Guild Wars 2

It’s a bit sad to see this thread almost draw lines between different players and what type of personality and mentality they each carry.

Some of you may want to reconsider that an abundance of Passion does not equate to how correct you are, nor does it make your side of the argument more compelling.

Yes context can be very important but it’s not the end all be all.

If someone is tired of game A or has outgrown game A and moves to Game B. They Might find that they really enjoy game B.

But after some time, Game B is missing something too, and it may seem to be a bit of Game A that the player is so used to and began with.

So the player wishes and thinks about how Game B would be if it had some of that stuff from Game A.

The Dev’s may or may not add those things, if they do, then the Player gets to experience that but inevitably the Player will always move on.. But in the future the Player has a more clear idea of what they want out of a game. (this goes for ALL of you)

If the Dev’s add none of the things, but add a new thing that the Player finds to be a suitable replacement to a Lack of game A type traditions, the player gets to experience this but still inevitably moves on later down the road.

If the Dev’s add Nothing from Game A nor Nothing compelling to intuitively fill those perceived “Gaps” then the Player will either continue to attempt to point out Ideas from Game A or quietly submit and search actively for a Game C, or Quit the game all together.

Gw2 is at the 2 year mark, and if often feels that More and More players have fallen into the last Scenario and then into the final two options. Players who fall into the First Two scenario’s shouldn’t see themselves as having the Right to protest further changes nor seek to silence and derail those remaining players in ANY of the 3 columns.

Maybe Gw2 would massively improve and become the greatest game of all time if Anet reintroduced the Holy Trinity, you can’t be sure until you Play that game and nay saying before hand is similar to saying that Ice Cream is Disgusting and Horrible before you even see it outside of its cardboard container.

Let people talk, there’s never been a good reason to silence them or attempt to silence them.

You don’t have to listen to them.

You can even go try to educate them if you want.

but in any context, what amounts to almost always saying, at its core, This is a Game you Shouldn’t Play (Because I like it how it is right now and Your ideas some how threaten my enjoyment of this current moment but I some how forgot or ignore the fact that Anet reserves the right to overhaul any and all systems contained in this game at any time on any day for any reason they see fit and my opinion will matter as much about it when it changes Then as it does right NOW)

Done posting here~ GL HF

“Maybe this game is not for you” is the most shortsighted thing you could ever tell someone. The game, needs players. Not because it lacks players, but as a MMO, you want as many players playing as absolutely possible. If ArenaNet can get feedback and ideas of how to improve the game, balancing it so that it doesn’t necessarily interfere with your views of how the game should be, the game will be better for it. E.g., if people want Open World PvP, that is somewhat in the game already with WvW. If they want it in PvE zones, that could be done with some sort of filtering overflows. PvP enabled/disabled in the options. Those who doesn’t want it would be exempt from it. You’re segregating your playerbase, yes, but that is already happening with language-filters.

Don’t dismiss someone and basically tell them to get out, just because they have ideas of fun that doesn’t align with yours. If ArenaNet can develop systems around it that is fun and works for both those who likes x and those who doesn’t, the game isn’t going to be worse off, it’ll be better, it’ll appeal to more players. This is what we all want in the end. A healthy MMO with millions of players, supporting the game, helping pay for further development of great features. You can discuss and disagree with suggestions, but I honestly don’t think you should ever tell someone to go find something else. That’s not to anyone’s benefit. Not yours, nor ArenaNet.

Kurrilino.2706:

Obtena.7952:

Rightly so because “being a feature in GW1” doesn’t give any validity to the idea those same concepts should be in GW2.

There tend to be two kinds of changes that get implemented: Changes that match what the devs want to see to realize the game they envision and Changes that they feel are overall beneficial to the game. People should think about that when make their suggestions. Ideas like “it’s in GW1” isn’t necessarily beneficial to a game that isn’t GW1 or that the devs don’t want to make into GW1. In fact, it’s one of the more stupid justifications I read here.

---

I guess you never watched the teaser before GW2 was released……………
They had the developer in there talking about
!!!!!!!!!We took the best out of GW1 and put it into GW2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

snip

I watched that teaser. It was called a teaser for a reason. That single line was in exactly one teaser that was created 2 years before this game was released. If you bought this game on that single line, I’d say the problem is yours. Why?

Because for the entire 2 years after that, Anet went into painstaking detail about almost every aspect of this game. Did we know there would be less skills? Yes. Anet said so. Did we know they’d be tied to weapons? Yes, because Anet said so. Did we know the level cap would be higher. Yes, because Anet said so. Did you know there would be no heroes and henchmen, yes, because Anet said so.

Anet provided tons of detail about the game after that single line, and they had a beta, which you could have participated in to see even more.

I’m sorry but if you’re talking one line out of one video and saying that one line convinced you to buy the game, that’s your own lookout.

I watched the same video and I bought the game and I’m happy with it. Because I always watched the videos that came after.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

You certainly can build a wall with good intentions.

No, you cannot. You can build a wall with bricks and mortar. Structures are made up of actual physical material, not wishes and dreams.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

And you just dropped in “the ends versus the means” into the conversation, which is a tricky thing to handle. Mostly because often you can’t tell what the result of something is really going to be until after it’s done, especially when we’re talking about things with social components . . . like an MMO.

True. You don’t know the end result of changes until you try them. That doesn’t mean changes shouldn’t be attempted. If everyone took the view of “change is scary and might have unforeseen consequences” we’d still be nomadic hunter-gatherers.

Also worth considering is not all changes are positive (you just admitted it in your post, things with good intentions can still turn bad) and now you can understand it when I say: “change for change’s sake is not the answer we need to be embracing”.

I stated very clearly that not all changes are positive in my first post. The beautiful thing about feedback is that not all of it has to be implemented. Furthermore, if someone harmful is implemented, it can be reverted. The wonders of software. However, simply because not all changes are good doesn’t mean that people who suggest changes should be silenced.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

I mean we could, and if we have the absolute best of intentions, nothing could go wrong, right?

I’m not sure where you got that from or how it adds to the discussion. I never stated good intentions equal good results. My very first sentence in the post you quoted made it very clear I don’t care about intentions, I care about results. Specifically that the result of dismissing suggestions for change is far more harmful than that of dismissing defenders of the status quo.

IndigoSundown.5419:

I would say, “Stifling resistance to features that the poster believes is negative.” rather than, “…potentially positive changes.” Naturally, the person posting the suggestion will think otherwise. However, there’s no crime in liking the game as it is better than one would if change Y were implemented.

