If you don't like the is game why are you posting on the ESO forums?

cheyane · February 2014

Two pieces may be three pieces of advice you should take to heart. First, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. You were caught doing the very same thing you have the audacity to complain about but then you did the justify dance. Dude sounds like animal farm's all animals are created equal but some are more equal than others. No point justifying .You want to bring up other people's forum behaviour make sure the skeletons in your closet are all well hidden and cannot be dug up by researching your post history.

Second do not try to control the postings of random anonymous people on the internet. That's tilting at windmills and all that jazz.

Although there is no freedom of speech on a private forum ,the people posting their critique or complaints are well within their rights to do so and no amount of whining on your part will stop them from doing so. If you do want to control it then become a moderator on this forum. Until then practice Lamaze breathing.

Senan · February 2014

Originally posted by Brabbit1987
Originally posted by Seilan
Regardless of who actually said it, the quote seems to fit the definition easily, the way I see it. The official definition states "extreme foolishness or unreasonableness." Is it really such a stretch to assert that doing the same, exact thing over and over again and expecting a different result, would fall into the realm of being... "foolish and unreasonable?" It's implied, therefore the quote works -- despite it not being the literal definition of the word.

It can certainly fall under the category of being foolish, but it's still a false quote no matter how you try and chalk it up.

That would be like me saying the definition of insanity is breaking the law. Sure you can apply the actual definition of insanity to breaking the law because it's foolish, but the actual definition is not breaking the law. Definitions don't work that way I am afraid.

I find it even more funny how everyone keeps trying to argue with someone who isn't wrong. Excuse after excuse and trying to make it seem like i'm wrong when all the proof is on my side. People are truly stubborn.

If we're going by the actual definition of insanity, then yes -- doing something unreasonable like breaking a law could be considered insane (and it often is, depending on the nature and severity of the crime.) The 3rd explanation of the definition clearly states:

a : extreme folly or unreasonableness

b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable

So again, given the loose definition(s) of the word, I see the quote as being applicable. Feel free to disagree, but it doesn't make you undoubtedly right.

Calven · February 2014

Because we hope to influence the game and community by posting valid concerns and criticism. We are only doing the game and its developers a favour by poiting out flaws and wrong doings. We are doing it because we wish to see the game succeed, and we fear that it won't if they continue down the path they have chosen. We might be wrong, who knows. But if you turn a blind eye to everything, if you brush away blatant mistakes and flaws, you're only helping those who wish to see the game fail entirely. If you think the game is perfect the way it is, then I'm happy for you! But adopting a fanboi stance that defends every single action made by the developers is a bad idea. Where I'm from we have a term called 'Bjørnetjeneste' (Bear service). The meaning of the term stems from an old tale, where a bear wanted to help its master who had a fly on his forehead. In good faith the bear used a rock to kill the fly but in doing so also crushed his master's head. In short, 'Bjørnetjeneste' refers to a service done in good faith but does more damage than good.

Drakynn · February 2014

The counter question is

If you can't stand to read opinions different from yours in an open forum then why are you reading posts in an open forum in the first place?

This is not a particular games fan site.This is an open forum to discuss many games,Discussion and debate comes from having different POV and opinions....otherwise it's just a fan circle jerk.

Punk999 · February 2014

This is mmorpg.com... pretty much sums it up OP.

OH and my sig does too.

Pilnkplonk · February 2014

TL;DR

What a ridiculous question... The ESO Forums are "ESO Forums", they are not "ESO Praising Forums excluisvely for people who like everything about ESO". Where the hell do you get the idea that only positivie opinions should be tolerated on internet forums on any subject? Where are you coming from? My Little Pony Land?

Eighteen16 · February 2014

Originally posted by Pilnkplonk
TL;DR

What a ridiculous question... The ESO Forums are "ESO Forums", they are not "ESO Praising Forums excluisvely for people who like everything about ESO". Where the hell do you get the idea that only positivie opinions should be tolerated on internet forums on any subject? Where are you coming from? My Little Pony Land?

