78 replies to this topic

[Rhododendron]

Isn't this the kind of stuff you see on the official forums?

[raspberry jam]

There is a considerable difference between learning to play and wanting to get rid of a mechanic that rewards play that does not require skill.

[Roland Der Meister]

Snipes, on 03 December 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure vengeance > mist form.

Vengeance is Not as OP Like Vapor form is when it ends you die when mist form ends you get 50% of your downed HP back if you run to a teammate or shadow refuge in mist form that's Zero To Hero Unskilled play. If you Run into A smart ele They get more mileage out of mist form if they dodge while in the form.But To Put it simply Mist form is a time wasting skill why cause you already bested and downed the ele. Theirs no need for you to chase it for another 3 seconds or more then wast more time casting the long stomp animation To finally kill it. And you cant just leave it alone you have to stomp it if its a bunker or it will just come back and annoy the hell out of a point so leaving it alone is not a option.

Edited by Roland Der Meister, 03 December 2012 - 02:42 PM.

[Illein]

"Learn to play" in its original meaning, means just that. If you learn to play the game you'll overcome this or that obstacle, be that AI or player-made.

Of course it is used by some douchebags as a way to demean other players who they deem less sophisticated than themselves, but that shouldn't be what coins the expression.

Then again, there is a very clear difference between situations in which you need to "learn to play" or things that are just imbalanced. Those players pointed out some of those things they consider broken/imbalanced as they mostly can't be avoided, there is no counter and it doesn't make gameplay any better.

To me, you just seem bitter your Elementalist Mist Form might be on the paper for a nerf to tune it back in line. Sucks to be you.

[Roland Der Meister]

Erg Lord the whole thread gots my head hurting

Edited by Roland Der Meister, 03 December 2012 - 02:43 PM.

[Barbieslayer]

Not having watched the state of the game video and just going on the OPs post, it sounds like l2p is code for stack your stats.

If these "top" teams are aware that the community is having trouble with spercific builds, then dismissing what casual players have to say with lines like "we don't have any trouble.. We learnt to play and have counters..." while not sharing any of their so called wisdom, it's about as constructive as ever telling anyone who is playing (and learning while they do so) any game, to learn to play.

And in contrast to that assertion they also seem to be vocal about those using skills in the game that don't require you to dedicate your stats to, in order to be semi sucssesful.

By making each class less powerful in it's own right makes the differences between them more important, and classes less viable if they don't play the meta game that is being pushed.  This makes playing with those that have been told or shown how to play and stack their stats insuferable, since they belive that is the only way to play.  Which also makes casual PvP less desirable for those that want to play with the game they bought over playing it for someone else, who had to be shown what to do..

That being said, in wvw it can be quite annoying to have that hard hitting front line ele go down, lose almost all thier hp, and then dissapear to the back of the zerg.  But less annoying than invisable kitting BS thieves, and mesmers that could nuke you as soon as look at you. And I should be able to block fear with my shield..

[Essence Snow]

I'll agree with L2P being ill used, but not really for the same reason. To me it's more of a "I really don't have anything constructive to say about the matter, so I'll just cop out by saying L2P.

[Jetjordan]

learn to post

[Leeto]

RandolfRa, on 03 December 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

That's too bad. I quess you just have to finish the ele's teammates first before taking on the ele himself. Or you can jump on the ele and burst him and his ressers. Lot's of other tricks as well. Tricks that you'd know of if you'd just L2P.

Oh dont worry about me l2ping, anet is just gonna nerf vapor form, but instead of whining when it happens just L2P.

[RandolfRa]

Leeto, on 04 December 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

Oh dont worry about me l2ping, anet is just gonna nerf vapor form, but instead of whining when it happens just L2P.

Ya, cuz they gotta please these l2p noobs lol who'd really just need to l2p instead of qq in forums cuz they suck lol

Seriously though, my point was that L2P is a non-argument that destroys any actual discussion about inbalanced skills. This is what OP was also trying to say in his opening post.

Quote

There is a considerable difference between learning to play and wanting to get rid of a mechanic that rewards play that does not require skill.

Like getting rid of the whole thief profession?

