After rereading the argument, it is even more ridiculous than I first thought.
Here is why: we would consider airplane pilots to be experts at flying planes. It is their job, much like the way Team 5's job is game design. According to this argument, if a pilot makes a mistake and crashes a plane, we are in no position to criticize them because they're experts. Likewise, if a game developer (or team of game developers) makes a mistake in their design, we aren't in a place to criticize them? This is just plain wrong. You hold experts accountable for their mistakes. A pilot's job is to make sure passengers get from one place to another safely. A game designer's job is to make sure they design their game in a way that encourages enjoyable experiences in the player base. If they fail to do that, the players are in a place to complain.
My argument was never written to be applicable in other situations; in fact, I never said that it was viable in any scenario other than this one. I'm simply using it here and not going beyond the realm of game design. Not to mention that the comparison you're suggesting is so outlandish that it doesn't even make logical sense. Pilots have to deal with everything in the moment, and go to pilot school to learn exactly what they need to do to successfully fly a plane. It's all paying attention to everything happening and remembering to do the right thing at the right time. Game designers go to a college to learn how to make a thing for people to entertain themselves via their technology gadgets. (You've officially been subjected to my sense of humor. I apologize deeply.)
Game designers also have the ability to fix their mistakes, so if something does end up slipping through the cracks, they are able to fix it later on once it has been confirmed to be an issue. Airplane pilots can only reasonably make one mistake in their line of work, and when they do, it becomes a national headline. I've never seen a CNN story about Corridor Creeper was insanely broken before the patch (a statement that I fully agree with and has actually been addressed in an interview with one of the lead game designers). Then again, I don't really watch the news, so take that with a grain of salt.
You may not have to be a meteorologist in order to know that it's raining, but you DO have to be a meteorologist to know if it's going to rain.
Not true, I have a gadget that tells me what the weather will be like that day. If there is a sun, it's going to be sunny and if there are clouds with little drops, that means rain. It actually works much better than the weather people, so I do know if it is going to rain despite my lack of meteorological credentials.
Then I'd love to read your own personal 7-Day Forecast. You completely missed my point.
I bet you any farmer out there can give you a reasonable 7 day forecast without relying on the weatherman or tech gadgets.
As for my personal 7 day forecast... 70-80 degrees everyday, mostly sunny. Living in Los Angeles makes this game too easy.
Game design isn't a science and everyone has the ability to tell what they like and don't like.
But there's a huge difference between not liking something and criticizing it as bad game design.
A game is to have fun. If you aren't having fun the game is poorly designed for you. If lots of people aren't having fun and some are it's a niche game. If lots of people are having fun and suddenly stop after an update to the game it was a bad design choice.
I'm actually having a blast in Hearthstone right now, just your argument is full of more holes than a block of swiss cheese. I'm sorry if that analogy was too hard for you. I'm a cook so I don't expect you to understand cheese if you are not.
After rereading the argument, it is even more ridiculous than I first thought.
Here is why: we would consider airplane pilots to be experts at flying planes. It is their job, much like the way Team 5's job is game design. According to this argument, if a pilot makes a mistake and crashes a plane, we are in no position to criticize them because they're experts. Likewise, if a game developer (or team of game developers) makes a mistake in their design, we aren't in a place to criticize them? This is just plain wrong. You hold experts accountable for their mistakes. A pilot's job is to make sure passengers get from one place to another safely. A game designer's job is to make sure they design their game in a way that encourages enjoyable experiences in the player base. If they fail to do that, the players are in a place to complain.
My argument was never written to be applicable in other situations; in fact, I never said that it was viable in any scenario other than this one. I'm simply using it here and not going beyond the realm of game design. Not to mention that the comparison you're suggesting is so outlandish that it doesn't even make logical sense. Pilots have to deal with everything in the moment, and go to pilot school to learn exactly what they need to do to successfully fly a plane. It's all paying attention to everything happening and remembering to do the right thing at the right time. Game designers go to a college to learn how to make a thing for people to entertain themselves via their technology gadgets. (You've officially been subjected to my sense of humor. I apologize deeply.)