Legit MMORPG response. Negative criticism certainly is a part of discussion, though personally I think it is starting to go overboard on this forum. It would be fine to have one or two threads discussing the overall merits of the game, but somehow every single thread ends up being an argument about whether ESO is worth it or not rather than discussing the specific topic.

FlyByKnight · February 2014

MMORPG.com is a website for people who are fans of the genre overall and have the ability to think critically of a game in context to the genre. It's not a fan site (or so I thought). If you can't handle negative reviews and opinions from here, there are fan sites that are comprised of people who are like minded in the general celebration of titles.

Telling people to stop giving their opposing opinion on a game you're in love with screams fanaticism. Either state your opinion and counterpoints provide your facts and info, or join like minded folks in more biased forums. You'll be much more satisfied.

Brabbit1987 · February 2014

Originally posted by Seilan
Originally posted by Brabbit1987
Originally posted by Seilan
Regardless of who actually said it, the quote seems to fit the definition easily, the way I see it. The official definition states "extreme foolishness or unreasonableness." Is it really such a stretch to assert that doing the same, exact thing over and over again and expecting a different result, would fall into the realm of being... "foolish and unreasonable?" It's implied, therefore the quote works -- despite it not being the literal definition of the word.

It can certainly fall under the category of being foolish, but it's still a false quote no matter how you try and chalk it up.

That would be like me saying the definition of insanity is breaking the law. Sure you can apply the actual definition of insanity to breaking the law because it's foolish, but the actual definition is not breaking the law. Definitions don't work that way I am afraid.

I find it even more funny how everyone keeps trying to argue with someone who isn't wrong. Excuse after excuse and trying to make it seem like i'm wrong when all the proof is on my side. People are truly stubborn.

If we're going by the actual definition of insanity, then yes -- doing something unreasonable like breaking a law could be considered insane (and it often is, depending on the nature and severity of the crime.) The 3rd explanation of the definition clearly states:

a : extreme folly or unreasonableness

b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable

So again, given the loose definition(s) of the word, I see the quote as being applicable. Feel free to disagree, but it doesn't make you undoubtedly right.

lol no .. you clearly have no idea what a definition is. Breaking the law isn't by definition insanity. The act of breaking the law can be considered an insane act. Anything that you do that is foolish or unreasonable can be seen as an insane act, but those things do not define the word insane.

The same reason the definition of fun isn't a clown. A clown maybe fun, but it's certainly not the definition of fun.

The same reason the definition of immature isn't fart jokes. Fart jokes can be an immature act, but it's not the definition of immature.

There is a difference between the act of insanity and the definition of insanity. An act of insanity is a behavior that the word insanity can be used to describe that behavior, but again, it isn't the definition.

Holy crap this is ridiculous to have to teach this here -.-

IDontThinkSoNo · February 2014

Admitting they're too poor to afford the game is beyond their scope of reality.

Amjoco · February 2014

Originally posted by david31741
I've come to the conclusion that it is they can't/won't play because it is $60 and a subscription fee.

They want to play it - but can't or wont unless it's F2P. Thus, they just talk it down hoping to create that reality....

I think there are two camps of gamers playing "MMO's" these days. Traditional MMOers who play 1 game and play it for years and another that plays a game for a month then moves on to the next or play 5 different games at once.

The later is your F2P camp and they really want to play the "newness" experience one time through.

nothing wrong with either style - it's just that a game typically can't be both/ everything to everyone.

Pretty common price. I paid $59.99 for Age of Conan, GW2, Rift, and many more on release. Almost all console games that are worth anything release for the same price and only have about 30 hours game time. XBox game South Park the Stick of Truth. <------Note the price here. Diablo III would be more along the genre of ESO and check out the price. /shrug If the game doesn't live up to the sub fee it will go f2p, and you can play that format, but to get anywhere in those you still wind up paying and probably paying more!

There are no traditional mmoers anymore due to the saturation of the genre. All games are pretty much niche games with smaller populations playing than the past mega titles like WoW. Ofc, this is my opinion.

