Ritterina wrote:i knew that many of you are brainless idiots but criticizing a game that you didn't even play..... so stupid
I knew that many of you dow3 fanboys are brainless idiots about a dead game that nobody plays..... so stupid
Ritterina wrote:i knew that many of you are brainless idiots but criticizing a game that you didn't even play..... so stupid
Aguxyz wrote:Ritterina wrote:i knew that many of you are brainless idiots but criticizing a game that you didn't even play..... so stupid
I knew that many of you dow3 fanboys are brainless idiots about a dead game that nobody plays..... so stupid
Aguxyz wrote:Ritterina wrote:i knew that many of you are brainless idiots but criticizing a game that you didn't even play..... so stupid
I knew that many of you dow3 fanboys are brainless idiots about a dead game that nobody plays..... so stupid
Ritterina wrote:Well, no one cares about your opinion
Ritterina wrote:Well, no one cares about your opinion
Rostam wrote:Funny thing is; they are still streaming dow3 on twitch ... (Dow3 twitch channel)
https://www.twitch.tv/directory/game/Wa ... videos/all
TharxGamma wrote:I really think everyone needs to stop trying be these warriors of justice and banging on about DOW 3 really nothing to add about it now just repeating whats already been said.
TharxGamma wrote:More importantly lets concentrate on Elite and make more of everything!
Rostam wrote:
Gorbles wrote:I remember that article. People tore it apart for misleading journalism and limited statistics drawing an overly-positive conclusion. The mantra was the game couldn't have sold well, because queue times were already deteriorating. The mantra was that Johnny Ebbert had ruined the series, because nobody asked for CoH in space. Nobody asked for Commanders picked outside of the game, reducing scope and tactical flexibility. The media's attempt at pushing high sales was simply a conspiracy to get people to buy a dying game that nobody could queue for. Some people even claimed MIcrosoft was buying coverage to help cover the issues with GfWL.
Not that I'm saying I agree with that criticism, it's just funny how much folks (not you, Paranoid) have forgotten about DoW II's release and subsequent reception. It was hounded for months, and general sentiments only started to trend to positive overall around Chaos Rising (which launch balance promptly destroyed again for a while).
People will, by and large, justify anything they can in the reverse. The game is doing badly because it doesn't have enough players. This game can't have enough players because I spend too long queueing for games. Very few people apply any sort of academic rigour, they just blow out a long reddit-esque rant and call it a day.
That much, at least, hasn't changed in the past ten years
Impregnable wrote:Gorbles wrote:I remember that article. People tore it apart for misleading journalism and limited statistics drawing an overly-positive conclusion. The mantra was the game couldn't have sold well, because queue times were already deteriorating. The mantra was that Johnny Ebbert had ruined the series, because nobody asked for CoH in space. Nobody asked for Commanders picked outside of the game, reducing scope and tactical flexibility. The media's attempt at pushing high sales was simply a conspiracy to get people to buy a dying game that nobody could queue for. Some people even claimed MIcrosoft was buying coverage to help cover the issues with GfWL.
Not that I'm saying I agree with that criticism, it's just funny how much folks (not you, Paranoid) have forgotten about DoW II's release and subsequent reception. It was hounded for months, and general sentiments only started to trend to positive overall around Chaos Rising (which launch balance promptly destroyed again for a while).
People will, by and large, justify anything they can in the reverse. The game is doing badly because it doesn't have enough players. This game can't have enough players because I spend too long queueing for games. Very few people apply any sort of academic rigour, they just blow out a long reddit-esque rant and call it a day.
That much, at least, hasn't changed in the past ten years
Don't try to frame people in this forum as some unreasonable brutes just because they don't agree with your opinion on DOWIII.
Stop hitting around the bushes Gorbles. What is your point? Are you trying to argue that DOWIII failed not because of its innate features but because of people's negative propaganda? The innate features of a game need to fulfill two major objectives. Firstly, it needs to be innovative and new. Secondly, it needs to be attractive(fun) to the people. In case of DOW III, its fulfillment of 1st purpose is debatable as with all games. People can argue for years about whether one game's innate feature is better than the other's quality wise. The reason why this happens is because there is not a strict line drawn between the matter of taste and that of game's actual quality. However, obviously you are trying to argue that DOWIII's innate feature is good for fulfilling 1st purpose so lets say you are right but I would argue that DOWIII fails miserably at fulfilling the second purpose for the way you identify whether a game fulfilled the second purpose is easy. It is decided by sales and number of players playing it.
The end justifies the means from business perspective. Although companies do have ethical responsibilities, it is undeniable that the ultimate judge on whether a business succeeded or not is from the outcome which is profits generated. Even if the business model is something that is not explainable why it generates profit, it will be named a success and be used as long as it profits the company. It is the same with games. No matter how much critics and media try to portray a game good, if its innate features are not what its consumers want, it will fail like in DoW3's case. Innovative and new features which critics like does not automatically translate to attractive and well selling games. Identifying whether a game is attractive or not is simple, people will play it and buy it if it is fun and vice versa if it is not no matter what others say. Even if we take it for granted that DOWIII is innovative and quality wise good, it is certainly not fun.
People here did not forget about DOWII's reception like you may imagine. Not all those who stayed away from DOWIII did so because it is simply different from previous DOWs. The real reason is for whatever reason it may be, DOWIII's innate features is not attractive and fun to them. They argued DOWIII will fail because they judged its innate features do not fulfill both of purposes it needs to fulfill. To them it was neither innovative nor fun. It just happened to be that many other consumers outside elite mod forum agreed on DOWIII not being fun and DOWIII failed as a result. Then, why the hate? you may ask. They hate it because it gave them a dilemma. They don't agree with DOWIII's vision. As such, the result is a disaster for them whether it is a success or not. If it is successful, relic will continue with this flawed vision. If it is not successful, dawn of war series may not get a support again. The problem is this dilemma would not have happened if relic did not launch DOWIII the way they did. Thus, begins the hate and anger for ruining the franchise they so loved and played long. In this sense, relic truly shot their dog.
There is no need or duty to apply any sort of academic rigour to judge a game for a consumer. Blowing out a long reddit-esque rant and call it a day is fine too. It just shows that person as a consumer did not like that game for whatever reason. Trying to frame them as some unreasonable brute is pointless and wrong.
Gorbles wrote:wall of text
Impregnable wrote:There is no need or duty to apply any sort of academic rigour to judge a game for a consumer. Blowing out a long reddit-esque rant and call it a day is fine too. It just shows that person as a consumer did not like that game for whatever reason. Trying to frame them as some unreasonable brute is pointless and wrong.
Gorbles wrote:Not liking something is not the same as claiming something "objectively" "sucks".
Gorbles wrote:Impregnable wrote:There is no need or duty to apply any sort of academic rigour to judge a game for a consumer. Blowing out a long reddit-esque rant and call it a day is fine too. It just shows that person as a consumer did not like that game for whatever reason. Trying to frame them as some unreasonable brute is pointless and wrong.
Normally there isn't. But if people go around saying how the developers suck, how they can do better than the developers, etc, et al, then some form of competence argument comes into play.
Not liking something is not the same as claiming something "objectively" "sucks". And yet, some folk are completely unable to separate these things.
Return to “General Discussion”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests