This thread is locked
PLEASE NOTE: This thread has been locked by the moderators. You cannot reply to it.
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
Searz wrote:
I'm trying to point out that you have insufficient information about one or both games and thus cannot make a proper evaluation.
And that's an ad hominem falacy. Whether I have played any of the games is irrelevant to how much information I gathered about each particular game. Actually, playing the games is not sufficient to correctly evaluate each game. But please tell me what information can only be gotten through playing the game and is not available anywhere else?
Nope. I'm not pointing out something bad about you, I'm saying that your argument lacks background.
If you don't want to play both games yet want to compare them, I feel there's no need to discuss this topic. Because I don't want to discuss with people who has formed strong opinions from just reading and watching videos about the game(s).
If you don't want to play both games yet want to compare them, I feel there's no need to discuss this topic. Because I don't want to discuss with people who has formed strong opinions from just reading and watching videos about the game(s).
"I saw [Twilight: Eclipse] in theaters with a girl I was dating at the time. I spent more time staring at my toes and wiggling them than I did watching this abomination. When Edward proposed to Blank Face, I finally looked up with a revelation.
I blurted out loud, in a dead silent theater full of teenage girls on opening night "Wait a minute, Edward has no blood flow. How does he get an erection?" I heard several men laughing, and had several girls turn and stare at me.
I did not get laid that night." - Berengier817
I blurted out loud, in a dead silent theater full of teenage girls on opening night "Wait a minute, Edward has no blood flow. How does he get an erection?" I heard several men laughing, and had several girls turn and stare at me.
I did not get laid that night." - Berengier817
Searz wrote:
Nope. I'm not pointing out something bad about you, I'm saying that your argument lacks background.
If you don't want to play both games yet want to compare them, I feel there's no need to discuss this topic. Because I don't want to discuss with people who has formed strong opinions from just reading and watching videos about the game(s).
See, this is why I don't argue.
Other people fill my argument in so much better than I can.
I have a good argument.
Canoas; derrherrppppderpdpeperrephehprpehdehprhrehrhpep
Everyone else; lol ok canoas.
Canoas; derrherrppppderpdpeperrephehprpehdehprhrehrhpep
Everyone else; lol ok canoas.
http://www.mobafire.com/league-of-legends/build/duffs-336706
Come hang out when I'm streaming! http://www.twitch.tv/dufftime
Tera:
"innovative" fighting system is ok, but totally fails in fights against major groups (like trash packs before a dungeon boss) dunno how PvP is going to prevent that.
GW2:
Nothing mentionable... can do, but in the end it's just another attempt to topple WoW without a real chance. Even GW1 did a better job.
The hope for a game that smashes WoW is down already, all you can do is wait for WoW to go down by itself (getting a slow cruel coup de grâce from Blizz) for the mmorpg fanbase to divide onto the other offers to finally unite again under Blizz's new mmorpg.
I for my part can just hope for somebody to bomb Blizz skyhigh into the ****ing stratosphere before thats going to happen.
"innovative" fighting system is ok, but totally fails in fights against major groups (like trash packs before a dungeon boss) dunno how PvP is going to prevent that.
GW2:
Nothing mentionable... can do, but in the end it's just another attempt to topple WoW without a real chance. Even GW1 did a better job.
The hope for a game that smashes WoW is down already, all you can do is wait for WoW to go down by itself (getting a slow cruel coup de grâce from Blizz) for the mmorpg fanbase to divide onto the other offers to finally unite again under Blizz's new mmorpg.
I for my part can just hope for somebody to bomb Blizz skyhigh into the ****ing stratosphere before thats going to happen.
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
Searz wrote:
Nope. I'm not pointing out something bad about you, I'm saying that your argument lacks background.
If you don't want to play both games yet want to compare them, I feel there's no need to discuss this topic. Because I don't want to discuss with people who has formed strong opinions from just reading and watching videos about the game(s).
What you said would be true had you been able to provide evidence for it. I asked "But please tell me what information can only be gotten through playing the game and is not available anywhere else?", so what was your answer? I don't see it in any of your posts, am I missing something?
It is an Ad Hominem fallacy because you're saying my argument is not valid because of something I may or may have not done. If I tell you I played both games then my argument is valid, If I tell you I haven't played any game then it is invalid. The argument would not change at all yet to you the validity of the argument would differ, therefore it's an ad hominem fallacy. The validity of an argument or idea is not dependent on who is saying it, if someone claims it is then it's a fallacy (ad hominem or appeal to authority).
EDIT: Furthermore, what you said is not just an ad hominem fallacy, it's also complete ********. You want to discuss with people who played the game? Played the game for how long? 1 day? 1 month? 1 year? Because anything less than a month is not enough to judge a game. Take WoW for example, if someone bases his argument for/against WoW on a 1 month playing experience then it's completely meaningless as it's barely enough to get to max level and definitely not enough to even begin raiding or PvPing, the part that matters. Basing an argument on a playing experience that is clearly not sufficient to judge a game would be incredibly stupid. So I ask you, what is your background related to the game? Are you at max level yet? Have you tried end-game PvE or PvP? Have your tried the 8 different classes? Have you done any significant portion of the quests in the several areas available? What is your experience in an hardcore guild and in a casual guild? How involved are you in the community? etc. etc. I can throw at you innumerable questions that your in-game experience isn't nearly enough to answer.
I have two more question for you, what makes you so sure you have more knowledge about the game than I do? And if you can't answer the previous questions with "yes" why would your in-game experience be even remotely important or significant to a discussion about Tera?