Lawlmonster · February 2014

Originally posted by Eighteen16
Originally posted by Pilnkplonk
TL;DR

What a ridiculous question... The ESO Forums are "ESO Forums", they are not "ESO Praising Forums excluisvely for people who like everything about ESO". Where the hell do you get the idea that only positivie opinions should be tolerated on internet forums on any subject? Where are you coming from? My Little Pony Land?

Legit MMORPG response. Negative criticism certainly is a part of discussion, though personally I think it is starting to go overboard on this forum. It would be fine to have one or two threads discussing the overall merits of the game, but somehow every single thread ends up being an argument about whether ESO is worth it or not rather than discussing the specific topic.

To be fair, you may not be speaking of MMORPG.com as a whole, but people have been making the same assessment regarding the negativity around here for years. The truth is that before release, during the testing phases and surrounding the initial announcement of a new game, there's generally a great deal of forum warrior activity. The game will eventually release, the forums will simmer for a few months, and gradually fill again with people who had previously been on either side of the fence, though managed to discover a change of heart. This is the cycle. It happens with every game, and for understandable reasons: people want to talk about the trending discussion topic, and they're going to disagree with one another more often than not.

Wizardry · February 2014

I understand you don't get it because neither did the community manager awhile back.

I seriously do not understand how people don't realize there is a current active list of topics on the MAIN page that have NOTHING to do with going into ESO forums.

I obviously don't know for sure but i bet the majority just comment on topics in the current topic list,i mean seriously why post in old topics?

I also wish people would quit posting the word HATE,that is quite an angry word to use.These are very simply just game topics and people give opinions,no need for calling people haters,nobody is personally attacking you with HATE.

Also the Op might not post about games he doesn't play,that just means he is not a real game discussion person,more sounds like just wants to post as a fan and not really discuss anything.

Ever hear of NEWS,you think people can't comment on news even if that news does not concern them?Discussions are something that has been going on for over a 100 years as well as since the internet became a public discussion forum.

Latronus · February 2014

Originally posted by Lugors
I want to like the game, but it has issues.

These forums are place to find out if the features in the game are going to interest you, or turn you off.

Some people care about combat animations and how the character stands on a slope.

Some people care about the UI and if there will be combat logs and other forms of feedback for theorycrafting.

Some people want to know if the classes are balanced and how the PvP feels.

Some people want to know if the game sold out to console crowd and has a poor mouse and keyboard menu driven interface.

Some of these I could care less about, and some are deal breakers. How else to find out about them unless you get opinions from other like minded gamers?

Placing faith in the opinions of others is misguided at best. Lemmings blindly follow others. Make your own decision based off your own experiences with the game. You never know, you find that what you heard was a bad game really isn't. That goes for anything not just this game.

himods · February 2014

I don't give two shits about Wildstar. I bash Zenimax for taking the easy route of making another generic themeparkcrapgame #7362552 and slashing TES skin on top of it. They had a golden opportunity to make a fantastic sandbox, but nooo, lets make another rvr MMO because Warhammer and GW2 somehow didn't deliver.

Someone just make UO+Shadowbane hybrid and I'm set for life.

Nadia · February 2014

Originally posted by arieste
This is a discussion board, i'm here to share my opinions - be they positive or negative - of the game.

i try to be neutral and i agree

Lawlmonster · February 2014

Originally posted by Dewguy79
Originally posted by Wizardry
I understand you don't get it because neither did the community manager awhile back.

I seriously do not understand how people don't realize there is a current active list of topics on the MAIN page that have NOTHING to do with going into ESO forums.

I obviously don't know for sure but i bet the majority just comment on topics in the current topic list,i mean seriously why post in old topics?

I also wish people would quit posting the word HATE,that is quite an angry word to use.These are very simply just game topics and people give opinions,no need for calling people haters,nobody is personally attacking you with HATE.

