Guild Wars 2

I’ve gotten into some stupid arguments lately, and I don’t think I’ve explained very well why exactly I believe certain negative criticisms to be detrimental, not constructive. So, this will be an opportunity to give it a shot.

“This patch is pretty fun.”

“This patch blows chunks further than humanly possible.”

This is pretty much what I’ve been hearing. Well, that’s all well and good. Criticism is criticism is criticism. The latter is criticism, the former is criticism. However, neither benefit the game as an overall whole. This type of criticism just provokes people into a rage or a mocking attitude.

So, let’s try again.

“I really enjoy the mechanics of the new Wurm world boss. Everything feels unique and inspired and really fun. In particular, the three-way boss fight is an interesting take on how boss fights have been in the past. I feel that the mechanic of having the wurm swallow you in order to weaken it especially stands apart from the rest. I think the developers are really on the right track with this one! But why is everyone so whiny? If you think this is bad, then you obviously don’t have any idea what good design is. GW2 ftw!”

“The new Wurm world boss is atrocious. This is just more zerg warfare (something players have specifically told the developers we do not want) and the mechanics are just gimmicky. How drab and ordinary is carrying kegs of gunpowder from one spot to another? And what’s with all the champions? We can hardly see what we’re doing. The developers should really reevaluate their design choices. But they won’t. They’ll ruin the game at this rate. So much fail.”

…

Well, it’s gotten a little better. Now we can see the specific pros or cons of the Wurm world boss from two very different perspectives. However, there is still one huge problem with both of these critiques, one problem that should have been left out of the post entirely. Why is everyone so extremist? Why do they know everything? How can they make these sweeping generalizations so halfheartedly? This is the problem of extreme pessimism and extreme optimism.

Pessimism and optimism can be powerful tools in writing. They evoke strong emotions. They rally people together. They create an emotional mob with a single, driving force towards revolution. By using pessimism and optimism, a writer can make something easier and more fun to read. Not many people have fun reading through a dry report of the pros and cons of a subject. But emotion can eliminate this dryness and engage the reader where stale reasoning and thousands of facts cannot.

For example, if the reader’s opinions contradict the writer’s pessimism, then the reader is more engaged (either they are spurred into rebuttal or praise). If the writer tells someone how much they love the new combat system of Spaceman 64 and about how revolutionary it is, a person’s curiosity is piqued. Hype and negative reviews for movies, books, and video games are extremely important in relating an opinion effectively to the rest of the world. A dry, “This is good because [reasons],” is nowhere near as effective as an emphatic, “Wow!” Likewise, criticism that sounds like, “Bleh,” carries nowhere near the same weight as, “This movie is the spawn of a twisted mind.” However, excessive optimism or excessive pessimism can damage good arguments by violating this one simple rule: “too much of a good thing”.

“The author of Johnny Got His Hatchet is writing himself into the ground. He’ll be out starving on the street if his next book is as bad as this one.”

This criticism uses pessimism in a way similar to the other example. And like that example, the writer uses a prediction to enforce how strong his beliefs are. However, this prediction benefits no one. Even supposing that the critic had fantastic reasons for making the prediction, the critic has benefited neither the reader nor the author of this work. All he did was presume of his own excellence.

How would most people react to this case? Someone in absolute agreement would likely shout a vehement “YEAH” or “GOOD RIDDANCE.” But what does this do but breed bad blood with the community? Even someone who disagrees completely would most likely say, “SCREW YOU, CRITIC!” or “HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE?”

This only serves to ignite a war of emotions between both parties, and very little is accomplished.

There are times when someone reasonable comes along and tries to settle things. “I think this guy might have a point, but I don’t agree with everything he says,” or “I don’t think this guy’s right, but I can understand some of his criticisms,” even, “Yeah, this guy’s right, but we never know what could happen in the future,” are attempts to get the feedback back on a constructive track. These people use reason. They assume that they don’t know everything. They assume the critic doesn’t know everything either.

