Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

[Review] ArcheAge: Much to Do, But Not Always Worth Doing

123457

Comments

  • BigCountryBigCountry Member Posts: 478
    Nicely constructed Bill.

    "spending in ordinate amounts of time on menial tasks"

    that's dead on lol. AA makes a good run for 3-4 months then it ghost towns simply because there is not much to do once your leveled and geared.

    BigCountry | Head Hunters | www.wefarmpeople.com

  • steelwindsteelwind Member UncommonPosts: 352

    What gets me about this review is the articles prior to it. The impression I was getting was that Bill was completely immersing himself in AA. The articles were presented in a way that would lead you to believe he was excited by all the various features and seemed to "get it". The fact that the reviewer took so long and touched on so many unique stories that most games never required. I guess you can say that he painted himself as a fan and the articles were overwhelmingly positive IMHO. Then the final review came and it almost felt like it was done by someone else. A complete turn from the experiences he presented in previous articles. This caught me by surprise since to me it didn't make sense.

    How can a game that required such careful time consuming attention, a game that needed several pre-reviews to even properly evaluate the game? The fact that this review required all this over the standard MMO fare, one would think it would have gotten a higher review than the standard WoW clone one page review? This would lead me to believe the ranking system has NO MEANING when you compare the ratings of other MMO's. How can Wildstar get an 8.4 and AA a 7.3? Really?!

    It almost seems as though Bill was having the time of his life then had a bad day, then decided to immediately write his review. I can only imagine what these reviewers consider giving a high rating to? Bill I think you meant to say, I don't find Sandbox/sandpark games fun because last I checked most sandbox features aren't action packed.

    In the end it just came across as a hardcore themepark fan trying to play and review sandbox game.

     



     

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,342


    Originally posted by steelwind

    How can a game that required such careful time consuming attention, a game that needed several pre-reviews to even properly evaluate the game? The fact that this review required all this over the standard MMO fare, one would think it would have gotten a higher review than the standard WoW clone one page review?

    The longer the reviewing takes, the higher score it should achieve...? Huh?

  • Spankster77Spankster77 Member UncommonPosts: 487
    Originally posted by Gdemami
    Originally posted by steelwind

    How can a game that required such careful time consuming attention, a game that needed several pre-reviews to even properly evaluate the game? The fact that this review required all this over the standard MMO fare, one would think it would have gotten a higher review than the standard WoW clone one page review?


    The longer the reviewing takes, the higher score it should achieve...? Huh?

    Sometimes you have to get past the initial awe of something to see it for what it really is.  This review is one of the few that actually lasted longer than the initial honeymoon phase.  Again, I didn't think the review was super negative and I even feel that the reviewer was generous on some accounts. 

     

    A review is a subjective description of your own personal experience, this was his experience, not yours.  I have gone to the movies where the critics have given it amazing reviews and personally I felt the movie sucked and vice versa. 

     

    The reviewer, like myself and many others feels that this game is mediocre at best.  You may feel differently but you don't have a column on MMORPG to perform your review.  If you enjoy it, enjoy it and don't worry about the reviews.

  • TiamatRoarTiamatRoar Member RarePosts: 1,676
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by steelwind

    How can a game that required such careful time consuming attention, a game that needed several pre-reviews to even properly evaluate the game? The fact that this review required all this over the standard MMO fare, one would think it would have gotten a higher review than the standard WoW clone one page review?


     

    The longer the reviewing takes, the higher score it should achieve...? Huh?

    If anything, to be fair, for MMOs, the longer the reviewing takes, the worse score it'll probably get.  There's a reason why people realized the idea of the "honeymoon" period for MMOs.  A good example is Wildstar, where so many people loved it at first, but had reviewers spent long enough time on it to get to the end game (or lack of) for it, the reviews would have likely been a much lower score.