Also the Op might not post about games he doesn't play,that just means he is not a real game discussion person,more sounds like just wants to post as a fan and not really discuss anything.

Ever hear of NEWS,you think people can't comment on news even if that news does not concern them?Discussions are something that has been going on for over a 100 years as well as since the internet became a public discussion forum.

Oh don't kid yourself there are some who generally hate a particular video game and they are not hard to find. If you post the same misinformation on every single thread about game X that goes beyond having a simple dislike for a video game. Some of these poster have nothing but hate for a video game plain and simple. I personally will never understand that mentality or do I think it's a healthy mentality but I'm no doctor.

I think the point he was trying to make is that hate is a strong word, reserved for a very limited occurrence of aversion, and throwing it around for frivolous or meaningless bullshit like internet disagreements spoils the purpose. If you're using the word to describe the relationship between a person and a piece of entertainment, it's for dramatic license (otherwise you're kidding yourself), and if people themselves are using it to describe their reaction to a video game, they don't understand when to use the word or the extremity thereof.

Rusque · February 2014

It's because people love to whine and troll and despite their hate for the game, they're still going to inexplicably buy it.

TruthXHurts · February 2014

Originally posted by david31741
I've come to the conclusion that it is they can't/won't play because it is $60 and a subscription fee.

They want to play it - but can't or wont unless it's F2P. Thus, they just talk it down hoping to create that reality....

I think there are two camps of gamers playing "MMO's" these days. Traditional MMOers who play 1 game and play it for years and another that plays a game for a month then moves on to the next or play 5 different games at once.

The later is your F2P camp and they really want to play the "newness" experience one time through.

nothing wrong with either style - it's just that a game typically can't be both/ everything to everyone.

Wow you should work for the FBI as a profiler. I had no idea that there were only two types of MMO players.

Senan · February 2014

Originally posted by Brabbit1987
Originally posted by Seilan
Originally posted by Brabbit1987
Originally posted by Seilan
Regardless of who actually said it, the quote seems to fit the definition easily, the way I see it. The official definition states "extreme foolishness or unreasonableness." Is it really such a stretch to assert that doing the same, exact thing over and over again and expecting a different result, would fall into the realm of being... "foolish and unreasonable?" It's implied, therefore the quote works -- despite it not being the literal definition of the word.

It can certainly fall under the category of being foolish, but it's still a false quote no matter how you try and chalk it up.

That would be like me saying the definition of insanity is breaking the law. Sure you can apply the actual definition of insanity to breaking the law because it's foolish, but the actual definition is not breaking the law. Definitions don't work that way I am afraid.

I find it even more funny how everyone keeps trying to argue with someone who isn't wrong. Excuse after excuse and trying to make it seem like i'm wrong when all the proof is on my side. People are truly stubborn.

If we're going by the actual definition of insanity, then yes -- doing something unreasonable like breaking a law could be considered insane (and it often is, depending on the nature and severity of the crime.) The 3rd explanation of the definition clearly states:

a : extreme folly or unreasonableness

b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable

So again, given the loose definition(s) of the word, I see the quote as being applicable. Feel free to disagree, but it doesn't make you undoubtedly right.

lol no .. you clearly have no idea what a definition is. Breaking the law isn't by definition insanity. The act of breaking the law can be considered an insane act. Anything that you do that is foolish or unreasonable can be seen as an insane act, but those things do not define the word insane.

The same reason the definition of fun isn't a clown. A clown maybe fun, but it's certainly not the definition of fun.

The same reason the definition of immature isn't fart jokes. Fart jokes can be an immature act, but it's not the definition of immature.

There is a difference between the act of insanity and the definition of insanity. An act of insanity is a behavior that the word insanity can be used to describe that behavior, but again, it isn't the definition.

Holy crap this is ridiculous to have to teach this here -.-

You're clearly the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. There are several different ways to use the term insanity as we can see by the very definition itself. Once again, part of that definition is doing something "extremely foolish and unreasonable." To continue doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result is also "foolish and unreasonable" so by definition, it falls under the category of insanity. Here's a few more examples for you:

a. Extreme foolishness; folly; senselessness; foolhardiness: Trying to drive through that traffic would be pure insanity.

b. A foolish or senseless action, policy, statement, etc.: We've heard decades of insanities in our political discourse.