I’ve certainly seen game defenders posting negatively about many different things. Some of these posts seem more like knee-jerk reactions. Others are legitimate feedback. No post calling someone a white knight is legitimate feedback. They’re all personal attacks.

Your right. Calling someone a “white knight” is a personal attack. My point is that the effect of that particular attack is less harmful than attempting to stifle change. You’re also correct that someone may like the game better without change Y being implemented, but how do they really know? Take my friend who “hated” sushi. I convinced him to give it another shot and now he’s addicted. Had he been obstinate in his defense of the status quo (sushi hatred) he’d have deprived himself of something he now enjoys a lot.

NewTrain.7549:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

You certainly can build a wall with good intentions.

No, you cannot. You can build a wall with bricks and mortar. Structures are made up of actual physical material, not wishes and dreams.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

And you just dropped in “the ends versus the means” into the conversation, which is a tricky thing to handle. Mostly because often you can’t tell what the result of something is really going to be until after it’s done, especially when we’re talking about things with social components . . . like an MMO.

True. You don’t know the end result of changes until you try them. That doesn’t mean changes shouldn’t be attempted. If everyone took the view of “change is scary and might have unforeseen consequences” we’d still be nomadic hunter-gatherers.

Also worth considering is not all changes are positive (you just admitted it in your post, things with good intentions can still turn bad) and now you can understand it when I say: “change for change’s sake is not the answer we need to be embracing”.

I stated very clearly that not all changes are positive in my first post. The beautiful thing about feedback is that not all of it has to be implemented. Furthermore, if someone harmful is implemented, it can be reverted. The wonders of software. However, simply because not all changes are good doesn’t mean that people who suggest changes should be silenced.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

I mean we could, and if we have the absolute best of intentions, nothing could go wrong, right?

I’m not sure where you got that from or how it adds to the discussion. I never stated good intentions equal good results. My very first sentence in the post you quoted made it very clear I don’t care about intentions, I care about results. Specifically that the result of dismissing suggestions for change is far more harmful than that of dismissing defenders of the status quo.

IndigoSundown.5419:

I would say, “Stifling resistance to features that the poster believes is negative.” rather than, “…potentially positive changes.” Naturally, the person posting the suggestion will think otherwise. However, there’s no crime in liking the game as it is better than one would if change Y were implemented.

I’ve certainly seen game defenders posting negatively about many different things. Some of these posts seem more like knee-jerk reactions. Others are legitimate feedback. No post calling someone a white knight is legitimate feedback. They’re all personal attacks.

Your right. Calling someone a “white knight” is a personal attack. My point is that the effect of that particular attack is less harmful than attempting to stifle change. You’re also correct that someone may like the game better without change Y being implemented, but how do they really know? Take my friend who “hated” sushi. I convinced him to give it another shot and now he’s addicted. Had he been obstinate in his defense of the status quo (sushi hatred) he’d have deprived himself of something he now enjoys a lot.

I’m sorry can you repeat that. Championing a change is better than stifling a change? Doesn’t it depend on the specific change.

I’m against the new trait system, but I’m generally Pro the NPE. I stifle the changes I think are bad for the game while promoting the changes I think would be good for the game.

Trying to make it look like a “white knight” is about stifling changes is as damaging to the game as making changes that would hurt the game.

We have different opinions about what changes would be good for the game. No one is stifling change to stifle change, or at least I’m not.

“maybe it isnt the game for you” is ok if there’s only a few people, they are new to the game. but when there’s alot of people you are using it on then the problem is probably the game. when you say something like that you are basically saying everyone else is ok with it. but when you have alot of people you are saying that to then that is clearly not the case… i can say the same about you maybe its just you thats ok with the game while the vast majority of others have problems with it.

and why does this game have to be not for anyone? why can they not want the game to be made for them? the comment is quite stupid especially when the game used to be the one for them and by all rights should have been. people wanted this game to be the one for them, something wrong??

GW2 is not what you might consider loyal to itself… it is and it isn’t your game depending on when you log in. It was for me at release, it is not for me now (they moved way to far from the manifesto). It may be for someone who hated the original idea after a few more “feature patches” and who knows… I wouldn’t be surprised if they end up removing WP and putting mounts or any other weird change as long as they can sell another gem. They did become that kind of company.

Vayne.8563:

Kurrilino.2706:

Obtena.7952:

Rightly so because “being a feature in GW1” doesn’t give any validity to the idea those same concepts should be in GW2.

There tend to be two kinds of changes that get implemented: Changes that match what the devs want to see to realize the game they envision and Changes that they feel are overall beneficial to the game. People should think about that when make their suggestions. Ideas like “it’s in GW1” isn’t necessarily beneficial to a game that isn’t GW1 or that the devs don’t want to make into GW1. In fact, it’s one of the more stupid justifications I read here.

---

I guess you never watched the teaser before GW2 was released……………
They had the developer in there talking about
!!!!!!!!!We took the best out of GW1 and put it into GW2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

snip

I watched that teaser. It was called a teaser for a reason. That single line was in exactly one teaser that was created 2 years before this game was released. If you bought this game on that single line, I’d say the problem is yours. Why?

Because for the entire 2 years after that, Anet went into painstaking detail about almost every aspect of this game. Did we know there would be less skills? Yes. Anet said so. Did we know they’d be tied to weapons? Yes, because Anet said so. Did we know the level cap would be higher. Yes, because Anet said so. Did you know there would be no heroes and henchmen, yes, because Anet said so.

Anet provided tons of detail about the game after that single line, and they had a beta, which you could have participated in to see even more.

I’m sorry but if you’re talking one line out of one video and saying that one line convinced you to buy the game, that’s your own lookout.

I watched the same video and I bought the game and I’m happy with it. Because I always watched the videos that came after.

No worries i watched the videos.
If you want an example there was the Ranger gameplay trailer.
They used the feature of a salamander creating a line of fire to make me light my arrows, to point out how creative and fun all the new stuff is.
Have you ever played with a salamander pet ??
It has now a little cloud of fire breathing at the opponents.

This was actually one more reason for me to buy the game since i love Rangers.

There is so much in their trailers that has been removed forever that makes me feel
betrayed and no, this is not my fault.
They presented stuff to me that isn’t true and borderline lying

You guys do realize the game is overtaxed with minipets…right? Mounts area real problem and not in a personal annoyance way, but in serious gameplay ways.