     

    In tons of MMOs I've played, even the bad ones, the times when you're levelling up fast and seeing all these new things are just such wonderful times.  And then it eventually settles in that, gosh, it was nice the first time around but you're gonna be repeating this stuff for hours upon hours upon hours, and you've hit max level so there's no new skills to look forward to, and you've explored all the maps so there's no new lands to look forward to seeing (instead, you'll just be sitting in the same old lands repeating some stupid crap), etc etc etc.

     

    How much do you think people would like Mario games if they were based around character progression and you basically had to keep repeating stage 8-8 killing Bowser over and over again to progress your Mario?  It'd get old fast.  Instead, you play stage 8-8 just once or whatever, put the game down (no need to pay for ongoing subscription costs) and say "That was fun!  On to the next game!  Maybe I'll come back to reply this one someday later if I feel like it."

     

    Meanwhile an MMO would ask you to stomp 5,000 koopa troopas while paying $15 a month before you're high level enough to take on Bowser...

     

    Anyways, not all MMOs have to be like that.  It's the challenge of any MMO developer to make a game that makes the player say "Sweet!  Time to log on, have some fun, AND watch my character grow!"   However, that's HARD for most MMOs to do, and many MMOs that succeed at the honeymoon period (like say, Wlidstar) end up not being able to rise to that challenge.  Unfortunately, it takes a reviewer TIME to get to this point.  But that's why any reviewer who DOES spend that TIME will have a more negative opinion of an MMO more often than not  (which their negative review can hopefully save other people the trouble of spending time to get there only to find the end game sucks)

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,342


    Originally posted by TiamatRoar

    If anything, to be fair, for MMOs, the longer the reviewing takes, the worse score it'll probably get.  

    It is not fair, it is equally fallacious thinking.

  • TiamatRoarTiamatRoar Member RarePosts: 1,676
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by TiamatRoar

    If anything, to be fair, for MMOs, the longer the reviewing takes, the worse score it'll probably get.  

     

    It is not fair, it is equally fallacious thinking.

    The thinking isn't fallacious.  It's called the Honeymoon phenomenom.  And it's pretty obvious when you look at the amount of people who loved an MMO at first but come to dislike it as time goes on.

  • steelwindsteelwind Member UncommonPosts: 352

    [mod edit -removed huge amounts of space]
     

    So if this is true, is AA the first true MMORPG.com review? I cannot remember another review where the reviewer took this much time to review. So AA got a lower score than other MMO's because the reviewer decided to get past the honeymoon period before giving it a score? So all the other MMO reviews are based on THE HONEYMOON PERIOD? So how is that fair? If all the other games aren't given as critical of a review before scoring it, how is that not biased? Sounds like the cards were stacked against AA from the beginning and that was the choice of the reviewer.

    The difference is you need to base your score against the yardstick produced by the scoring system of prior reviews. So the reviewer decided to base his score on a new method of reviewing but in the end, it is still being compared to other titles which didn't get subjected to the same standards.

    Stil a BS review to me with a double standard.

  • TiamatRoarTiamatRoar Member RarePosts: 1,676
    Originally posted by steelwind
     

    So if this is true, is AA the first true MMORPG.com review? I cannot remember another review where the reviewer took this much time to review. So AA got a lower score than other MMO's because the reviewer decided to get past the honeymoon period before giving it a score? So all the other MMO reviews are based on THE HONEYMOON PERIOD? So how is that fair? If all the other games aren't given as critical of a review before scoring it, how is that not biased? Sounds like the cards were stacked against AA from the beginning and that was the choice of the reviewer.

    The difference is you need to base your score against the yardstick produced by the scoring system of prior reviews. So the reviewer decided to base his score on a new method of reviewing but in the end, it is still being compared to other titles which didn't get subjected to the same standards.

    Stil a BS review to me with a double standard.

    It's not fair.  In an ideal world, EVERY MMORPG would be reviewed past the honeymoon.  That however, is insanely impractical.  So I guess what I'm saying is, people can feel free to ignore every other MMO review and just pay attention to ones like this one.

