It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I was asked to shows some examples and I did. There were counter arguments from you and others about the ESO example. It's not realistic to expect me to be attacked on a point I was requested to make and then tell me to bury it into the ESO thread.Torval said:The ESO beef is really something that should go in that thread, not this one. We've already established the OP has no grounds and isn't interested in making their OP case. They just want their own personal attention ESO thread. That's rude to the ESO article author.
The article implies you can do most dungeons with four DPS with resto staves. End game content which is comprised mostly of Vet Dungeons and Vet Trials would be impossible in that fashion.EponyxDamor said:Neither of the articles in question did either of these things. At best, the ESO article argues that the trinity isn't *needed* for most content, not that there isn't one in the game whatsoever. Furthermore, any sentence referencing the trinity in that blog post is actually a question, not a statement. It only take a few moments of extra research outside of this blog post to find out that the game does, indeed, have healer, tank, and DPS roles (ie, the "holy trinity").Prescience said:Articles falsely claiming that there is no trinity in a game or that another game could die in a year, without any evidence, is a bit troubling. it also has the power to change a persons perspective on a game they were once willing to try. This can create droughts in one title and promote growth in another.EponyxDamor said:Well, to be fair, if you're going to assert a claim, you should have evidence to back it up. As pointed out, neither of the links you provided are news articles or reviews, hence why several of us are still confused about your initial point regarding "opinionated reviews" (specifically, biased ones).Prescience said:No, I am not only asking for fact based news and I have no desire to really argue with you. It goes beyond just those two articles but if you don't believe there's any problem with it or that this site possesses significant power in the genre then we'd both we wasting our time in a back-and-forth.BillMurphy said:Both articles you flagged are editorial columns - like any editorials, they’re specifically opinion based pieces. They're standard practice in web and print sites like ours for ages. We make it as clear as day that they’re are opinions, and it’s your job to agree or disagree.
What you're asking for is that hat we ONLY post fact based news. That would make a very dull site. If you want that, and only that, I’d suggest just reading GamesPress. At least here you get gamer’s opinions in articles and on the forums.
Or, smartly, you could just read the news and avoid the features.
BillMurphy asked for your input on which "opinionated reviews" you were referring to, so that they could improve; he's being very open-minded. Stomping your foot and saying "well, if you don't agree with me, then there's no point in discussing it" is kind of silly, especially when you still haven't provided evidence to your asserted claim.
Furthermore, there really isn't anything wrong with opinionated reviews, as already pointed out; otherwise, you'd really just be looking at a feature list, which is better saved for the back of game boxes or store front pages.
So, even if you wanted to restructure your argument based on that (that MMORPG.com is spreading false information), you'd still have no evidence for your assertion.