Mounted players could be able to grief people, by standing around fights so that players behind them could not see AoE tells, walking over players and hiding their sight, just basically be in the way.

Permanent speed buffs while on mounts would be a poor choice for the devs, as this game is not designed to be run through quickly to get quests done and return to the quest giver to get your rewards. By speeding through an area a newly implanted NPC interaction, that triggers new dynamic events, would surely be missed.

Mesket.5728:

GW2 is not what you might consider loyal to itself… it is and it isn’t your game depending on when you log in. It was for me at release, it is not for me now (they moved way to far from the manifesto). It may be for someone who hated the original idea after a few more “feature patches” and who knows… I wouldn’t be surprised if they end up removing WP and putting mounts or any other weird change as long as they can sell another gem. They did become that kind of company.

This isn’t about ‘loyalty to the game’..this is about monetization. If you believe the developers are doing this to spite themselves you do not understand the relationship between NCSoft and Arenanet. NCSoft says this has to be in here, Arenanet has to put it in.

The result we see is how Arenenet is implementing these demands. My belief is they are always trying to keep these implementations as painless as possible for community. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail. Either way this is what we signed on for. We have to wait and see where things go and continuously decide how much we are to become invested into the system.

Roybe.5896:

You guys do realize the game is overtaxed with minipets…right? Mounts area real problem and not in a personal annoyance way, but in serious gameplay ways.

Mounted players could be able to grief people, by standing around fights so that players behind them could not see AoE tells, walking over players and hiding their sight, just basically be in the way.

Permanent speed buffs while on mounts would be a poor choice for the devs, as this game is not designed to be run through quickly to get quests done and return to the quest giver to get your rewards. By speeding through an area a newly implanted NPC interaction, that triggers new dynamic events, would surely be missed.

They could implement level-able mounts with a temporary speed boost like the swiftness system, with minor mount attacks that do substantial enough damage that one can use it for trash mobs in the open world. As far as speeding through the content, that’s happening now, so adding mounts won’t actually change that either. They could however make some necessary implementations to prevent people from dismounting to fight so quickly which means no attacks they do normally will dismount them they’d have to do that first and then start attacking.

It really wouldn’t be that difficult or that terrible a thing when done properly. And as far as griefing is concerned, non-mounted characters grief people all the time, griefing hasn’t been dealt with in the open world anyways, so even if they added mounts it wouldn’t enhance or increase the griefing because the griefing will still be there either way.

NewTrain.7549:

Your right. Calling someone a “white knight” is a personal attack. My point is that the effect of that particular attack is less harmful than attempting to stifle change. You’re also correct that someone may like the game better without change Y being implemented, but how do they really know? Take my friend who “hated” sushi. I convinced him to give it another shot and now he’s addicted. Had he been obstinate in his defense of the status quo (sushi hatred) he’d have deprived himself of something he now enjoys a lot.

Some suggestions are matters of degree, but some are binary equations. In the case of a binary equation, either you like Suggestion X or you don’t. If you don’t, then the implementation of Suggestion X would make the game worse. Resorting to ad hominem personal attacks to stifle opposition to an idea is worse than opposing an idea by presenting reasons for said opposition.

As an example, some games feature non-consensual PvP in their open world. In such a game, the choice is, “If you don’t want non-consensual PvP, play a different game.” Suggesting that that game remove non-consensual PvP would be ruining it for the people who play the game because of that feature. They would be quite right to oppose such a change.

Posting opposition with reasons to an idea is no different than posting the idea with reasons. The forum exists to allow for such discourse. Unsupported (i.e., lacking rationale or reasoning) posts in favor of the status quo are no better than, but no worse than, unsupported posts saying, “Put X into GW2.”

As for, “How do they know?” Many MMO players have been around the block a few times. They’ve seen Suggestion Y in another game and didn’t like it.

I’ve tried sushi. I didn’t hate it, but didn’t fall in love with it either. I’d eat it in a zombie apocalypse if it was what was available, but feel no desire to seek it out. If friends wanted to go for sushi, I’d suggest a restaurant where they could get sushi and I could order Teriyaki.

“Maybe the game is not for you” is never a valid argument. EVER. It is a silence card used to squelch any sort of discussion, without even entertaining or thinking creatively a way to meet in the middle for the overall enjoyment of everyone. But that is what this form has been deluded to. Polarized arguments with a them vs us attitude that only leaves a toxic atmosphere.

Why has no one approached the discussions that drastically change the way GW2 currently is as a way to creatively include it in the game that doesn’t have to venture too far off the core? Instead of just shutting down your brains how about you starting thinking “how can we make it part of this game without losing what makes GW2 unique?” The solutions that come up may end up being something that fits into the core of GW2.

“You are not wanted in this community and need to leave unless you conscript to our way of thinking.”

Never thought I’d see a cult of GW2 but there you have it. GG

If a player posts on the boards about how much this game isn’t WoW and would be so much better if it had more WoW in it then this isn’t the game for them.

RoChan.1926:

“Maybe the game is not for you” is never a valid argument. EVER.

Behellagh.1468:

If a player posts on the boards about how much this game isn’t WoW and would be so much better if it had more WoW in it then this isn’t the game for them.

I dunno Ro, that sounds like a pretty valid use of “maybe this isn’t the game for you” to me.

NewTrain.7549:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

You certainly can build a wall with good intentions.

No, you cannot. You can build a wall with bricks and mortar. Structures are made up of actual physical material, not wishes and dreams.

Way to go literal on me to make me wrong. Stop that, it’s not funny.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

And you just dropped in “the ends versus the means” into the conversation, which is a tricky thing to handle. Mostly because often you can’t tell what the result of something is really going to be until after it’s done, especially when we’re talking about things with social components . . . like an MMO.

True. You don’t know the end result of changes until you try them. That doesn’t mean changes shouldn’t be attempted. If everyone took the view of “change is scary and might have unforeseen consequences” we’d still be nomadic hunter-gatherers.

Also fun for you to go for “reductio ad absurdum” for bonus points.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Also worth considering is not all changes are positive (you just admitted it in your post, things with good intentions can still turn bad) and now you can understand it when I say: “change for change’s sake is not the answer we need to be embracing”.

I stated very clearly that not all changes are positive in my first post. The beautiful thing about feedback is that not all of it has to be implemented. Furthermore, if someone harmful is implemented, it can be reverted. The wonders of software. However, simply because not all changes are good doesn’t mean that people who suggest changes should be silenced.