     

    Really, you're trying to use that as something against this review.  But the truth is as you stated.  If anything, AA is the only TRUE review on this site.  So that's a point in FAVOR of this review and against every OTHER review.  So there's nothing particularly wrong with this review.  What's wrong is every OTHER review.

     

    I don't see why you're so worried about score, anyways. Anyone with any brains will read the WORDS of the review.  That's what matters.  (if anything, I and many other people find the score suspiciously higher than the words would seem to indicate)

     

    I also don't see why you're so worried about other reviews scoring higher than this game just because of their honeymoon.  It's not like that did anything to save Wildstar.  In the end, for an MMO, a bad game is a bad game that will not do well, regardless of if the reviews failed to catch it.  Like I said, in an ideal world, every MMO would get a full length review so we could avoid issues like Wildstar.  Whether or not that's the case doesn't change the fact that THIS review, for once, could be considered a full MMO review (or at least, fuller than most others.  It's all relative, of course, since MMOs are constantly updating and supposed to be never-ending)

     

    Whether or not AA gets a higher review score than other games won't change whether or not it's a "good" game for "various people".  Wildstar could have scored a 1 and FFXIV ARR a 10 and Eve a 6667 and WoW a "BEAR!", and that wouldn't change the words in AA's review.

  • SiugSiug Member UncommonPosts: 1,257
    Just checked AA user rating for history's sake and seems that this review is generous because users gave it 6,9.
  • steelwindsteelwind Member UncommonPosts: 352

    Originally posted by TiamatRoar

    Originally posted by steelwind

     

    So if this is true, is AA the first true MMORPG.com review? I cannot remember another review where the reviewer took this much time to review. So AA got a lower score than other MMO's because the reviewer decided to get past the honeymoon period before giving it a score? So all the other MMO reviews are based on THE HONEYMOON PERIOD? So how is that fair? If all the other games aren't given as critical of a review before scoring it, how is that not biased? Sounds like the cards were stacked against AA from the beginning and that was the choice of the reviewer.

    The difference is you need to base your score against the yardstick produced by the scoring system of prior reviews. So the reviewer decided to base his score on a new method of reviewing but in the end, it is still being compared to other titles which didn't get subjected to the same standards.

    Stil a BS review to me with a double standard.

    It's not fair.  In an ideal world, EVERY MMORPG would be reviewed past the honeymoon.  That however, is insanely impractical.  So I guess what I'm saying is, people can feel free to ignore every other MMO review and just pay attention to ones like this one.

     

    Really, you're trying to use that as something against this review.  But the truth is as you stated.  If anything, AA is the only TRUE review on this site.  So that's a point in FAVOR of this review and against every OTHER review.  So there's nothing particularly wrong with this review.  What's wrong is every OTHER review.

     

    I don't see why you're so worried about score, anyways. Anyone with any brains will read the WORDS of the review.  That's what matters.  (if anything, I and many other people find the score suspiciously higher than the words would seem to indicate)

     

    I also don't see why you're so worried about other reviews scoring higher than this game just because of their honeymoon.  It's not like that did anything to save Wildstar.  In the end, for an MMO, a bad game is a bad game that will not do well, regardless of if the reviews failed to catch it.  Like I said, in an ideal world, every MMO would get a full length review so we could avoid issues like Wildstar.  Whether or not that's the case doesn't change the fact that THIS review, for once, could be considered a full MMO review (or at least, fuller than most others.  It's all relative, of course, since MMOs are constantly updating and supposed to be never-ending)

     

    Whether or not AA gets a higher review score than other games won't change whether or not it's a "good" game for "various people".  Wildstar could have scored a 1 and FFXIV ARR a 10 and Eve a 6667 and WoW a "BEAR!", and that wouldn't change the words in AA's review.

    The only reason I would care is because AA is a true break from themepark wow clones. I want AA to do well not only as a AA fan and player but also for the genre. Are more dev's going to start making more innovative games based on AA's success and popularity? I think too many of you are way to fickle to see the importance of a game like AA. Even if there are only a small handful of games like it, that is still far better than the pure wow clones we have been getting and continue to get.