Game designers also have the ability to fix their mistakes, so if something does end up slipping through the cracks, they are able to fix it later on once it has been confirmed to be an issue. Airplane pilots can only reasonably make one mistake in their line of work, and when they do, it becomes a national headline. I've never seen a CNN story about Corridor Creeper was insanely broken before the patch (a statement that I fully agree with and has actually been addressed in an interview with one of the lead game designers). Then again, I don't really watch the news, so take that with a grain of salt.
How is that outlandish in the realm of this argument? I'm not talking about it in any deeper sense beyond what their basic function is as professionals and when it is acceptable for consumers to voice their displeasure with them. Further, I am not talking about the consequences of failure (but it was a fun discussion about Corridor Creeper on CNN). If a worker does not do their job, people can criticise them for failing to complete their basic professional function. The fact that game developers can fix their mistakes is completely irrelevant since Team 5 has done nothing in terms of rebalancing cards from the WW expansion and probably won't for some time. Somehow claiming that their professional status shields them from criticism is false and honestly ridiculous. Your post gave me a good laugh, though, so at least there's that. Have a good one, man and don't bend over backwards too hard trying to defend your original "point."
I am a bit surprised people gets angry because the argument that they know better because it is their job is used.
I guess most of those people aren’t professionals or aren’t high skill professionals as those will quickly see the point on the knowledge and experience and notice why it matters when giving an opinion and the self image you have when you don’t have it.
I mean sure, criticize all you want folks, rant about it and even be unable to entertain other ideas, it’s all just the internet after all, I just wish in real life you can manage to discuss in a proper manner and articulate valid points without insulting each other, and if you can’t work on it, it will do wonders for you everywhere.
I think the better argument as to why some... let's call them unfortunate... interactions are not totally Team 5's fault on the outset is because despite all internal testing and designing and approving cards to be put in, they can only check for so much. Even if we go totally cynical and say there are about 500K people playing Standard ladder in a given month, and lets say 750K for everything else (both casuals. Wild ladder, arena) on the American server alone, there are still well over a thousand times as many people able to test the cards after the fact just by trying to use them. [Aside: I extrapolated those numbers from the fact Blizzard mentions at the end of every month what percentile your rank is. If legend is the top 1%, than a simple ratio equation can tell us approximately how many people are on ladder in a month.] This exponentially increases the rate at which cards are tested and "solved." Faulting Team 5 for some unforeseen consequences, bugs, or interactions less than a week into an expansion is just kind of unfair. However, it is valid to criticize them if there is an issue, and it is left to languish for an unnecessary amount of time after being identified. The tricky part (if it is not a bug or the Deathstalker Rexxar fiasco) is discerning exactly what is an issue, and what should be done about it.
After rereading the argument, it is even more ridiculous than I first thought.
Here is why: we would consider airplane pilots to be experts at flying planes. It is their job, much like the way Team 5's job is game design. According to this argument, if a pilot makes a mistake and crashes a plane, we are in no position to criticize them because they're experts. Likewise, if a game developer (or team of game developers) makes a mistake in their design, we aren't in a place to criticize them? This is just plain wrong. You hold experts accountable for their mistakes. A pilot's job is to make sure passengers get from one place to another safely. A game designer's job is to make sure they design their game in a way that encourages enjoyable experiences in the player base. If they fail to do that, the players are in a place to complain.
My argument was never written to be applicable in other situations; in fact, I never said that it was viable in any scenario other than this one. I'm simply using it here and not going beyond the realm of game design. Not to mention that the comparison you're suggesting is so outlandish that it doesn't even make logical sense. Pilots have to deal with everything in the moment, and go to pilot school to learn exactly what they need to do to successfully fly a plane. It's all paying attention to everything happening and remembering to do the right thing at the right time. Game designers go to a college to learn how to make a thing for people to entertain themselves via their technology gadgets. (You've officially been subjected to my sense of humor. I apologize deeply.)