Now, you should stop right now and go back because I never suggested that at all.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

I mean we could, and if we have the absolute best of intentions, nothing could go wrong, right?

I’m not sure where you got that from or how it adds to the discussion. I never stated good intentions equal good results. My very first sentence in the post you quoted made it very clear I don’t care about intentions, I care about results. Specifically that the result of dismissing suggestions for change is far more harmful than that of dismissing defenders of the status quo.

It’s called sarcasm, and I got tired of bottling it up through the entire post and had to let it out.

Kurrilino.2706:

I guess you never watched the teaser before GW2 was released……………

This was for me like for many GW1 vets THE reason to buy the game.

I think that’s just a misinterpretation on your part then. If that single line was your motivation to buy this game, you simply weren’t a very informed consumer. This teaser video wasn’t the only source of information about GW2 before it was released either.

Cassandra Nea.2507:

Please, can people please stop using this phrase? I get it, you are annoyed that people are criticizing aspects of the game that you really like or even love. And they can be really rude when they do it. But they have their reasons for being critical, just as you have your reasons for being defensive.

I know you will go there: Yes, some people still complain eons after they have stopped playing. You wonder why they still bother. I stopped playing myself for a while because I got bored, but I never lost interest in GW2. And now I am back, because I found new reasons to play and enjoy the game.

There is only one good answer to the question/statement: “Maybe GW2 is not the game for you.”

Yes it is, because I am still here.

x9000

I hate when people complain about me criticizing things that should be. It’s not because I hate those parts of the game. It’s because this game has potential and I want to see it.

mtpelion.4562:

When your criticisms are related to bugs, oversights, or poor implementation, you should definitely voice them.

When your criticisms are related to the direction the game is going, “maybe this game isn’t for you” is a valid response. The developers (well, probably the publisher at this point) set the game’s direction and they aren’t going to do something that is deemed unprofitable or too risky. If you are unable to deal with the game’s direction, then there are literally thousands of other options out there that have other directions which you may find more to your liking.

I know it is always unpleasant to face a decision to abandon a game that you previously enjoyed, but every player will eventually face that decision because games are made for the purpose of generating revenue.

And why?

Before the game came out it was marketed as a revolutionary MMO that would not have much farming it and get constant content. And how ironic would that be right now?

The first time you turn the game on and look at the map your like oh my god! There is so much room for expansion.

Two years later…

No second dragon fight in a game about dragons, no Cantha, no Elona, not many new dungeons and they still have the same problems they did upon release, a huge portion of the continent we are on has closed map zones. It’s one thing to completely add a new zone to a world like WoW does. And it’s another thing to have zones in the game you just have not opened after two years while constantly releasing cosmetic gear centered updates.

It’s almost as if your wrong if you do not plan on playing this game for the next 8 years to get the content you were promised. I didn’t buy the game to get trench coats and or pay more money dress half naked like Kasmeer. I bought the game to fight dragons I can actually fight more dragons in 30 minutes of Skyrim than I have in two years of this game.

Some people’s only fun is in fact criticizing and bringing others down. That is their way of life. Will that bring them happiness?

Cassandra Nea.2507:

Please, can people please stop using this phrase? I get it, you are annoyed that people are criticizing aspects of the game that you really like or even love. And they can be really rude when they do it. But they have their reasons for being critical, just as you have your reasons for being defensive.

I know you will go there: Yes, some people still complain eons after they have stopped playing. You wonder why they still bother. I stopped playing myself for a while because I got bored, but I never lost interest in GW2. And now I am back, because I found new reasons to play and enjoy the game.

There is only one good answer to the question/statement: “Maybe GW2 is not the game for you.”

Yes it is, because I am still here.

Cassandra,

I completely agree with your sentiment. In fact, what’s amazing about that response is it’s a way for the person to ignore any criticism you have of the game, regardless of how legitimate it might be.

The same statement could be said right back to them – Perhaps GW2 isn’t the right game for YOU. I like most of the game, but parts X, Y, and Z need work. Otherwise, it’s a great game.

For instance, I’ve noticed a gaggle of people who hang out on these forums to gang up on people who are critical of the game. I don’t know if they think it’ll earn them special brownie points (and who knows, maybe it does?), or if they’re just the kind of people who will always defend the status quo at the expense of improvement.

This group of commentators will dog pile on a post, staying just inside the bounds of what’s acceptable in an attempt to goad another commentator into crossing the line, at which point a moderator will step in to delete the offending post and prevent any alternate views from being expressed.

It’s a vile tactic that’s as old as time.

Rage.9723:

Some people’s only fun is in fact criticizing and bringing others down. That is their way of life. Will that bring them happiness?

That’s true. It’s also true that people will have legitimate criticisms. If your mind is closed to those ideas before even hearing them, what’s that say about you?

Devata.6589:

Harper.4173:

Devata.6589:

Azure The Heartless.3261:

I think that its trollish and demeaning for a player to join an up-and-running game, play it, and then berate it for why it isnt like [insert x game here], like the developers have made this game as a commission for said player and have done a poor job capturing the player’s dream.

:“This isn’t the game for you” is a wake-up call that lets players know that while suggestions for enhancement are fine, berating a game for not bending to their whims is silly.

there are people that use that reasoning to berate and shut down suggestions though. Even if they’re frequently made suggestions, if they are done politely you shouldn’t be suggesting the person pretty much leave, though.

Sadly many people who like to defend any element of the game seem to mainly have some hatred to those other games.. or well.. WoW and seem to see every change as a move in the direction of WoW (see the many mount discussion, many nonsense reasons are made up why not to add them but in the end it turns out they simply don’t like it because WoW) so any change that would mean something would be added that is similar as in WoW is being attacked by “Maybe GW2 is not your game.”

Asking for something that might also be in another MMO does not mean asking to change the game into that game.

GW2 was designed and advertised before launch particularly at segments of the MMO player base that disliked wow. Disliked the trinity, grind, and other associated elements.

There are enough valid reasons why mounts are a bad idea ( lag, we already have a means of fast travel, don’t fit in thematically etc).

Advertised as no trinity, yes, advertised as no grind yes (sadly that worked out different) advertised with events yes.

But the fact that there where no mounts was never so much advertised with or was never a selling point.

And this is again a good example of what I was talking about. People who don’t want mounts because WoW (what you reveal in your first part) then use the “it does not fit in GW core” as excuse (and so basically trying to change what GW is about. Considering it very much does fit) and then coming with some additional excuses because they known “because WoW” is not going to cut it.