    I don't think AA gets enough credit for being a truly different "package" than has been offered for nearly a decade. Niche or not, it feels nothing like a Wow clone and is a completely different experience than most MMO's. Just because one reviewer didn't find that "different" fun, many will and that is nothing but good for the genre but was completely lost in this review.

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,183
    Originally posted by steelwind

     

    The only reason I would care is because AA is a true break from themepark wow clones. I want AA to do well not only as a AA fan and player but also for the genre. Are more dev's going to start making more innovative games based on AA's success and popularity? I think too many of you are way to fickle to see the importance of a game like AA. Even if there are only a small handful of games like it, that is still far better than the pure wow clones we have been getting and continue to get.

    I don't think AA gets enough credit for being a truly different "package" than has been offered for nearly a decade. Niche or not, it feels nothing like a Wow clone and is a completely different experience than most MMO's. Just because one reviewer didn't find that "different" fun, many will and that is nothing but good for the genre but was completely lost in this review.

    That's just the thing though, AA really falls into the same conundrum SWG did, and just about every Sandbox or PVP game has since. Mediocre content, add to that another problematic mechanic, FFA same faction PVP. You have one of  the reasons it doesn't score well from users as well as reviews like this. Player freedom is great and all, but it comes at a price, it also seems to show that devs feel with emergent  player driven content they need no focus on actual gaming content. I don't think that's a sound idea. It showed in SWG's case, it shows in many indie games, and it shows apparently here.

     

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • Spankster77Spankster77 Member UncommonPosts: 487
    Originally posted by steelwind

    The only reason I would care is because AA is a true break from themepark wow clones. I want AA to do well not only as a AA fan and player but also for the genre. Are more dev's going to start making more innovative games based on AA's success and popularity? I think too many of you are way to fickle to see the importance of a game like AA. Even if there are only a small handful of games like it, that is still far better than the pure wow clones we have been getting and continue to get.

    I don't think AA gets enough credit for being a truly different "package" than has been offered for nearly a decade. Niche or not, it feels nothing like a Wow clone and is a completely different experience than most MMO's. Just because one reviewer didn't find that "different" fun, many will and that is nothing but good for the genre but was completely lost in this review.

    For starters lots of games out now are not WoW clones (GW2, ESO, Darkfall, Destiny, etc), so AA is not the only "true" break from WoW clones, there are lots.  Just because AA is different from WoW doesn't make it a good game by any means, which is the point that you seem to be missing. 

     

    As far as MMO gamers being fickle, we sure are because most of what has been sold to us the past 7 years has been garbage of epic proportions.  People may say FFXIV is basically WoW in FF wrapper, which is fairly accurate, but FFXIV is still a good game because what it does, it does really well.  AA on the other hand does a bunch of things that "themeparks" don't but it doesn't do any of it really well, which is what the reviewer was saying.  Yes this may not be everyone's opinion but from the forums here it's probably a fairly accurate view of how most gamers feel about it.  Don't believe me just look at the population during peak times now, much lower than before.

     

    If anyone is being unfair, it's you.  You are invalidating the reviewer's opinions because you want the game to do well and you want the genre to follow it's path.  The reviewer simply said "here is what I thought of the game", you came back with saying "No reviewer your review is BS because I don't agree with you". 

  • TiamatRoarTiamatRoar Member RarePosts: 1,676
    Originally posted by steelwind
    The only reason I would care is because AA is a true break from themepark wow clones. I want AA to do well not only as a AA fan and player but also for the genre. Are more dev's going to start making more innovative games based on AA's success and popularity? I think too many of you are way to fickle to see the importance of a game like AA. Even if there are only a small handful of games like it, that is still far better than the pure wow clones we have been getting and continue to get.

