So, SO often, whenever a card is revealed or a change is announced, or when a new deck rises out of nowhere and dominates the entire meta, there's always a ton of people spurting some nonsense like, "Blizzard doesn't know what the fuck they're doing; they're ruining the game; this card is trash and will never see play; this is strictly worse/better than a previously existing card; the game is terribly designed." Though it should be known that, on average, nobody knows how semicolons work, so this is an obvious paraphrasing.
I mean, the "will never see play" thing is a can of worms in it of itself, and all I'm going to say in that regard is that all of these statements are just objectively false.
Quick PSA here: NEVER CALL ANYTHING "BAD GAME DESIGN" UNLESS YOU HAVE TAKEN A COURSE IN GAME DESIGN OR ARE CURRENTLY TAKING ONE.
This isn't an "appeal to the authority" counter-argument, it's an "appeal to the experts," and there is an actual difference. Appealing to the authority would be like agreeing with your senator/president/elected official simply because of the office they hold. Appealing to the experts is honestly the only way we can possibly get any meaningful conversation out of non-subjective topics.
Honestly, the constant stream of negativity from some people is honestly just preposterous. If you're doing nothing but focus on the bad, then you're actively ruining your own enjoyment of an otherwise enjoyable game.
Just because other people are complaining too doesn't mean you're the one in the right. There are millions of players online at any given time, and the vast majority of them spend plenty of time simply enjoying the game and having fun with decks that they enjoy to play.
And leave games like Gwent and Shadowverse out of the conversation. They are entirely different property and don't need to be mentioned on a website dedicated to a game that isn't even related. And even if you do feel "compelled" to bring them up, remember that all CCG's have their own faults; don't act like one game is 100% better than any other.
If you feel like ignoring everything I just spent the time to write in order to tell me to go fuck myself, or if you want to act civil by refuting or adding on, feel free to leave your thoughts.
While I agree that team 5 gets a lot of undeserved flak, the idea that you need to have extensive experience in the field you intend to criticize is fucking stupid.
The ole “let’s complain about the complainers” post. Like death and taxes.
'Tis the season. This one's pretty good though (well articulated and generally polite), as far as complaints go. They'll eventually get to know the cycle and fall into the fatalistic apathy that keeps me coming back for more.
While I agree that team 5 gets a lot of undeserved flak, the idea that you need to have extensive experience in the field you intend to criticize is fucking stupid.
Well, considering the fact that almost all of the people complaining about "bad game design" have never once been in the kind of setting that requires them to test things based on over 1000 other variables, I think it's pretty warranted.
And I'm not saying that the "appeal to the experts" argument works for everything. It just applies to the field of game design better than most other fields.
The ole “let’s complain about the complainers” post. Like death and taxes.
'Tis the season. This one's pretty good though (well articulated and generally polite), as far as complaints go. They'll eventually get to know the cycle and fall into the fatalistic apathy that keeps me coming back for more.
Except for the fact that he believes you have to have professional experience to criticize game design. That’s quite possibly the dumbest thing I’ve seen on here. Sometimes things are obvious. You don’t have to be a weatherman to know it’s raining.
So because they're "experts" and we're not, we can't criticize them? I think that the fact that they're experts means they're even more accountable for their mistakes in card design. And even though they do this professionally does not mean they don't make mistakes. I think they certainly have with this expansion, as well as previous expansions.
There are millions of players online at any given time, and the vast majority of them spend plenty of time simply enjoying the game and having fun with decks that they enjoy to play.
Thinking you need to be specifically educated in something to have a valid opinion is a huge fallacy in itself.
Example: Recently I saw an article about an urban planner criticizing LeBron James’ comments on the government’s treatment on poor urban areas because he was a basketball player and saying he knew more because he went to college for this. The guy grew up rich and never lived in these neighborhoods. James grew up there and personally funds a lot of schools and works with community leaders to improve the area. I would argue experience in the area far outweighs formal education.
On topic I feel like 20 years of playing card games allows me to assess a game well enough. I don’t have insight into future expansions but I can look at the current meta and see some problems that should be addressed before the next 3 or 4 months.
The ole “let’s complain about the complainers” post. Like death and taxes.
'Tis the season. This one's pretty good though (well articulated and generally polite), as far as complaints go. They'll eventually get to know the cycle and fall into the fatalistic apathy that keeps me coming back for more.
Except for the fact that he believes you have to have professional experience to criticize game design. That’s quite possibly the dumbest thing I’ve seen on here. Sometimes things are obvious. You don’t have to be a weatherman to know it’s raining.
That's not what meteorologists do. "Weathermen" are tasked with predicting the weather. That is, at least, the vast majority of their job is predicting the weather. They do tons of stuff I don't understand after spending class after class in college taking courses I personally would never have taken and use that knowledge to make the "7-Day Forecast" you see on things like the Weather Channel. 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.
And no, it's not the dumbest thing you've seen on here. Don't lie to yourself. You know for a fact that's not true.
The problems with the 'game' have nothing to do with game design, but rather, product identity. It is naive to think that the development team sits down and says, "Let's make the best game we possibly can." A host of other voices and interests all have a (typically outsized) role in the final content. Don't be so sure the apparent 'mistakes' are actually mistakes - the development team has vast experience both as players and developers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
Thinking you need to be specifically educated in something to have a valid opinion is a huge fallacy in itself.
Example: Recently I saw an article about an urban planner criticizing LeBron James’ comments on the government’s treatment on poor urban areas because he was a basketball player and saying he knew more because he went to college for this. The guy grew up rich and never lived in these neighborhoods. James grew up there and personally funds a lot of schools and works with community leaders to improve the area. I would argue experience in the area far outweighs formal education.