Lag..? mounts would not create more lag and the additional models should also not be a problem as it’s been done in many mmo’s.

The current form of fast travel does not fit in the world where ‘portals’ are the big thing. And at best way-points mean mounts are not needed but that does not mean there is no reason for putting them in.

And thematically..? Really? There are already mounts in it. NPC’s that have traveled with horse carriages to places, vehicles parked in Black Citadel and you can even see the dredge using vehicles. Not having mounts while they are very visible in the world… that does not fit thematically.

You might not like mounts because WoW and thats fine. But don’t try to redefine what GW is by saying mounts don’t not fit in there while they do or even worse (subject of the title) then blame other people of doing exactly that.

The whole anti mount arguments have always been a little silly. The travel in WoW was perfect in my opinion even though it did cause you to lose a lot of time. It felt more immersive.

I mean what sounds more stupid. My character uses long bows and swords and lives in a castle city. But when I want to travel to the country side I use an advanced teleportation technology.

My character uses long bows and swords and lives in a castle city. But when I want to travel to the country side I ride my horse to get there quickly. And when I travel from zone to zone I use magic portals to travel between cities and then ride my horse to travel between zones.

The mounts in WoW had their annoyance but they were really pretty fun. Nothing used to send chills running down your spine more when you beat the heck out of some guy and then saw his friends coming and you were like oh god mount mount! Hoping that animation would happen and get away to a friendly zone before they could hit you.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Way to go literal on me to make me wrong. Stop that, it’s not funny.

It was literal the first time I stated it. I’m sorry you misinterpreted. I felt I was being pretty clear.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Also fun for you to go for “reductio ad absurdum” for bonus points.

Absolutely. If we’re making this into a binary (as the quote I originally responded to did) we have to take each argument to their conclusion. Responses to me have taken their scenarios in absurd directions, so why am I not allowed to do the same?

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Now, you should stop right now and go back because I never suggested that at all.

I never said you did. I was restating my original argument because I got the sense (rightfully it appears) that you didn’t understand it.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

It’s called sarcasm, and I got tired of bottling it up through the entire post and had to let it out.

You criticize me for “reductio ad absurdum” and in the same post throw out a sarcastic non-sequitur. I hope you appreciate the irony in that.

I appear to me that perhaps before you post next, take a breath and calm down.

Vayne.8563:

I’m sorry can you repeat that. Championing a change is better than stifling a change? Doesn’t it depend on the specific change.

I’m against the new trait system, but I’m generally Pro the NPE. I stifle the changes I think are bad for the game while promoting the changes I think would be good for the game.

Trying to make it look like a “white knight” is about stifling changes is as damaging to the game as making changes that would hurt the game.

We have different opinions about what changes would be good for the game. No one is stifling change to stifle change, or at least I’m not.

Your original question on the topic sought to make it into a black-and-white issue. I responded to it exactly as you painted it. You now want to make it shades of gray because you didn’t get the response you sought? Interesting.

Some suggestions are matters of degree, but some are binary equations. In the case of a binary equation, either you like Suggestion X or you don’t. If you don’t, then the implementation of Suggestion X would make the game worse. Resorting to ad hominem personal attacks to stifle opposition to an idea is worse than opposing an idea by presenting reasons for said opposition.

As an example, some games feature non-consensual PvP in their open world. In such a game, the choice is, “If you don’t want non-consensual PvP, play a different game.” Suggesting that that game remove non-consensual PvP would be ruining it for the people who play the game because of that feature. They would be quite right to oppose such a change.

Posting opposition with reasons to an idea is no different than posting the idea with reasons. The forum exists to allow for such discourse. Unsupported (i.e., lacking rationale or reasoning) posts in favor of the status quo are no better than, but no worse than, unsupported posts saying, “Put X into GW2.”

As for, “How do they know?” Many MMO players have been around the block a few times. They’ve seen Suggestion Y in another game and didn’t like it.

I’ve tried sushi. I didn’t hate it, but didn’t fall in love with it either. I’d eat it in a zombie apocalypse if it was what was available, but feel no desire to seek it out. If friends wanted to go for sushi, I’d suggest a restaurant where they could get sushi and I could order Teriyaki.

You and I agree that posting a suggestion with supporting reasons is vastly more constructive than posting “I want X just because”. We also agree that changes are a matter of degree. However, let’s look at the example you give of non-consesual PvP. If a person were to suggest the removal of the feature and valid reasons why it’s hurting the game, would you still think an appropriate response is “this is not the game for you?” Wouldn’t it be FAR better to offer contrary reasons if you disagreed? Perhaps show the person why the change they support is not healthy for the game? And…what if they’re actually correct? What if non-consnsual PvP was actually hurting the game? A potential improvement on the game would have been dismissed with “this is not the game for you”. In my mind that outcome is far more damaging than someone saying “you only support non-consensual PvP because you’re a white knight.” In the first scenario, we lost a potentially positive change. In the second, nothing lost nothing gained.

NewTrain.7549:

You and I agree that posting a suggestion with supporting reasons is vastly more constructive than posting “I want X just because”. We also agree that changes are a matter of degree.

However, let’s look at the example you give of non-consesual PvP. If a person were to suggest the removal of the feature and valid reasons why it’s hurting the game, would you still think an appropriate response is “this is not the game for you?” Wouldn’t it be FAR better to offer contrary reasons if you disagreed? Perhaps show the person why the change they support is not healthy for the game? And…what if they’re actually correct? What if non-consnsual PvP was actually hurting the game? A potential improvement on the game would have been dismissed with “this is not the game for you”. In my mind that outcome is far more damaging than someone saying “you only support non-consensual PvP because you’re a white knight.” In the first scenario, we lost a potentially positive change. In the second, nothing lost nothing gained.

To begin, I no longer say, “This is not the game for you.” if I ever did. That said:

• Posters are almost never going to have access to the data that would prove whether a change or the status quo would be better for the game. At best, they have their own preference and anecdotal evidence from friends/other posters. Just look at GW2 recent history. Either ANet is trying to ruin the game, or they have a very different idea of what is good for the game than many posters. I know which I believe.
• Only developers can accept or dismiss suggestions. A post stating, “I hate this idea.” whether couched as, “Door is that way.” or not, has exactly as much weight as a post saying, “I like this idea.” It weighs as the opinion of a single poster.
• Posters who complain in game forums are almost never going to take the suggestion to leave the game if their suggestion is not adopted. They’re posting because they want to play the game and want X. If they were going to leave because the game didn’t have X, they’d likely just leave. Telling them to leave has about the same impact as a white knight accusation, but is not an ad hominem attack.