    I don't think AA gets enough credit for being a truly different "package" than has been offered for nearly a decade. Niche or not, it feels nothing like a Wow clone and is a completely different experience than most MMO's. Just because one reviewer didn't find that "different" fun, many will and that is nothing but good for the genre but was completely lost in this review.

    "Just because one reviewer"

     

    To be fair to the reviewer, he is incapable of cloning himself, giving each of those clones a different personality, and then having then all play the game for several months (complete with free Archaeum pack provided by Trion for each of them) and writing up their own reviews.  The same can be said of anyone who reviews a game.  In the end, they are only one person, their reviews will only reflect the opinions of one person, and there's nothing they can do about that.  It is up to everyone else to pitch in their own reviews if you're looking for more than "just one reviewer", and it is up to the prospective game player to search for other reviews rather than rely on just one reviewer.

     

    And quite frankly, there are plenty of mini "reviews" all over the place for Archeage.  Many of them in agreement with this reviewer, and some of them not in agreement.

     

    If AA doesn't do well, it's probably not going to be because of the opinion of "just one reviewer".  I mean, seriously, I really doubt THAT many people even trust MMORPG's reviews THAT much that just one MMORPG reviewer will suddenly determine whether or not AA does well.  Yes, AA did do something different.  And yes, maybe it does deserve credit for that.  Then again, maybe it DID get credit for that (again, the review's score is suspiciously higher than the words.  And the positives in the words tend to be about how AA is different, too) but that credit was quickly whistled away in most peoples eyes thanks to other negatives.

     

    In essence, if AA doesn't do well, there's at least some good possibility that's AA's own damn fault.  Or at least, partially their fault.  It's not the reviewer's fault that there's such a land issue in this game (it's not the reviewer's fault that AA couldn't take lessons from an MMO over a decade old, Ultima Online, and make housing one per account).  It's not the reviewer's fault there are so many hacks.  It's not the reviewer's fault that some people see the cash shop as pay-to-win (heck, the reviewer doesn't!).  It's not the reviewer's fault that other people, without reading this review, found the game to be boring for them.  Of course, you could blame the latter on those other peoples' fault, but look where that got Wildstar (with everyone saying to the Wildstar haters, "It's your fault for not enjoying the game!".  It's the game's job to make you enjoy it, not your job to make yourself enjoy it. Or, in a sandbox game, at least give you proper/quality/functioning TOOLS to enjoy it.  Minecraft did for many, AA did not for many).  And it's not the reviewer's fault that AA's halloween event is just a lousy hour buff with all the good stuff being from cash shop gamble boxes.

     

    Yes, AA tried to do something different.  And AA in a lot of ways possibily screwed it up.  And that's their fault if they did, not the reviewer's.

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,342


    Originally posted by TiamatRoar

    The thinking isn't fallacious.  It's called the Honeymoon phenomenom.  And it's pretty obvious when you look at the amount of people who loved an MMO at first but come to dislike it as time goes on.

    Adding more fallacy on top of another one does not make it less fallacious. That is not how it works, sorry.

  • TiamatRoarTiamatRoar Member RarePosts: 1,676
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by TiamatRoar

    The thinking isn't fallacious.  It's called the Honeymoon phenomenom.  And it's pretty obvious when you look at the amount of people who loved an MMO at first but come to dislike it as time goes on.

     

    Adding more fallacy on top of another one does not make it less fallacious. That is not how it works, sorry.

     

    And saying something is fallacious without giving any evidence or argument to prove your point doesn't mean you're correct. That's also not how it works.  Sorry.

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,183
    Originally posted by TiamatRoar
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by TiamatRoar

    The thinking isn't fallacious.  It's called the Honeymoon phenomenom.  And it's pretty obvious when you look at the amount of people who loved an MMO at first but come to dislike it as time goes on.

     

    Adding more fallacy on top of another one does not make it less fallacious. That is not how it works, sorry.

     

    And saying something is fallacious without giving any evidence or argument to prove your point doesn't mean you're correct. That's also not how it works.  Sorry.