Edited by RandolfRa, 04 December 2012 - 01:23 PM.

[Varun]

Casiidy, on 02 December 2012 - 06:38 AM, said:

So you think that L2P is a stupid and dumb argument, yet you are using it. I'm not sure I understand how this is a legitimate argument.

He's trying to illustrate that one can reply with "L2P" to any and each ability in a game, as long as it is in some way avoidable. No matter how overpowered that particular ability might be in 99% of all situations.

This is true and has been proven true in many games over the course of many years:

Stealth classes in many games that bursted people down in seconds have used "L2P" to indicate that people should develop precognitive skills to detect their stealth beforehand and pop them out of it.
Bright wizards have used it in WAR to tell people that they should develop specific setups and tactics just to counter them.
Healers in many games have used it in the past with as an argument that one should bring healers of their own and turn PvP into a resource wars until one party was dry of whatever form of "mana" used in those games, etc.

More than that though, saying "L2P" on a forum is usually stupid because in a conversation between faceless incognito individuals, none of the parties has usually ever seen the other one play, making "L2P" a typical forum conversation ender that basically indicates that you have little to nothing to say on the subject.

I will however admit, that there are certain, specific instances in which the term might be used.
But a nicer person would follow up a "L2P" with a specific definition of how this learning process should go, to illustrate that he knows what he is talking about.

-

As for the Ele downed state, I would find a change to the downed state health reset fair. They need to pull this off from a technical point of view however, as mistform is already pretty buggy sometimes.

Edited by Varun, 04 December 2012 - 01:33 PM.

[Caffynated]

There are times when "l2p" is an appropriate response.

Example:
A - I died to hundred blades. NERFZ!
B - Did you attempt to dodge his bola?
A - No...
B - Did you use a stun, knockdown, or knockback, assuming he didn't pop stability of course?
A - No...
B - Did you use any defensive abilities like invuln, block, teleport, etc.?
A - No...
B - L2P

Where it's not appropriate -
A - I just took 30k damage in < 3 seconds despite having maxed out toughness and protection
B - Did you dodge?
A - Yes.
B - Did you use defensive cooldowns and/or heal to outlast his burst?
A - Yes
B - LOL L2P NEWB!

[Isaac82]

Illein, on 03 December 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

"Learn to play" in its original meaning, means just that. If you learn to play the game you'll overcome this or that obstacle, be that AI or player-made.

Of course it is used by some douchebags as a way to demean other players who they deem less sophisticated than themselves, but that shouldn't be what coins the expression.

Then again, there is a very clear difference between situations in which you need to "learn to play" or things that are just imbalanced. Those players pointed out some of those things they consider broken/imbalanced as they mostly can't be avoided, there is no counter and it doesn't make gameplay any better.

To me, you just seem bitter your Elementalist Mist Form might be on the paper for a nerf to tune it back in line. Sucks to be you.

Great post, learn to play gets used to demean way to often. Before you start crying for a nerf go "walk a mile in their shoes". You will see they aren't as OP as they seem. Really good players just choose those 2 professions because they have really high skill ceilings. However, I gaurantee you mediocre players aren't running around doing what you claim. I personally play a mesmer and when I'm just slightly of my game I have to switch to my guardian because one wrong move or one slow reaction and I'm done for. As far as thief goes I can't play them I just don't have them rhythm and movement required. So go play both and come back and post your thoughts.

[Falfyrel]

I had hoped that the OP's point would have been easy to gather - clearly it was well-presented. Apparently some people on this thread (especially earlier) think otherwise, so I'll reiterate it.

The OP wasn't complaining about things being overpowered. The OP was complaining about the nature of the argument "L2P" as something that can be endlessly rehashed to any situation, which utterly robs it of any meaning (even in the situations where it does apply) - because it can be used to effortlessly shut down any argument to the contrary with zero thought required. The OP then graciously provided an example of something which was truly horrendously overpowered, only to show that the L2P argument could effortlessly be applied to that too.

There's probably a sophisticated psychology paper you could write about the gut reactions of people who have told the OP to L2P - but alas, it only proves the OP's point as to the use of L2P as a throwaway term for anyone who disagrees with the state of the game balance.