Game designers also have the ability to fix their mistakes, so if something does end up slipping through the cracks, they are able to fix it later on once it has been confirmed to be an issue. Airplane pilots can only reasonably make one mistake in their line of work, and when they do, it becomes a national headline. I've never seen a CNN story about Corridor Creeper was insanely broken before the patch (a statement that I fully agree with and has actually been addressed in an interview with one of the lead game designers). Then again, I don't really watch the news, so take that with a grain of salt.
How is that outlandish in the realm of this argument? I'm not talking about it in any deeper sense beyond what their basic function is as professionals and when it is acceptable for consumers to voice their displeasure with them. Further, I am not talking about the consequences of failure (but it was a fun discussion about Corridor Creeper on CNN). If a worker does not do their job, people can criticise them for failing to complete their basic professional function. The fact that game developers can fix their mistakes is completely irrelevant since Team 5 has done nothing in terms of rebalancing cards from the WW expansion and probably won't for some time. Somehow claiming that their professional status shields them from criticism is false and honestly ridiculous. Your post gave me a good laugh, though, so at least there's that. Have a good one, man and don't bend over backwards too hard trying to defend your original "point."
Way to be a condescending asshole.
Obviously the argument I'm making here doesn't work for every occupation. But that wasn't the intention of the argument in the first place. I was using it in this instance and in this instance only.
Game design isn't a science and everyone has the ability to tell what they like and don't like.
But there's a huge difference between not liking something and criticizing it as bad game design.
A game is to have fun. If you aren't having fun the game is poorly designed for you. If lots of people aren't having fun and some are it's a niche game. If lots of people are having fun and suddenly stop after an update to the game it was a bad design choice.
I'm actually having a blast in Hearthstone right now, just your argument is full of more holes than a block of swiss cheese. I'm sorry if that analogy was too hard for you. I'm a cook so I don't expect you to understand cheese if you are not.
...And here we go again, taking my argument and throwing it somewhere that I'm not trying to use it.
I will admit, you got a bit of a laugh out of me. But if you want me to try and retort, just look at the other replies. As one without much cooking experience, I'm not one for copy-pasta.
Nobody need to be an "expert" to understand at a first sight that a card like Patches the Pirate (pre-nerf) was plain broken. Team 5 not only printed it but it takes 2 years to acknowledge that a nerf was needed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
For what profit is it to a man, if he gains the world and loses his own soul?
You might need education to fully criticize Team 5.
You don't need it to criticize it based on pure pattern recognition. And Hearthstone is old enough to have patterns.
You only see to see the failure of several Quest decks like Hunter's and Warlocks and see poorly supported decks like Freeze Shaman or Dragon Paladin to see Dragon Hunter and say
"Yeaaaah. You've tried this tactic before and it usually failed"
The fact of the matter is this: CRITIQUE is valuable no matter who you are. CONVERSATIONS are valuable when you know what you are talking about.
Something the vast majority of couch experts do not know.
See the problem with this line of thought is the idea that people who don't know the inner workings of Hearthstone can understand it enough to converse about it doesn't work because Hearthstone has been out since 2014.
Most criticism on Hearthstone are bad but some players can enough themselves in the conversation due to them recognizing how the game progresses and the statements of the team.
For example one of my biggest criticisms is that their expansion schedule and their desire for NEW and EXCITING decks decks don't work because they haven't fixed Basic and Standard. Their unwillingness to fix it is due to their fear of jarring new players.
And thus the meta gets stale fast as the Tier 1 decks outclass the Tier 2 decks by too much due to too few influencers enter the meta.
The base classes are unbalanced. A few cards are missed in playtesting and end up dominating. The meta gets stale until a nerf. New expanstion drops. Repeat every 4 months.
Classic and Basic weren't designed for this purpose and need redesign. This is not a New Conversation. Many pros have stated this. Its been talked about for years now. But Team 5 doesn't want to address it.
Requiring perfect information to converse is not a valid argument because Team 5 doesn't even have it.
They don't know which decks in new expansions will work. If they did, then saying they don't know what they are doing is a valid remark.
This is why valid criticism has to be open ended.
"What I see is A. In the past A didn't work. Unless they have changed to B, C, or D: A won't work again."