The bottom line? While those posting, “Not the game for you.” may be trying to dismiss someone’s idea, they really aren’t going to succeed. The real problem with such posts is that some of them are a waste of hard drive space, a waste of time to read (not all, but we’ve covered that earlier with regard to analysis/rationale being presented) and the big issue — they tend to spawn tangents.

Cassandra Nea.2507:

Please, can people please stop using this phrase? I get it, you are annoyed that people are criticizing aspects of the game that you really like or even love. And they can be really rude when they do it. But they have their reasons for being critical, just as you have your reasons for being defensive.

I know you will go there: Yes, some people still complain eons after they have stopped playing. You wonder why they still bother. I stopped playing myself for a while because I got bored, but I never lost interest in GW2. And now I am back, because I found new reasons to play and enjoy the game.

There is only one good answer to the question/statement: “Maybe GW2 is not the game for you.”

Yes it is, because I am still here.

I agree. I always hate when people on these forums say this. Well, they got their wish. The veterans left, GW2 is always on sale, and now there’s been a couple free trials offered. The population has been declining, hence the megaservers. I hope these white knights will still be around when the population hits GW1 status. lol.

ShadowDragoonFTW.3418:

RoChan.1926:

“Maybe the game is not for you” is never a valid argument. EVER.

Behellagh.1468:

If a player posts on the boards about how much this game isn’t WoW and would be so much better if it had more WoW in it then this isn’t the game for them.

I dunno Ro, that sounds like a pretty valid use of “maybe this isn’t the game for you” to me.

No, and my point still stands. If someone comes into the forums and says that it’s not clear enough as to what they actually want. Only by indulging in discussion can you even begin to narrow down what it is they are looking for. From that point the discussion can be about how can we fulfill that need in a way that fits GW2’s core principles. Who knows what might actually become of such a conversation. The ideas that could spring forth that would benefit everyone. It’s too narrow minded to think that nothing good can come from discussing possibilities. But that’s what happens when you say “maybe this isn’t the game for you.” You shut down the possibilities for a fun and interesting stuff that furthers GW2 concepts and uniqueness.

nexxe.7081:

Cassandra Nea.2507:

Please, can people please stop using this phrase? I get it, you are annoyed that people are criticizing aspects of the game that you really like or even love. And they can be really rude when they do it. But they have their reasons for being critical, just as you have your reasons for being defensive.

I know you will go there: Yes, some people still complain eons after they have stopped playing. You wonder why they still bother. I stopped playing myself for a while because I got bored, but I never lost interest in GW2. And now I am back, because I found new reasons to play and enjoy the game.

There is only one good answer to the question/statement: “Maybe GW2 is not the game for you.”

Yes it is, because I am still here.

I agree. I always hate when people on these forums say this. Well, they got their wish. The veterans left, GW2 is always on sale, and now there’s been a couple free trials offered. The population has been declining, hence the megaservers. I hope these white knights will still be around when the population hits GW1 status. lol.

One year ago, almost to the day, Guild Wars 2 had a half price sale and a free beta weekend. I guess some people are so desperate for this game to fail that you’ll say anything.

Shrugs.

I’m actually ok with the phrase “maybe it’s not for you.” It’s not like you’re implying that they should leave, it’s a good response to excessive negativity in any walk of life. Hate your job and complain endlessly about it? It might not be for you. Hate your car? Maybe there’s a better one out there. So on and so forth. It might sound somewhat condescending, but it’s all in how it’s received, and it instigates a thought process in the person complaining that allows for two options…. one being that you look at the positives about the game, continue playing, and stop complaining….. the other being that you go try to enjoy something else.

People find the need to focus excessive energy into an MMO from time to time. It’s natural, but that negativity is coming from a root cause inside the person feeling it. There are solutions to that cause, and continuing to follow the same path you’re currently walking is not one of them. “Maybe it’s not for you” is a suggestion that the problem might be coming from something else.

Point is, misery loves company. Some people just don’t like to hear endless complaints about something they enjoy, because it dampens their ability to enjoy those things. It’s condescending, but we’ve all been there. Sure, we could all sit around and complain endlessly into oblivion. But when it’s a hobby or entertainment format that you’re talking about, there’s no real necessity to take part in it. Go outside, do some stretching and breathing exercises, get away from the computer. It’s not healthy to sit in front of a computer for long periods of time. It creates stress and negative compression on many of the vital organs in your body. We all know this. “maybe it’s not for you” is just code for “take a break, dude. The game will be here when you get back.”

ANet should add a FPS mode and add headshots and body specific damage values

Crysto.7089:

ANet should add a FPS mode and add headshots and body specific damage values

Maybe GW2 is the game for you!

I would normally be saying to myself that gw2 is not the game for me, but over the last few days I might be changing my mind. I’m enjoying the game so much right now. I don’t think I’ve enjoyed the game this much at any point since launch. Maybe it’s because I’m playing the game for what it is and not what I want it to be. I kept telling myself that there are all these things from other games like WoW that I needed to enjoy the game. Did I miraculously change my entire view on the game in the last week? I don’t know, but it’s starting to feel like it.

Fernling.1729:

I kept telling myself that there are all these things from other games like WoW that I needed to enjoy the game. Did I miraculously change my entire view on the game in the last week? I don’t know, but it’s starting to feel like it.

For veteran players of GW2 who never even tried WoW, the problem isn’t that we can’t get what we had elsewhere. The problems arise when we learn to love certain aspects of the game we’re currently playing, and then the management dumps those aspects.

Most of us are not asking for GW2 to become something it’s never been. We’re asking for them to stop screwing with the good things that were there originally.

Cassandra Nea.2507:

Please, can people please stop using this phrase? I get it, you are annoyed that people are criticizing aspects of the game that you really like or even love. And they can be really rude when they do it. But they have their reasons for being critical, just as you have your reasons for being defensive.

I know you will go there: Yes, some people still complain eons after they have stopped playing. You wonder why they still bother. I stopped playing myself for a while because I got bored, but I never lost interest in GW2. And now I am back, because I found new reasons to play and enjoy the game.

There is only one good answer to the question/statement: “Maybe GW2 is not the game for you.”

Yes it is, because I am still here.