    I don't typically see a large amount of people flip flopping as you're saying they do. It can happen sure, but the amount of such seems few and far between to me. It's also completely anecdotal to judge that based on forum posts.

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • TiamatRoarTiamatRoar Member RarePosts: 1,676
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by TiamatRoar
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by TiamatRoar

    The thinking isn't fallacious.  It's called the Honeymoon phenomenom.  And it's pretty obvious when you look at the amount of people who loved an MMO at first but come to dislike it as time goes on.

     

    Adding more fallacy on top of another one does not make it less fallacious. That is not how it works, sorry.

     

    And saying something is fallacious without giving any evidence or argument to prove your point doesn't mean you're correct. That's also not how it works.  Sorry.

    I don't typically see a large amount of people flip flopping as you're saying they do. It can happen sure, but the amount of such seems few and far between to me. It's also completely anecdotal to judge that based on forum posts.

    I was going to go through the forums to pick out various posts as evidence, but you said that's completely anecdotal, so that wouldn't prove anything (to you).

     

    So basically, if you're hypothetically correct that forum posts are "completely anecdotal" (and thus not valid evidence), that would mean there isn't really any valid evidence I can present to prove my point (at least, to you).  Any evidence I'd take from conversations with people in MMORPGs would also be anecdotal at best.

     

    At this point, the closest thing I could think of as possible evidence is the simple fact that MMOs always lose a large chunk of players soon after release (exact statistics vary, but most say "more than half").  Even that evidence only implies the possibility of the honeymoon phenomena, not proof of it.

     

    So, congrats.  By your standards, it is nigh impossible for me to prove my arguments are correct.

     

    That doesn't change the fact that you've yet to offer anything to disprove it, yet you claim it's a fallacy.  "I don't typically see a large amount of people flip flopping" is even MORE anecdotal than forum posts.  At least forum posts have a record of existing, rather than something that, for all I  or anyone knows, you may have completely made up.

     

    At best, you can say I can't prove my point (therefore my point may be right or may be wrong). To claim my point is a fallacy (and thus definately wrong), however, requires more VALID non-anecdotal evidence than your arbitrary statement "I don't typically see a large amount of those people", which you've yet to provide.

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,342


    Originally posted by TiamatRoar

    And saying something is fallacious without giving any evidence or argument to prove your point doesn't mean you're correct. That's also not how it works.  Sorry.

    I did provided an argument. Can't do much if you are blind folded with your agenda tho...


    So here we go step by step again:

    The poster was implying that time is needed needs time to judge the game so one can see it's greatness.

    You on the other hand imply that once same time pass, one will see through the greatness they saw at first and recognize the ugly.


    Both statements are equally fallacious...and stupid.

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,342


    Originally posted by TiamatRoar
    Originally posted by Gdemami   Originally posted by TiamatRoar And saying something is fallacious without giving any evidence or argument to prove your point doesn't mean you're correct. That's also not how it works.  Sorry.
      I did provided an argument. Can't do much if you are blind folded with your agenda tho... So here we go step by step again: The poster was implying that time is needed needs time to judge the game so one can see it's greatness. You on the other hand imply that once same time pass, one will see through the greatness they saw at first and recognize the ugly. Both statements are equally fallacious...and stupid.
    "Both statements are equally fallacious...and stupid."

     

    That's not an argument.  That's a statement.  An argument would provide evidence to prove that statement true (or at least, show the likelihood of that statement being true).  You've yet to do that.

     

    Again, that's not how it works.  Sorry.

     

    Perhaps this link might help you.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument


    I keep overestimating you...

    It is called proof by contradiction.

  • Ket_VilianoKet_Viliano Member UncommonPosts: 271
    Originally posted by jdizzle2k13
    Originally posted by DMKano
    Originally posted by Rastan1
    Your review was my experience with this game all the way till you got to combat. Maybe it was just the class I played but combat was nothing short of slow and painful. Too few resources to actually have any fun. Maybe adds to planning your attack but takes away a lot of fun.