Edited by Falfyrel, 04 December 2012 - 04:17 PM.

[Kenjamin]

Falfyrel, on 04 December 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

I had hoped that the OP's point would have been easy to gather - clearly it was well-presented. Apparently some people on this thread (especially earlier) think otherwise, so I'll reiterate it.

The OP wasn't complaining about things being overpowered. The OP was complaining about the nature of the argument "L2P" as something that can be endlessly rehashed to any situation, which utterly robs it of any meaning (even in the situations where it does apply) - because it can be used to effortlessly shut down any argument to the contrary with zero thought required. The OP then graciously provided an example of something which was truly horrendously overpowered, only to show that the L2P argument could effortlessly be applied to that too.

You are correct.  The argument is well made by you, and the OP, and it is valid.  I agree with everything you're saying.

However, I should add that, many people posting in this thread read the forums daily, and thus know the OP.  The OP is an elementalist, and an elementalist advocate at that.  She is regularly campaigning for Elementalist buffs, and since the example of her argument just happens to be an imenent Elementalist nerf, she is opposing it.

Does that make the point invalid?  No.  Does that make it a bad argument?  Not at all.

However, you have to read between the lines and figure out what motivated the argument in the first place, and then you'll understand why people reacted to it the way they have.  It looks like an "L2P is a stupid argument" editorial piece, but it is most likely a "please don't nerf mistform" piece.

I personally don't like how casually l2p is thrown around either, but sadly I find that, more often than not, people (myself included) are dying to "stuff" because of a mistake they've made rather than anything being broken or out of balance.

Last night I died 100x in the Harpy FotM because my character wouldn't jump when I hit SPACE.  That is a broken game.  When I die because I get knocked off by the damn harpies, that is me failing to utilize projection defense properly.  I cuss, I curse ANet and their stupid ideas, but deep inside I know that I have several skills that would have prevented it from happening.  L2P.

[Isaac82]

Falfyrel, on 04 December 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

I had hoped that the OP's point would have been easy to gather - clearly it was well-presented. Apparently some people on this thread (especially earlier) think otherwise, so I'll reiterate it.

The OP wasn't complaining about things being overpowered. The OP was complaining about the nature of the argument "L2P" as something that can be endlessly rehashed to any situation, which utterly robs it of any meaning (even in the situations where it does apply) - because it can be used to effortlessly shut down any argument to the contrary with zero thought required. The OP then graciously provided an example of something which was truly horrendously overpowered, only to show that the L2P argument could effortlessly be applied to that too.

There's probably a sophisticated psychology paper you could write about the gut reactions of people who have told the OP to L2P - but alas, it only proves the OP's point as to the use of L2P as a throwaway term for anyone who disagrees with the state of the game balance.

You're totally wrong in you interpretation of her post. However, I have to give her props in what she did. She presented her view of thieves and mesmers being OP through a red herring fallacy of the L2P issue. She then further argues it with a straw man argument. She follows that up with another straw man argument mist for being OP again using the L2P issue. However the real issue at hand is she wants nerfs to thieves and mesmers, and for mist form to be left alone. If I'm wrong I'd like her to come out and say that thieves and mesmers are fine and mist form needs nerfed. However, you are also correct there could be a paper written on the issue. I know, I've had to write one on similar writings.

[AetherMcLoud]

Falfyrel, on 04 December 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

I had hoped that the OP's point would have been easy to gather - clearly it was well-presented. Apparently some people on this thread (especially earlier) think otherwise, so I'll reiterate it.

I like you

It's actually nice to know that there ARE people in this thread who get what I was trying to say, instead of simply proving my point by flaming me with "L2P" issues.

Kenjamin, on 04 December 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

You are correct.  The argument is well made by you, and the OP, and it is valid.  I agree with everything you're saying.

However, I should add that, many people posting in this thread read the forums daily, and thus know the OP.  The OP is an elementalist, and an elementalist advocate at that.  She is regularly campaigning for Elementalist buffs, and since the example of her argument just happens to be an imenent Elementalist nerf, she is opposing it.