You're wrong, get over it.

Edit: Just to reiterate -- in case it wasn't clear enough in my first post -- I'm not arguing that the particular quote we've been referencing is actually the literal definition of insanity. Obviously that's not the case. I'm merely pointing out that the action exhibited in the quote falls under the realm of acting insanely, according to the definition itself.

Brabbit1987 · February 2014

Originally posted by Seilan
Originally posted by Brabbit1987
Originally posted by Seilan
Originally posted by Brabbit1987
Originally posted by Seilan
Regardless of who actually said it, the quote seems to fit the definition easily, the way I see it. The official definition states "extreme foolishness or unreasonableness." Is it really such a stretch to assert that doing the same, exact thing over and over again and expecting a different result, would fall into the realm of being... "foolish and unreasonable?" It's implied, therefore the quote works -- despite it not being the literal definition of the word.

It can certainly fall under the category of being foolish, but it's still a false quote no matter how you try and chalk it up.

That would be like me saying the definition of insanity is breaking the law. Sure you can apply the actual definition of insanity to breaking the law because it's foolish, but the actual definition is not breaking the law. Definitions don't work that way I am afraid.

I find it even more funny how everyone keeps trying to argue with someone who isn't wrong. Excuse after excuse and trying to make it seem like i'm wrong when all the proof is on my side. People are truly stubborn.

If we're going by the actual definition of insanity, then yes -- doing something unreasonable like breaking a law could be considered insane (and it often is, depending on the nature and severity of the crime.) The 3rd explanation of the definition clearly states:

a : extreme folly or unreasonableness

b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable

So again, given the loose definition(s) of the word, I see the quote as being applicable. Feel free to disagree, but it doesn't make you undoubtedly right.

lol no .. you clearly have no idea what a definition is. Breaking the law isn't by definition insanity. The act of breaking the law can be considered an insane act. Anything that you do that is foolish or unreasonable can be seen as an insane act, but those things do not define the word insane.

The same reason the definition of fun isn't a clown. A clown maybe fun, but it's certainly not the definition of fun.

The same reason the definition of immature isn't fart jokes. Fart jokes can be an immature act, but it's not the definition of immature.

There is a difference between the act of insanity and the definition of insanity. An act of insanity is a behavior that the word insanity can be used to describe that behavior, but again, it isn't the definition.

Holy crap this is ridiculous to have to teach this here -.-

You're clearly the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. There are several different ways to use the term insanity as we can see by the very definition itself. Once again, part of that definition is doing something "extremely foolish and unreasonable." To continue doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result is also "foolish and unreasonable" so by definition, it falls under the category of insanity. Here's a few more examples for you:

a. Extreme foolishness; folly; senselessness; foolhardiness: Trying to drive through that traffic would be pure insanity.

b. A foolish or senseless action, policy, statement, etc.: We've heard decades of insanities in our political discourse.

You're wrong, get over it.

Edit: Just to reiterate -- in case it wasn't clear enough in my first post -- I'm not arguing that the particular quote we've been referencing is actually the literal definition of insanity. Obviously that's not the case. I'm merely pointing out that the action exhibited in the quote falls under the realm of acting insanely, according to the definition itself.

Edit due to edit:

Then we are totally on separate pages >.> ... why are you even argueing with me then?

Senan · February 2014

Originally posted by Brabbit1987
Originally posted by Seilan
Originally posted by Brabbit1987
Originally posted by Seilan
Originally posted by Brabbit1987
Originally posted by Seilan
Regardless of who actually said it, the quote seems to fit the definition easily, the way I see it. The official definition states "extreme foolishness or unreasonableness." Is it really such a stretch to assert that doing the same, exact thing over and over again and expecting a different result, would fall into the realm of being... "foolish and unreasonable?" It's implied, therefore the quote works -- despite it not being the literal definition of the word.