Totally agree so many people are on the forums defending everything the developers say and do and can’t stand any criticism at all. This is what the game needs criticism so that things get fixed but obviously that’s not what is happening usually when theres criticism there are deleted posts.

Tbh it annoys me to but the game isn’t for people who don’t liek the living story. You can draw this conclusion by constructing a theoretical priority list that Anet has, where the first 49 spots are living story, and the 50th is spvp/wvw/dungeonfractals.

XApocalypse.8739:

Totally agree so many people are on the forums defending everything the developers say and do and can’t stand any criticism at all. This is what the game needs criticism so that things get fixed but obviously that’s not what is happening usually when theres criticism there are deleted posts.

Yes, but there’s “criticism” and then there’s “ANET you suck unless you fix X”, or threads which start off fine but then devolve into personal attacks, and potentially Vayne being involved somewhere . . . which brings out all the people who find this burning drive to prove him wrong any time he opens his mouth. Or to take jabs at “the secret ANet employee” bullcrap.

There’s two things right there which get posts removed, and the third is when people feel the need to make one more topic on top of a half-dozen others to say the same thing instead of just sticking to one topic. (Understandably – one lone topic is relatively easy to derail over and over again, so starting another is sort of insurance to get the message out there.)

Fernling.1729:

I would normally be saying to myself that gw2 is not the game for me, but over the last few days I might be changing my mind. I’m enjoying the game so much right now. I don’t think I’ve enjoyed the game this much at any point since launch. Maybe it’s because I’m playing the game for what it is and not what I want it to be. I kept telling myself that there are all these things from other games like WoW that I needed to enjoy the game. Did I miraculously change my entire view on the game in the last week? I don’t know, but it’s starting to feel like it.

It’s an indoctrination. The game attempts to teach itself to people, and over a period of time, that clicks…for some people. If you’re going to play the game to get to end game and do nothing but challenging content, my guess is you’ll get tired of this game sooner rather than later. If you’re all about drops and farming and that’s it, you’re going to end up being very frustrated.

If you’re taking a nice relaxing jaunt through a beautiful fantasy land, and you get some cool stuff along the way, and enjoy yourself, you’re going to be happier here than in most other games.

I’m with Vayne on this. I play games to relax and enjoy myself, not to treat it as a job or as a way to measure my self-worth.

Behellagh.1468:

I’m with Vayne on this. I play games to relax and enjoy myself, not to treat it as a job or as a way to measure my self-worth.

A lot of people enjoy themselves by meeting challenges. In fact the large majority of games created by man have some element of difficulty or challenge, or it becomes boring.
Tag? run around chasing people avoiding you. If they are just gonna stand there, its pretty boring.
darts, could be just hit the wall, but having things to aim for makes it fun.
pacman? dodge these guys and eat everything on the map.

let me try to think of games that dont have this element, playing house, peek a boo. Kinda drawing a blank on others.

I suppose its not a gaming joy people get from this game. Its more of a do something and see result joy? like spinning a top?

regardless, people who want games with some sort of challenge or difficulty or goal are not really the exception.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

When suggestions pop up for things like “open world PvP” or “remove all waypoints, then add mounts” . . . no, I’m still going to respond with that statement. Because this game is clearly not the one they’re looking for.

When you reply to this with “this game is not for you” to this, you’re showing one thing: Your deep-down reason for not wanting to have those features is the same as their reason for wanting them: because it would make the game more similar to WoW.

Ergo, you’re being just as narrow minded as they are. Instead of replying “this game is not for you”, it would be more useful to explain why those features would be out of place in Guild Wars 2, in your opinion.

Jaycen.2591:

Fernling.1729:

I kept telling myself that there are all these things from other games like WoW that I needed to enjoy the game. Did I miraculously change my entire view on the game in the last week? I don’t know, but it’s starting to feel like it.

For veteran players of GW2 who never even tried WoW, the problem isn’t that we can’t get what we had elsewhere. The problems arise when we learn to love certain aspects of the game we’re currently playing, and then the management dumps those aspects.

Most of us are not asking for GW2 to become something it’s never been. We’re asking for them to stop screwing with the good things that were there originally.

Exactly!

flyingcats.6194:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

When suggestions pop up for things like “open world PvP” or “remove all waypoints, then add mounts” . . . no, I’m still going to respond with that statement. Because this game is clearly not the one they’re looking for.

When you reply to this with “this game is not for you” to this, you’re showing one thing: Your deep-down reason for not wanting to have those features is the same as their reason for wanting them: because it would make the game more similar to WoW.

Ergo, you’re being just as narrow minded as they are. Instead of replying “this game is not for you”, it would be more useful to explain why those features would be out of place in Guild Wars 2, in your opinion.

I would, except more often than not I find myself being derided and picked apart over avoiding those changes. I gave reasons, repeatedly, and even shifted my stance on mounts for instance. Doesn’t matter, me saying “I don’t think that’s a good idea to shoot for” means “you’re incapable of logic”.

Your response pretty much encapsulates why I stopped posting two-post replies to things and just keep it short and snarky. I don’t have the time to waste trying to lob arguments back and forth with people who don’t want to listen (and those who do listen and I can hold a good conversation with are a casualty for this, yes).

You immediately decided I didn’t want this game to be WoW. You’re . . . mistaken, and you tried to tell me what it is deep-down I want. You tried to tell me what objections I have, rather than asking me to provide them.

Ergo, you’re exactly as narrow minded as you claim me to be. Either that, or you just want to score points off me in some game nobody is keeping score over anyway. I really don’t care.

I reply “maybe this game isn’t for you” usually because I really think they’d have more fun playing something else. It’s the same thing I tell people who want to see Roguelike games like NetHack without permadeath.

. . . even if the gnome with a wand is a sneaky son of a skritt.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

flyingcats.6194:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

When suggestions pop up for things like “open world PvP” or “remove all waypoints, then add mounts” . . . no, I’m still going to respond with that statement. Because this game is clearly not the one they’re looking for.

When you reply to this with “this game is not for you” to this, you’re showing one thing: Your deep-down reason for not wanting to have those features is the same as their reason for wanting them: because it would make the game more similar to WoW.

Ergo, you’re being just as narrow minded as they are. Instead of replying “this game is not for you”, it would be more useful to explain why those features would be out of place in Guild Wars 2, in your opinion.