Does that make the point invalid?  No.  Does that make it a bad argument?  Not at all.

However, you have to read between the lines and figure out what motivated the argument in the first place, and then you'll understand why people reacted to it the way they have.  It looks like an "L2P is a stupid argument" editorial piece, but it is most likely a "please don't nerf mistform" piece.

I personally don't like how casually l2p is thrown around either, but sadly I find that, more often than not, people (myself included) are dying to "stuff" because of a mistake they've made rather than anything being broken or out of balance.

It's pretty much common knowledge (and has been said by developers on the forums) that ele needs help in some areas. Like build diversity, burst builds and a few others. Bunker eles are in a very good place, as are support eles. But pretty much every ele build is 30 water 30 arcane (which is the same for bunker and support and just varies by amulet choice) which limits the profession extremely. Plus staff is only usable for extreme bunkering as is scepter. Dagger is the only viable damage option and even then it's a hybrid bunker build. So there's that.

Also mist form if the utility skill which is - while still buggy as hell (i.e. you don't benefit from traits while using it) - fine. Vapor form is the downed skill and I have no problem with the health reset getting removed (I recon the additional downed penalty will be removed then too).

Isaac82, on 04 December 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

You're totally wrong in you interpretation of her post. However, I have to give her props in what she did. She presented her view of thieves and mesmers being OP through a red herring fallacy of the L2P issue. She then further argues it with a straw man argument. She follows that up with another straw man argument mist for being OP again using the L2P issue. However the real issue at hand is she wants nerfs to thieves and mesmers, and for mist form to be left alone. If I'm wrong I'd like her to come out and say that thieves and mesmers are fine and mist form needs nerfed. However, you are also correct there could be a paper written on the issue. I know, I've had to write one on similar writings.

Besides caltrops being maybe a little too good thieves are fine actually. They are - just like in pretty much every game - a pubstomp profession though. Which IMHO isn't really healthy for the game, which NEEDS new players for a healthy tournament scene, and much of those players come from pve. I'm in a HUGE pve guild and especially after the patch that added the new hotjoin map I've been asked alot in guildchat about pvp.

There's people not even knowing that you don't use your pve equip in pvp. While they do fine in dungeons they have absolutely no clue about pvp. But a lot of them would like to give it a try. So they go to hotjoin, and get roflstomped by thieves. And they go back to pve and never come back to pvp again. But that's a whole 'nother problem, because as said before thieves are pretty much balanced in tournaments (again I feel caltrops might be a little too much). Same goes for mesmers: pretty balanced though even with 90 seconds cooldown portal is still insanely strong. Bunker guards could use some nerfs though IMHO, if you don't have a class that can corrupt their boons or spam 3-5 conditions all the time they are pretty much invincible.

[shaolinwind]

Caffynated, on 04 December 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

There are times when "l2p" is an appropriate response.

Example:
A - I died to hundred blades. NERFZ!
B - Did you attempt to dodge his bola?
A - No...
B - Did you use a stun, knockdown, or knockback, assuming he didn't pop stability of course?
A - No...
B - Did you use any defensive abilities like invuln, block, teleport, etc.?
A - No...
B - L2P

Where it's not appropriate -
A - I just took 30k damage in < 3 seconds despite having maxed out toughness and protection
B - Did you dodge?
A - Yes.
B - Did you use defensive cooldowns and/or heal to outlast his burst?
A - Yes
B - LOL L2P NEWB!

I like this post. +1

[lioka qiao]

L2P:  Learn to play is actually a valid argument.  It argues that alot of players take the fight outside of the game.  They call for buffs.  They call for nerfs.  They call for bigger maps, shorter siege ranges, not repairing walls instantly and about needing a way to break a spawn camp.  They call the thief build stupid.  They called IWAY overpowered (remember that?) and air spike overpowered.  Maybe they were, maybe they weren't.  Maybe the thief build is actually balanced.  The point is that the whiners can't find a way to win inside the game so they try to win outside the game.  Sometimes their points are valid and the game developer agrees with it.   Other times they just haven't found the way the developer put in already to defeat the thing that beat them.   Did you ever play scrabble with your siblings and you played a word that you know is valid but they pull out some random dictionary to look it up?  They just took the fight out of the game.  This is the same thing.