Darcurse wrote:
GW2:
Nothing mentionable... can do, but in the end it's just another attempt to topple WoW without a real chance. Even GW1 did a better job.
Nothing mentionable? Yeah, except for the innovative open questing and event systems, the combat mechanics, the skill customization, the personal story feature, the new archetypes, etc. etc.
For you to say there's nothing mentionable just shows you know nothing about the game. Even if you hated the game at the very least you would mention the questing system which is simply better than anything seen before in any MMO.
GW2 is not just another attempt to topple WoW, it's a completely different game and the core mechanics are nothing alike. Nothing even suggests the people who would want to play GW2 are the same who played WoW before.
Tera, on the other hand, is basically a WoW clone with a better (much better actually) combat system. That's all it is really. Same archetypes (tank, dps and healer), similar classes, identical questing system, identical skill customization (they didn't even bother getting another name for glyphs), less class costumization (WoW had talent trees), etc.
Canoas wrote:
What you said would be true had you been able to provide evidence for it. I asked "But please tell me what information can only be gotten through playing the game and is not available anywhere else?", so what was your answer? I don't see it in any of your posts, am I missing something?
It is an Ad Hominem fallacy because you're saying my argument is not valid because of something I may or may have not done. If I tell you I played both games then my argument is valid, If I tell you I haven't played any game then it is invalid. The argument would not change at all yet to you the validity of the argument would differ, therefore it's an ad hominem fallacy. The validity of an argument or idea is not dependent on who is saying it, if someone claims it is then it's a fallacy (ad hominem or appeal to authority).
I really don't give a **** what you call it, but if you have background in an argument then I value your opinion above others, obviously.
Quoted:
EDIT: Furthermore, what you said is not just an ad hominem fallacy, it's also complete ********. You want to discuss with people who played the game? Played the game for how long? 1 day? 1 month? 1 year? Because anything less than a month is not enough to judge a game. Take WoW for example, if someone bases his argument for/against WoW on a 1 month playing experience then it's completely meaningless as it's barely enough to get to max level and definitely not enough to even begin raiding or PvPing, the part that matters. Basing an argument on a playing experience that is clearly not sufficient to judge a game would be incredibly stupid. So I ask you, what is your background related to the game? Are you at max level yet? Have you tried end-game PvE or PvP? Have your tried the 8 different classes? Have you done any significant portion of the quests in the several areas available? What is your experience in an hardcore guild and in a casual guild? How involved are you in the community? etc. etc. I can throw at you innumerable questions that your in-game experience isn't nearly enough to answer.
I have two more question for you, what makes you so sure you have more knowledge about the game than I do? And if you can't answer the previous questions with "yes" why would your in-game experience be even remotely important or significant to a discussion about Tera?
I have two more question for you, what makes you so sure you have more knowledge about the game than I do? And if you can't answer the previous questions with "yes" why would your in-game experience be even remotely important or significant to a discussion about Tera?
Pfft, you seem to have gotten yourself confused. Poor thing :)
I'm not in a position to say which game is better since I lack background on BOTH games. That is why I'm gonna play both of them.
"He cooked cake." - MrCuddowls
"Oh forget it, I have nothing to hid, I admit it, 12 hours of every single day of my life ever since I was eleven years old have been anal sex with canoes" - MrCuddowls
"Oh forget it, I have nothing to hid, I admit it, 12 hours of every single day of my life ever since I was eleven years old have been anal sex with canoes" - MrCuddowls
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
You're really smart searz.. You have played tera and yet you admit to lack background on the game. So the amount of time you've put into the game is not enough to discuss it. However, you require me to have spent more time playing the game than you have for me to discuss it with you? How the **** does that make any sense?
You don't need to play a game to understand it's limitations. There's plenty of information out there that is not going to be experienced in-game by at least 90% of the players, like the political system. What you're saying is that for me to debate the political system, which is a big part of the game, I first need to reach level 50, join a guild, become the guild leader, win the election to become a Vanarch and ONLY THEN will my opinion about the political system be valid because ONLY THEN will I have experienced the polical system first-hand. No, that is complete asinine. I can go to the game guide on tera's website and read about it, it's explained pretty well and only a moron would choose your route. I mean, who the **** goes though such troubles to get to the Vanarch position to learn about political system instead of just reading it online? That's simply idiotic.
It's like saying that to discuss abortion you need to have both a kid and an abortion before your opinion matters. No, that's an ad hominem fallacy and that's why it doesn't make any ****ing sense.
You don't need to play a game to understand it's limitations. There's plenty of information out there that is not going to be experienced in-game by at least 90% of the players, like the political system. What you're saying is that for me to debate the political system, which is a big part of the game, I first need to reach level 50, join a guild, become the guild leader, win the election to become a Vanarch and ONLY THEN will my opinion about the political system be valid because ONLY THEN will I have experienced the polical system first-hand. No, that is complete asinine. I can go to the game guide on tera's website and read about it, it's explained pretty well and only a moron would choose your route. I mean, who the **** goes though such troubles to get to the Vanarch position to learn about political system instead of just reading it online? That's simply idiotic.
It's like saying that to discuss abortion you need to have both a kid and an abortion before your opinion matters. No, that's an ad hominem fallacy and that's why it doesn't make any ****ing sense.
Are you preparing for an Ad Hominem falacy? Because if you aren't, how is that question relevant?
I'm trying to point out that you have insufficient information about one or both games and thus cannot make a proper evaluation.