SkepticsClaw
Potential Fire Hazard
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2010
- Messages
- 169
For fun, I will now list some of the instances where this post lacks in quality.1eyedking said:There is practically no difference between grinding in a MMORPG and playing this piece of shit.
All content is delivered without coherence, interesting hooks, background, lore, etc.
AVOID
1) He is using this statement to refer to the mechanics of gameplay, but the comparison he makes is to 'an MMORPG', which is not a game mechanic. Thus the statement essentially contains no meaning.1eyedking said:There is practically no difference between grinding in a MMORPG and playing this piece of shit.
2) If there was an MMORPG with turn-based combat and tactical depth of the level of Knights of the Chalice, then that MMORPG would, in fact, be a good game. The statement totally fails to convey any substantive aesthetic judgement.
3) The statement attempts to draw upon the social values of this board (MMOs are bad! Grinding is bad!) in order to reach its conclusion. This is fallacious.
This second statement clearly rests upon the assumption that 'coherence, interesting hooks, background, lore etc' are a requirement for quality in a game. This is manifestly not the case (one word will suffice: chess). As this assumption is false this statement is clearly a subjective value judgement, made by a particular individual who places high value on narrativistic elements over mechanical ones (colloquially: storyfag). The statement should have read: Storyfags avoid this game. This game is for people who are satisfied with gameplay as a means to its own end.1eyedking said:All content is delivered without coherence, interesting hooks, background, lore, etc
Thus the statement ends up criticising the game based on criteria it does not attempt to have; somewhat like criticising a roast chicken because it doesn't taste like french fries. Only a person lacking in intelligence would order a chicken instead of fries and then complain that it doesn't taste like potato.
Overall: F. The argument is poorly presented, unconvincing and reflects much more poorly upon the intellectual qualities and tastes of its author than it does upon the subject in question.