On topic I feel like 20 years of playing card games allows me to assess a game well enough. I don’t have insight into future expansions but I can look at the current meta and see some problems that should be addressed before the next 3 or 4 months.
Well, the example you're giving is a pretty big red flag of white privilege and just general idiocy. I know exactly what story you're talking about, and this is different.
Also, I totally understand the second part. Extensive experience in the realm of card games is another great way to learn the in and outs of design. It's a "Secret Option C" that I should have mentioned, but mentally implied.
Thinking you need to be specifically educated in something to have a valid opinion is a huge fallacy in itself.
Example: Recently I saw an article about an urban planner criticizing LeBron James’ comments on the government’s treatment on poor urban areas because he was a basketball player and saying he knew more because he went to college for this. The guy grew up rich and never lived in these neighborhoods. James grew up there and personally funds a lot of schools and works with community leaders to improve the area. I would argue experience in the area far outweighs formal education.
On topic I feel like 20 years of playing card games allows me to assess a game well enough. I don’t have insight into future expansions but I can look at the current meta and see some problems that should be addressed before the next 3 or 4 months.
Well, the example you're giving is a pretty big red flag of white privilege and just general idiocy. I know exactly what story you're talking about, and this is different.
Also, I totally understand the second part. Extensive experience in the realm of card games is another great way to learn the in and outs of design. It's a "Secret Option C" that I should have mentioned, but mentally implied.
Thinking you need to be specifically educated in something to have a valid opinion is a huge fallacy in itself.
Example: Recently I saw an article about an urban planner criticizing LeBron James’ comments on the government’s treatment on poor urban areas because he was a basketball player and saying he knew more because he went to college for this. The guy grew up rich and never lived in these neighborhoods. James grew up there and personally funds a lot of schools and works with community leaders to improve the area. I would argue experience in the area far outweighs formal education.
On topic I feel like 20 years of playing card games allows me to assess a game well enough. I don’t have insight into future expansions but I can look at the current meta and see some problems that should be addressed before the next 3 or 4 months.
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.
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.
I've never taken a class in game design, but if I am not having fun playing their game, I am in a place to complain. I've never taken any flying lessons, but if I'm on a plane that crashes, you can guarantee I'll be complaining 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.
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.
So, SO often, whenever a card is revealed or a change is announced, or when a new deck rises out of nowhere and dominates the entire meta, there's always a ton of people spurting some nonsense like, "Blizzard doesn't know what the fuck they're doing; they're ruining the game; this card is trash and will never see play; this is strictly worse/better than a previously existing card; the game is terribly designed." Though it should be known that, on average, nobody knows how semicolons work, so this is an obvious paraphrasing.
I mean, the "will never see play" thing is a can of worms in it of itself, and all I'm going to say in that regard is that all of these statements are just objectively false.
Quick PSA here: NEVER CALL ANYTHING "BAD GAME DESIGN" UNLESS YOU HAVE TAKEN A COURSE IN GAME DESIGN OR ARE CURRENTLY TAKING ONE.
This isn't an "appeal to the authority" counter-argument, it's an "appeal to the experts," and there is an actual difference. Appealing to the authority would be like agreeing with your senator/president/elected official simply because of the office they hold. Appealing to the experts is honestly the only way we can possibly get any meaningful conversation out of non-subjective topics.
Honestly, the constant stream of negativity from some people is honestly just preposterous. If you're doing nothing but focus on the bad, then you're actively ruining your own enjoyment of an otherwise enjoyable game.
Just because other people are complaining too doesn't mean you're the one in the right. There are millions of players online at any given time, and the vast majority of them spend plenty of time simply enjoying the game and having fun with decks that they enjoy to play.
And leave games like Gwent and Shadowverse out of the conversation. They are entirely different property and don't need to be mentioned on a website dedicated to a game that isn't even related. And even if you do feel "compelled" to bring them up, remember that all CCG's have their own faults; don't act like one game is 100% better than any other.
If you feel like ignoring everything I just spent the time to write in order to tell me to go fuck myself, or if you want to act civil by refuting or adding on, feel free to leave your thoughts.
While I agree that team 5 gets a lot of undeserved flak, the idea that you need to have extensive experience in the field you intend to criticize is fucking stupid.
The ole “let’s complain about the complainers” post. Like death and taxes.
I don't know if I should link this to the salt thread or not.
So because they're "experts" and we're not, we can't criticize them? I think that the fact that they're experts means they're even more accountable for their mistakes in card design. And even though they do this professionally does not mean they don't make mistakes. I think they certainly have with this expansion, as well as previous expansions.
Thinking you need to be specifically educated in something to have a valid opinion is a huge fallacy in itself.
Example: Recently I saw an article about an urban planner criticizing LeBron James’ comments on the government’s treatment on poor urban areas because he was a basketball player and saying he knew more because he went to college for this. The guy grew up rich and never lived in these neighborhoods. James grew up there and personally funds a lot of schools and works with community leaders to improve the area. I would argue experience in the area far outweighs formal education.
On topic I feel like 20 years of playing card games allows me to assess a game well enough. I don’t have insight into future expansions but I can look at the current meta and see some problems that should be addressed before the next 3 or 4 months.
The problems with the 'game' have nothing to do with game design, but rather, product identity. It is naive to think that the development team sits down and says, "Let's make the best game we possibly can." A host of other voices and interests all have a (typically outsized) role in the final content. Don't be so sure the apparent 'mistakes' are actually mistakes - the development team has vast experience both as players and developers.
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
Game design isn't a science and everyone has the ability to tell what they like and don't like.
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
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.
I've never taken a class in game design, but if I am not having fun playing their game, I am in a place to complain. I've never taken any flying lessons, but if I'm on a plane that crashes, you can guarantee I'll be complaining about it.
Well, looks like we have a Activision shareholder among us.