of WC4, I think there are many reasons, like having World of Warcraft MMO and not having anything SC related for a while. It's pretty logical, if they went for WC4 release, they would be hit by less interest from casual crowd who's interested in story and single player content, since all of them would rather stick with WoW, while SC had open fields for that and fans were starving for sequel. Also SC2 was safer bet since they had guaranteed playerbase worldwide and in S. Korea in particular. So literally biggest reasons why there's no WC4 yet is because of WoW and because they can't keep two big different RTS in shipshape for e-Sport, too much money and workload. But as I said, since they didn't bring much new in SC2, there was a lot of hate, which didn't hinder this game in any possible way.
On the sidenote, Bliz are slow, but I'm sure they will roll out WC4 when they're ready, and it will be glorious. Then I'd really enjoy how all those "boo, hoo, RTS dead genre" would look like. It the same as some "experts" have been telling big AAA companies that cRPG is dead genre and only utterly braindead actions like Dragon Age or Mass Effect can have any audience. But that's funny how some Kickstarter campaigns on games like PoE2 or W3 are fully funded in days and hours. Divinity Original Sin 2 released recently and gets only praise. As I always have been saying: quality is everything, and you will always find your audience, the better product - the bigger.
jonoliveira12
That is not what I meant. What I meant was, that Warcraft 3 melee was not good enough for Blizzard to implement it's mechanics (heroes, level ups, items, creeps) in Starcraft 2, and instead returned to the Warcraft 2/Starcraft Brood War formula.
Amoc
Nice try. The "delusional" comment was pure ad hominem.
and yours are...what? Your lack of self-reflection is frightening, but peace out homie.
Gorb
To settle the semantics, hopefully, this is how I see it:
Calling people delusional, cry babies, "biased defender" . . . these are all labels. You're calling someone names, or being called names. I didn't say any of it was good. But all I did was point out hypocrisy, which if you're going to rank things on severity, as you attempted to CANNED_F3TUS, is not the same thing. Neither is consistently applying rather explicit inferences to peoples' actions (normally along the lines of mental health, as is your apparent preference). Saying your actions are hypocritical, or you are being hypocritical, is not calling you names. It's not even inferring you're not mentally healthy, or the ideas you hold are such.
And if I ever do, you're absolutely free to use the Report function. As is anyone else. As I said, I'm not moderating this thread due to my involvement. Best of luck in communicating your points to others.
Amoc
My critique was in reference your galling hypocrisy and your regularly biased interpretations of forum etiquette. You accuse me of getting personal on these forums, yet can't help it yourself. You accuse me of bad forum etiquette and aggressive language, but give a free pass to the posters I'm directly responding to, whose comments were far more explicit (and who curiously agree with your opinions). To then call me a hypocrite for providing examples of YOUR hypocrisy and bias is just jaw-dropping. I couldn't care less about name calling and labels most of the time. What I do care about is how selectively you apply your standards of foreign etiquette based on whether you generally agree with the poster.
Ultimately the issue I have with you is your shameful bias. I've never really been able to decide if a lot of your forum responses are intentionally disingenuous, or just lacking perspective. Because you generally write thoughtfully, it's hard to believe that you ACTUALLY can't see the hypocrisy in accusing me of getting personal. It's also hard to believe that your constant misinterpretation of people's arguments (ie. "You just want a SC2 clone, or a vDOW remake etc" is honest/genuine given how many times you've been corrected by so many different people, yet still you persist.
The response you provided, however,
leads me to the conclusion that you ACTUALLY believe your posting here is fair-minded and level-headed debate rather than the thinly-veiled passive-aggressiveness that it appears to be. That REALLY is how you "see it".
Stoner
It painfully sounds like you think WC3 was a failure. Do you even believe that yourself? And do you have any data to prove that SC melee was more popular worldwide during WC3 era?
As a side not, having two distinct gameplay models and not trying to reskin one into another, as Relic tried this with DOW II, doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.
luxex
TOLD YA! :-D