When someone tells you to L2P don't take it as an insult or a cop out but as an opportunity.  When someone calls a thief build stupid they're taking the fight outside of the game.  They hope to reduce the number of enemies using the build they can't beat so that they can win in the game.  If someone calls an effective build stupid, RUN THE BUILD.  This means that the build is already effective and you will also enjoy victory with it.  When you see cries for a nerf to some aspect of an elementalist that means that the aspect is effective.

The mist form downed skill is actually one of the most effective parts of an elementalist.  With it they can escape to safety and revive from downed.  L2P.  The skill has a limited range.  Draw the elementalist away from safety before downing him.  He'll pop mist form, ok chase him.  Now shove a flag up his ass.

The thief build i'm also using relies on frontloading all damage and usually pops all utilities in the process.  L2P.  Remap one or all of your utilites to R, C, and Z.  Put your best stun breaking escape skill on R and your second best on C.  Now your index finger can reach the escape skill fast enough to deflect the thief's attack.

The warrior is using 100 blades.  L2P.  Put your stun utility on Z if you have one, or use a weapon skill.  V  to dodge (unless you remapped that to your elite like me), then hit your weapon skill or stun and break the warrior.

Spawn getting campped?  L2P.  This is the best time for it.  Take out repair money and expect it to disappear.  Penetrate deep, hunt weak targets (eles with half hp, up leveled mesmers, etc) and strike to kill.  You have 20 seconds to respawn if you die and get back in the fight.  They have a 2 minute run from their spawn.  Run out of repair money?  L2P:  Go farm something for half an hour.  There are good farms that produce 2 gold per hour and that's more than enough money for 2 days worth of repairs.

L2P:  set your gear up right.  Read forums for advice (this one is great) and build ideas.  Innovate! The builds here aren't written in stone yet (thank god, GW1 got boring because of that) so you have room to experiment.  Find what is most effective for you and practice at it!

In short, when you see L2P, learn to play, don't go pout.  Learn to play!

[Soki]

If you don't understand how the game's systems and class traits work together and against one-another, you can't accurately say what is broken and what is balanced.
L2P is a very valid thing to say to someone crying for buffs or nerfs for anything.

The only time it isn't valid is when something has literally zero counters - like Akuma in SF2.

[lioka qiao]

Soki, on 13 December 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

If you don't understand how the game's systems and class traits work together and against one-another, you can't accurately say what is broken and what is balanced.
L2P is a very valid thing to say to someone crying for buffs or nerfs for anything.

The only time it isn't valid is when something has literally zero counters - like Akuma in SF2.

Yep.  The only time L2P is invalid is when aspect of the game is so clearly imbalanced that it is completely unbeatable.

[Majic]

I'm pretty sure popcorn and soda were invented for threads like this. So...

[ObscureThreat]

I agree with the OP that L2P is used way to much, but balancing does have to come from the pros. The only problem is the meta for Guild Wars 2 is quite underdeveloped as another poster said. Therefore if the pros are riding the more overpowered comps and builds to victory well then they can't accurately comment on the balance either. I think ANET needs to fix bugs before even looking at nerfing or buffing any class. With so many traits bugged or not working as intended perhaps fixing those first will reveal actual class weaknesses and strengths.

[Ragnadaam]

The OP does have a point, in that the "L2P" line is tossed out way too frequently, by even the most brain dead troglodytes that probably need to follow that advice themselves if you were to watch them play. However, knowing the OP as I do from being around here for a while, and reading the OP carefully, where the post goes is a joke; Kenjamin and Issac outlined why.

[RandolfRa]

lioka qiao, on 13 December 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

Yep.  The only time L2P is invalid is when aspect of the game is so clearly imbalanced that it is completely unbeatable.

Imagine that warrior adrenaline skill would always damage for 100k should it hit. Warriors would still definitely be beatable, but L2P coming from a day old warrior who just happent to land his adrenaline skill would certainly not be valid*. Thus your claim does not hold.