Another issue is that Team 5 doesn't talk a lot publicly. And when they do, they answer for lack of a better word... noob questions. Rarely do they discuss higher end design philosophy. Brode's recent Q&A contained many simple or previously answered questions.
This is one of the other source of the bad criticisms. When you leave information up to the imagination of the customer they often think the worst. Or stupidest things they can think of. MTG put out many articles on the design philosophy of the colors, planes, and mechanics. Hearthstone not so much. And game journalists can't go too hard in order to keep friend terms. It was and still is like pulling teeth to get info on class design from them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
As for my personal 7 day forecast... 70-80 degrees everyday, mostly sunny. Living in Los Angeles makes this game too easy.
I'm actually having a blast in Hearthstone right now, just your argument is full of more holes than a block of swiss cheese. I'm sorry if that analogy was too hard for you. I'm a cook so I don't expect you to understand cheese if you are not.
Im not going to lie the game is real tiring right now, but the game is more dynamic than its been in a while. I like it.
Dumb fucking logic, fanboy.
I am a bit surprised people gets angry because the argument that they know better because it is their job is used.
I guess most of those people aren’t professionals or aren’t high skill professionals as those will quickly see the point on the knowledge and experience and notice why it matters when giving an opinion and the self image you have when you don’t have it.
I mean sure, criticize all you want folks, rant about it and even be unable to entertain other ideas, it’s all just the internet after all, I just wish in real life you can manage to discuss in a proper manner and articulate valid points without insulting each other, and if you can’t work on it, it will do wonders for you everywhere.
I think the better argument as to why some... let's call them unfortunate... interactions are not totally Team 5's fault on the outset is because despite all internal testing and designing and approving cards to be put in, they can only check for so much. Even if we go totally cynical and say there are about 500K people playing Standard ladder in a given month, and lets say 750K for everything else (both casuals. Wild ladder, arena) on the American server alone, there are still well over a thousand times as many people able to test the cards after the fact just by trying to use them. [Aside: I extrapolated those numbers from the fact Blizzard mentions at the end of every month what percentile your rank is. If legend is the top 1%, than a simple ratio equation can tell us approximately how many people are on ladder in a month.] This exponentially increases the rate at which cards are tested and "solved." Faulting Team 5 for some unforeseen consequences, bugs, or interactions less than a week into an expansion is just kind of unfair. However, it is valid to criticize them if there is an issue, and it is left to languish for an unnecessary amount of time after being identified. The tricky part (if it is not a bug or the Deathstalker Rexxar fiasco) is discerning exactly what is an issue, and what should be done about it.
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
Is it weird that I kinda don't care? And I kinda agree with him? But also don't agree with him for the most obvious reasons ever.
But ... mostly just apathy, man.
Nobody need to be an "expert" to understand at a first sight that a card like Patches the Pirate (pre-nerf) was plain broken. Team 5 not only printed it but it takes 2 years to acknowledge that a nerf was needed.
For what profit is it to a man, if he gains the world and loses his own soul?
You might need education to fully criticize Team 5.
You don't need it to criticize it based on pure pattern recognition. And Hearthstone is old enough to have patterns.
You only see to see the failure of several Quest decks like Hunter's and Warlocks and see poorly supported decks like Freeze Shaman or Dragon Paladin to see Dragon Hunter and say
Requiring perfect information to converse is not a valid argument because Team 5 doesn't even have it.
They don't know which decks in new expansions will work. If they did, then saying they don't know what they are doing is a valid remark.
This is why valid criticism has to be open ended.
"What I see is A. In the past A didn't work. Unless they have changed to B, C, or D: A won't work again."
Another issue is that Team 5 doesn't talk a lot publicly. And when they do, they answer for lack of a better word... noob questions. Rarely do they discuss higher end design philosophy. Brode's recent Q&A contained many simple or previously answered questions.
This is one of the other source of the bad criticisms. When you leave information up to the imagination of the customer they often think the worst. Or stupidest things they can think of. MTG put out many articles on the design philosophy of the colors, planes, and mechanics. Hearthstone not so much. And game journalists can't go too hard in order to keep friend terms. It was and still is like pulling teeth to get info on class design from them.