It can certainly fall under the category of being foolish, but it's still a false quote no matter how you try and chalk it up.

That would be like me saying the definition of insanity is breaking the law. Sure you can apply the actual definition of insanity to breaking the law because it's foolish, but the actual definition is not breaking the law. Definitions don't work that way I am afraid.

I find it even more funny how everyone keeps trying to argue with someone who isn't wrong. Excuse after excuse and trying to make it seem like i'm wrong when all the proof is on my side. People are truly stubborn.

If we're going by the actual definition of insanity, then yes -- doing something unreasonable like breaking a law could be considered insane (and it often is, depending on the nature and severity of the crime.) The 3rd explanation of the definition clearly states:

a : extreme folly or unreasonableness

b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable

So again, given the loose definition(s) of the word, I see the quote as being applicable. Feel free to disagree, but it doesn't make you undoubtedly right.

lol no .. you clearly have no idea what a definition is. Breaking the law isn't by definition insanity. The act of breaking the law can be considered an insane act. Anything that you do that is foolish or unreasonable can be seen as an insane act, but those things do not define the word insane.

The same reason the definition of fun isn't a clown. A clown maybe fun, but it's certainly not the definition of fun.

The same reason the definition of immature isn't fart jokes. Fart jokes can be an immature act, but it's not the definition of immature.

There is a difference between the act of insanity and the definition of insanity. An act of insanity is a behavior that the word insanity can be used to describe that behavior, but again, it isn't the definition.

Holy crap this is ridiculous to have to teach this here -.-

You're clearly the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. There are several different ways to use the term insanity as we can see by the very definition itself. Once again, part of that definition is doing something "extremely foolish and unreasonable." To continue doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result is also "foolish and unreasonable" so by definition, it falls under the category of insanity. Here's a few more examples for you:

a. Extreme foolishness; folly; senselessness; foolhardiness: Trying to drive through that traffic would be pure insanity.

b. A foolish or senseless action, policy, statement, etc.: We've heard decades of insanities in our political discourse.

You're wrong, get over it.

Edit: Just to reiterate -- in case it wasn't clear enough in my first post -- I'm not arguing that the particular quote we've been referencing is actually the literal definition of insanity. Obviously that's not the case. I'm merely pointing out that the action exhibited in the quote falls under the realm of acting insanely, according to the definition itself.

Edit due to edit:

Then we are totally on separate pages >.> ... why are you even argueing with me then?

I was arguing the implication that the quote has no recognizable association with the term insanity. It may not be the literal definition that it claims to be, but it still illustrates an action that can be considered insane and therefore seems fitting to an extent.

In any case, I think we've strayed off-topic long enough. Let's just bury the hatchet.

eldaris · February 2014

Originally posted by Robokapp
Originally posted by Warjin I can understand why they are bashing the game because they are butt hurt haters, but the rest of you, whats up?
the forums are more entertaining than the game - which says a lot about the game.

That's what's up.

Quoted for the truth. Also there were so many interruptions(thanks to ...NDA NDA NDA) in beta that I had to occupy my time with something and in the end reading/posting on forums was more interesting than playing the game.

Mpfive · February 2014

Originally posted by Robokapp
Originally posted by Warjin
I can understand why they are bashing the game because they are butt hurt haters, but the rest of you, whats up?

the forums are more entertaining than the game - which says a lot about the game.

That's what's up.

Thanks for proving the ops point;)

Thornrage · February 2014

I had fun in beta and have pre-ordered but I disagree with the OP.

These forums are made to discuss games, wither we like them or not. True some posts are terrible but we simply have to sift through them. Hopefully most gamers will be able to go through the posts and realize that there are opinions that are not based on a realistic view; that goes for both sides of any argument.

Howdy, Stranger!

If you don't like the is game why are you posting on the ESO forums?

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

If you don't like the is game why are you posting on the ESO forums?

Comments