    If you don't have sorcery, archery or battlerage as one of your combat abilities for PvE - it's going to suck big time for you.

    There are about half a dozen PvE-combat builds - I think folks who are new to the game simply pick BAD builds that are not suited for PvE combat and yes it will be torture.

    You want ez-mode PvE - try Primeval (also ez mode PvP) or Demonologist, any battle/shadow if you want melee  - you're welcome

     

     

    Just don't make the mistake I did and start off as a healer....

    God, leveling was painful then.

    But if you do like having some way to heal yourself you could go Ranger (archery/shadowplay/vitalism).

    Is there any game developer who cares to grant XP to healers, for, you know, ... healing?

    Sheesh, crafting fast travel stones in this game grants you XP, it's how I leveled from 45 to 50, why can't healing get you XP?

    I would love to play a healer / buffer class, and just run around tossing heals/buffs on random toons for XP.

  • TiamatRoarTiamatRoar Member RarePosts: 1,676
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by TiamatRoar

    Originally posted by Gdemami  

    Originally posted by TiamatRoar And saying something is fallacious without giving any evidence or argument to prove your point doesn't mean you're correct. That's also not how it works.  Sorry.
      I did provided an argument. Can't do much if you are blind folded with your agenda tho... So here we go step by step again: The poster was implying that time is needed needs time to judge the game so one can see it's greatness. You on the other hand imply that once same time pass, one will see through the greatness they saw at first and recognize the ugly. Both statements are equally fallacious...and stupid.
    "Both statements are equally fallacious...and stupid."

     

     

    That's not an argument.  That's a statement.  An argument would provide evidence to prove that statement true (or at least, show the likelihood of that statement being true).  You've yet to do that.

     

    Again, that's not how it works.  Sorry.

     

    Perhaps this link might help you.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument


     

    I keep overestimating you...

    It is called proof by contradiction.

     

    Oh, is that what you think it is? (when it definately isn't)

     

    Then this link should help you on how to construct an actual proof by contradiction.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

  • RobsolfRobsolf Member RarePosts: 4,606
    Originally posted by TiamatRoar
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by TiamatRoar

    Originally posted by Gdemami   


      I did provided an argument. Can't do much if you are blind folded with your agenda tho... So here we go step by step again: The poster was implying that time is needed needs time to judge the game so one can see it's greatness. You on the other hand imply that once same time pass, one will see through the greatness they saw at first and recognize the ugly. Both statements are equally fallacious...and stupid.
    "Both statements are equally fallacious...and stupid."

     

    That's not an argument.  That's a statement.  An argument would provide evidence to prove that statement true (or at least, show the likelihood of that statement being true).  You've yet to do that.

     Again, that's not how it works.  Sorry.

     Perhaps this link might help you.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument


     

    I keep overestimating you...

    It is called proof by contradiction.

     

    Oh, is that what you think it is? (when it definately isn't)

     Then this link should help you on how to construct an actual proof by contradiction.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

    Did he just seriously say that because yours and another person's statement contradict each other, then they both must be wrong?  And not only that, it's "proof by contradiction"?

    Inconceivable!  image

  • alyndalealyndale Member UncommonPosts: 936

    Very nicely done, Bill!

    I generally agree a bit with the overall number. I might have bumped it down to an even 7.0, based on my many hours attempting to get into that grind, but, well this just wasn't the one for me.

    It is and will always be more "forgiving" in many ways than Lineage 2. I spent 2 1/2 years playing L 2 7 days a week from 6 to 10 hours straight...

    That pretty much killed grind for me. I believe in the philosophy that you should stick with a game no matter what others think, if you are truly enjoying that experience. I just simply didn't, in truth. I met some truly fine folks from Scotland, UK, Holland, and Australia, to name a few. That to me was the "value" I found in Archeage...

    Alyn

    All I want is the truth
    Just gimme some truth
    John Lennon

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,852
     
Sign In or Register to comment.