Originally Posted by
Biomega
No can do. When I try that you don't properly parse the language. We've had it happen several times.
I have no idea who that is, I don't have a TV and spend as little time on YouTube as possible. These are not esoteric concepts. They're the absolute BASICS of epistemology. Anyone who's taken a philosophy class in college or ever read a book about epistemology should know all this.
You've demonstrated on several occasions you do NOT understand very basic concepts. I'm making sure to explain them.
You can't really have it both ways - you're going "you used this one word, now I'm confused about everything!" on the one hand, but also go "you explain too much, I'm not confused about anything!" on the other.
Could it be you're just, you know, trying to be obnoxious on purpose?
So now we went from "I have a background in history" (when that seemed relevant) to "I have a background in game design" (when that seems relevant). Cool. Can't wait for when you reveal you've been a surgeon, too.
Anything other than "this is what I think based on me claiming I have expertise" to back this up? And what does "how the game's systems are organized" mean, exactly? What systems? Organized how?
Can you be specific about anything? At all? No one is asking for a direct quote where Ion goes "dammit I just love mythic raiding and the rest can go to hell", but you're providing nothing but "I think this because that's what I'm convinced of". ANY evidence AT ALL, please? Pretty please?
Just to remind you: if all you want to do is go "that's what I think and I don't need to explain myself", that's cool. Just say so. Then we can all move on.
So explain that process. You're saying nothing here. "I looked at it, and now that's what I think". WHAT did you look at SPECIFICALLY, and WHY does it lead to this conclusion?
"Mr. Einstein, sir, how did you conclude energy and mass are the same thing?"
"Well, I looked at the systems of physics, saw that gravity is kinda weird, and then came to that conclusion"
"Yes, but... how?"
"I have a background in physics, and that is my expert opinion"
"Could we get any details, perhaps?"
"What, you want me to find you a quote where an electron goes 'I have mass, you know!', come ON get real"
SO GIVE THE CONTEXT.
You're going "I went to the woods, and S.H. is a real bastard". And when we ask you who S.H. is and why he's a bastard, you go "Don't know what to tell you, I went, I saw, what do you want me to PROVE it now?".
You're being vague and unspecific in EVERYTHING.
Neither do I, but I want JUSTIFICATION for my beliefs.
Just going "I looked at it and now that's how I feel about it" is not justification.
Let's just assume this is unequivocally true (which it probably isn't, but that's not relevant), how do you show that the ONLY way homogenization happens is because of difficulty-based tuning? How do you exclude homogenization happening for OTHER reasons, too?
If I turn on my sprinklers, my lawn gets wet. Always and necessarily. So if I see my lawn is wet, does that necessarily mean it's because I turned on my sprinklers?
THIS is why I have to explain things - you are playing it fast and loose with ELEMENTARY logic.
So if it's not negative (or even positive), how is it relevant in a discussion about whether or not to change mythic? And if you're just talking about the negatives to support a change in mythic, how do you distinguish when it is and when it isn't negative? Or do you think it's a problem even when it's a neutral or positive change?
Prove it. Why can't it be the other reasons I mentioned, but has to be because of catering to mythic?
Like what? Do you have an example of this? And how do you show it's GENERALLY condescending, as opposed to just sporadically? It's easy to demonize people, but this is just an accusation.
Let's just assume this to be true, for the sake of argument (the bias part, I know the high-end player part IS in fact true). You'd still have to show the actual EFFECT of those biases in PRACTICE. A person's attitude is one thing, but it's another to show that their attitude actually affects things in their job, say. I know plenty of people who are biased in some way, but take great care not to let those biases affect their work. It's not always perfect and I'm sure bias creeps in, but you can't just go from "biased person" to "biased work" in a 1:1 correspondence - which means you'd have to show TO WHAT DEGREE the work is suffering from those personal biases, not just identify that there are personal biases and then ASSUME they translate directly to the work, too.
That's why arguing against the person isn't very useful to begin with. It just looks like an unnecessary personal attack. Attack the WORK. The actual RESULTS. If all you do is "Ion is an ass, therefore WoW is shit" that's nothing but a very plain, very banal argumentum ad hominem.
I think I can agree on this.
Now show how much this negatively affects people who don't engage in those aspects, which is the actually interesting part.
If ALL you have is "I know game design, therefore this is what I think" and you do not want to explain any further, then this is purely a subjective preference not subject to debate. I can nod, go "that's cool", and move on. Just tell me if that's the case, and we can stop right there.
If however you think there's actual ARGUMENTS for your position, then it's not unreasonable OR absurd for me to demand more than "I looked at it, I'm a game designer, and that's what I think, the end". Just like ANY expert in ANY field would be happy to provide details when asked, I expect the same from you. And if you refuse, that's fine - as long as we're clear that this means you're just putting your personal take out there without substantiation or evidence, simply to have it heard by other people.