The problem here is that these “middle-men” and “middle-women” flourish in the case of well-written pessimism and optimism but are drowned out in this second case. They can be seen as weak of will for choosing compromise over a fight to the death. They can be mocked for being “on the fence”. As a result, their view is completely toppled and trampled to the ground. Needless to say, the middle-people usually stay away from these arguments. Let the emotion junkies run wild.

However, the subsequent unmitigated disaster leaves both parties sour towards the rival cause (and sometimes even their own). This happens far too often on the internet. Unfortunately, excessive pessimism or optimism often pushes these people’s buttons a little harder than normal, resulting in an army of power-hungry sociopaths with bazookas.

If we could just settle down and take an easier outlook on the world, then we could have some really engaging, constructive discussions. If we could avoid making unsubstantiated predictions or putting ideas into people’s heads (“This game will be dead within a year the rate they’re going.” / “Anyone who doesn’t like this game should just get out. They don’t know what a good game is.”) and admit that we only have one opinion out of many, many others, then we could all end on better terms with one another. Truthfully, no amount of “proof” or “experience” can make a person objectively right.

I realize that it may be hard to do this. Many people here or there share our same views, so it seems perfectly okay to voice our opinions without having to think about a whole lot of annoying stuff. It may even feel nice listening to all the support people have for your similar opinions. However, if we hope to truly make improvements, we have to assume that every side of the argument is here with us, listening intently to what we have to say. Talking about how “everyone” hates one thing or loves another only alienates constructive dialogue with a variety of different people.

Unfortunately, this is the Internet. People will make fun of you for caring about the game enough to voice your opinion one way or the other. They’ll make fun of you if you say nothing because “you’re just another mindless sheep.” They’ll make fun of you for following the crowd, or for opposing popular opinion. Basically, whether you say something, or nothing at all, it seems to me that it won’t do any good. People will, as you said, act as though their opinion is the only one that matters, making genuine discussion impossible. As much as I admire your efforts in promoting civil conversation, it’s just not going to happen. On the Internet, the combination of virtual anonymity, open forums, and the psychology of writing (as opposed to speech) makes good discussions nearly impossible.

Did I just walk into an English/Literature class…?

Internet its for “innocent” minded people that needs approval/appreciation/care/vent to fill the void of what they feel they don’t have irl. Unlike 1-1 face to face discussions they don’t need to hide it from direct judgement nearly as well by using internet as a mask. Since it is so convenient to throw responsibility from speech out the door, you’ll read some obscene things. The translation from emotion to the keyboard is without feedback from basic communication, you can’t read facial expressions or feel much empathy unless the writing is concise enough to depict these emotions; which in forums it does not. Back when people write letters, they write to people they know which influences how they write. Even if writing to someone you don’t know, it is personalized with your address and mail. When the day the internet will be tamed is the day of “understanding” and progression.

However writings that concisely depict emotions does exist. ( though rarely ) and I don’t mean posts like https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/pvp/gf-left-me-coz-of-ladderboard/first … Although that is a start lol .

Reverence.6915:

Did I just walk into an English/Literature class…?

Rhetoric is taught under English, but it’s something everyone should know about. What many people don’t realize is that “argumentation” and “discussion” originally didn’t mean a win/lose, competitive situation where tempers flare and egos battle it out. The purpose of discussion is to determine the truth of a situation: one side or the other might be right, but both might be right or wrong, too. The problem is that people today, especially on the Internet, want to be right and rub it in everyone else’s faces that they’re wrong. It’s not about truth anymore, it’s about taking your opinion and forcing others to accept it while denying what others have to say. What I’m saying is that due to a failure to understand rhetoric and a failure to compromise with others in order to pursue truth, it’s very difficult to find good discussions these days, including on these forums.

Maybe that sounded like a lecture, but it’s a very serious topic and one that I hope (probably in vain) people will try to understand for the betterment of the community.

People are gonna say, “TLDR” and say your post kittened.

And just so you know, even your constructive detail-laden criticisms will still get mocked. I’ve seen many such feedback posts torn down in typical internet fashion.