I would, except more often than not I find myself being derided and picked apart over avoiding those changes. I gave reasons, repeatedly, and even shifted my stance on mounts for instance. Doesn’t matter, me saying “I don’t think that’s a good idea to shoot for” means “you’re incapable of logic”.

Your response pretty much encapsulates why I stopped posting two-post replies to things and just keep it short and snarky. I don’t have the time to waste trying to lob arguments back and forth with people who don’t want to listen (and those who do listen and I can hold a good conversation with are a casualty for this, yes).

You immediately decided I didn’t want this game to be WoW. You’re . . . mistaken, and you tried to tell me what it is deep-down I want. You tried to tell me what objections I have, rather than asking me to provide them.

Ergo, you’re exactly as narrow minded as you claim me to be. Either that, or you just want to score points off me in some game nobody is keeping score over anyway. I really don’t care.

I reply “maybe this game isn’t for you” usually because I really think they’d have more fun playing something else. It’s the same thing I tell people who want to see Roguelike games like NetHack without permadeath.

. . . even if the gnome with a wand is a sneaky son of a skritt.

which kind of points out exactly what the OP is saying.
Its a way of shutting down conversation.

“I disagree with you, and i am not going to say why, i will just say you should leave the game.”

On the plus side, i guess its an easy way to make it clear to any reading devs that you are in opposition to the entire principle of what they are asking for.

perhaps that would be a better response.

Definitely not the game for me. But like watching one of those disaster shows still come back once or twice a year to check up on the wreckage.

phys.7689:

which kind of points out exactly what the OP is saying.
Its a way of shutting down conversation.

“I disagree with you, and i am not going to say why, i will just say you should leave the game.”

On the plus side, i guess its an easy way to make it clear to any reading devs that you are in opposition to the entire principle of what they are asking for.

perhaps that would be a better response.

The thing is, saying “I want Open World PVP, or I want mounts” is not exactly “conversation” now isn’kitten Doesn’t have any arguments or points for actual discussion, so giving the simple answer: “This game is not for you” is enough, it’s more like “I won’t bother with this”.

However, saying “I want Open World PVP because <>, and it would work like <>” is completely different. Adding mounts like they are in other games wouldn’t work in GW2 very well (see Mount thread X for details), that doesn’t mean adding mounts in some way or form wouldn’t work if they were tweaked in some way to fit the game.

I would say even Open World PVP could work in GW2 (remember BWE2?) in some form if it was presented in a way that makes sense in this game, both mechanic wise and lore/story wise. It CAN happen.

Suggestions “Add this from gameA just because” get a response of “this game isn’t for you” for a good reason, there isn’t enough to discuss there.

maddoctor.2738:

phys.7689:

which kind of points out exactly what the OP is saying.
Its a way of shutting down conversation.

“I disagree with you, and i am not going to say why, i will just say you should leave the game.”

On the plus side, i guess its an easy way to make it clear to any reading devs that you are in opposition to the entire principle of what they are asking for.

perhaps that would be a better response.

The thing is, saying “I want Open World PVP, or I want mounts” is not exactly “conversation” now isn’kitten Doesn’t have any arguments or points for actual discussion, so giving the simple answer: “This game is not for you” is enough, it’s more like “I won’t bother with this”.

However, saying “I want Open World PVP because <>, and it would work like <>” is completely different. Adding mounts like they are in other games wouldn’t work in GW2 very well (see Mount thread X for details), that doesn’t mean adding mounts in some way or form wouldn’t work if they were tweaked in some way to fit the game.

I would say even Open World PVP could work in GW2 (remember BWE2?) in some form if it was presented in a way that makes sense in this game, both mechanic wise and lore/story wise. It CAN happen.

Suggestions “Add this from gameA just because” get a response of “this game isn’t for you” for a good reason, there isn’t enough to discuss there.

I agree with most of your second part, but maybe this game isnt for you is the exact opposite of the way to actually have discussion.
Its doesnt mean, you havent thought about it enough, it means your idea has no merit.

Girl tells guy, I want to see transformers
he says maybe you should find another guy.

that is totally different from saying
g: i want to see transformers
b: what is it you like about transformers?

current situation is not actually that there are people for whom the game is not made.

its more the situation that community is not really aware of its power like always.

there is no need for anet to move if the gemstore is profitable and players let themselves be farmed off each week.

stop to buy gems and you see content develope. maybe even an addon sooner than later.

why blow creative ideas now into the game if the dollar runs without bowing ideas?

that got to do with lifecycle of a product since gw2 is an commercial entertainment product and anet a company.

so if people want the game change again simply stop feeding the gemstore.

fish stinks from the head first and most the time stinks like money stinks.

the game is for everyone. influence it with awareness and behaviour.

phys.7689:

which kind of points out exactly what the OP is saying.
Its a way of shutting down conversation.

“I disagree with you, and i am not going to say why, i will just say you should leave the game.”

On the plus side, i guess its an easy way to make it clear to any reading devs that you are in opposition to the entire principle of what they are asking for.

perhaps that would be a better response.

Maybe this topic isn’t for us.

If someone says “maybe this game isn’t for you” and nothing else (except maybe a sneering “Go back to WoW”), they’re probably talking just to hear themselves talk. Those are the annoying ones we can do without.

If they go on to to give serious, thought provoking ideas that may help you, then it can be an acceptable response.

Unfortunately, the forums don’t come with a maturity level filter (aside from the “kitten” filter.) I appreciate the OP’s sentiment, but it takes awhile for some people to grow up. Eventually they will grow up, but until the Human race stops breeding there’ll always be a new crop of immature voices saying the first thing that pops into their heads. Which is usually something they got a chuckle from once and has now been said a million times until it’s just sad. (“You’re leaving? Can I have your stuff?”)

phys.7689:

Behellagh.1468:

I’m with Vayne on this. I play games to relax and enjoy myself, not to treat it as a job or as a way to measure my self-worth.

A lot of people enjoy themselves by meeting challenges. In fact the large majority of games created by man have some element of difficulty or challenge, or it becomes boring.
Tag? run around chasing people avoiding you. If they are just gonna stand there, its pretty boring.
darts, could be just hit the wall, but having things to aim for makes it fun.
pacman? dodge these guys and eat everything on the map.

let me try to think of games that dont have this element, playing house, peek a boo. Kinda drawing a blank on others.

I suppose its not a gaming joy people get from this game. Its more of a do something and see result joy? like spinning a top?

regardless, people who want games with some sort of challenge or difficulty or goal are not really the exception.

Some Facebook games argue otherwise.