*To some degree, this is analogical to backstab thiefs.

Edited by RandolfRa, 15 December 2012 - 11:01 AM.

[redslion]

That's why I think Anet should change my bombs with 1 milion damage nuclear warheads. You say they are OP? WHAT? They even make a red circle on the ground and take 2 seconds to explode!XD

[RandolfRa]

redslion, on 16 December 2012 - 12:59 AM, said:

That's why I think Anet should change my bombs with 1 milion damage nuclear warheads. You say they are OP? WHAT? They even make a red circle on the ground and take 2 seconds to explode!XD

Exact. But some people are too biased to admit that their build is broken (even to themselfs!) so they rely to the l2p nonargument.

ps. I can definitely admit that I win lots of fights simply because my build is op.

Edited by RandolfRa, 16 December 2012 - 03:24 PM.

[lioka qiao]

RandolfRa, on 15 December 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

Imagine that warrior adrenaline skill would always damage for 100k should it hit. Warriors would still definitely be beatable, but L2P coming from a day old warrior who just happent to land his adrenaline skill would certainly not be valid*. Thus your claim does not hold.

*To some degree, this is analogical to backstab thiefs.

This is not inherently broken so long as dodge skills exist.  The disparity here is level of skill necessary to execute one attack vs the level of skill necessary to defend against it.  That is not being balanced in this situation and you could say it is not balanced in the thief's backstab burst.   Why anet hasn't nerfed the BS burst yet is they aren't balancing for 1v1 but many vs many.  The balance comes in the form of the cooldown on steal and infiltrator's signet and any thief who speccs to do this attack is incapable of standing for long in a concentrated fight.  If anet sees it necessary they will nerf the defensive abilities of this build (possibly by increasing the costs of shortbow skills).Your warrior skill that hits for 100k would be looked at and possibly have a small nerf on it.   But if there are skill based counters then L2P will still be valid.

[BlasBlas]

Well for some posters in this thread:

Learn to Read.

Its timeless, classic, and straight-forward.

For example, there are some posters who completely missed the point of the OP and had something snarky to say.  This is where Learn to Read applies.

[Falfyrel]

lioka qiao, on 17 December 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

This is not inherently broken so long as dodge skills exist.  The disparity here is level of skill necessary to execute one attack vs the level of skill necessary to defend against it.  That is not being balanced in this situation and you could say it is not balanced in the thief's backstab burst.   Why anet hasn't nerfed the BS burst yet is they aren't balancing for 1v1 but many vs many.  The balance comes in the form of the cooldown on steal and infiltrator's signet and any thief who speccs to do this attack is incapable of standing for long in a concentrated fight.  If anet sees it necessary they will nerf the defensive abilities of this build (possibly by increasing the costs of shortbow skills).Your warrior skill that hits for 100k would be looked at and possibly have a small nerf on it.   But if there are skill based counters then L2P will still be valid.

I'm so sick of the argument you've outlined being repeated and repeated again.

As players we have an opportunity to give feedback about the game. This includes negative feedback instead of positive feedback. The goal being to pinpoint which areas of the game we like and which we don't like, and then allow ArenaNet to listen to them to form their own informed conclusion. And it is inherently unreasonable to demand that negative feedback be stifled: given that if not, forums would be vapid echo-chambers where the same emptily glowing praise would be repeated until our throats were dry. Not to mention that improvements to the game may very well grind to a halt, if it were so "perfect." That being said.

No, perhaps the theoretical Warrior 100k burst wouldn't be inherently imbalanced. In a game where every single other class was just a carbon copy of that same Warrior. But in any game - hell, in any real-life situation - separate means unequal. There are so many factors in determining imbalance - how versatile a profession's skills are, how powerful they are in the situations they excel at, their ability to counter situations they aren't good at, their base stats, the amount of essential utilities they can fit into one build, etc. etc. etc... it'd be incredibly shortsighted to look at the big picture and say that true equality could ever exist - it's just a matter of common sense! Imbalance is always going to exist in some quantity. But the point is to try and shift things more into equilibrium, by providing useful and informative feedback on what does and doesn't work. Something which absolutely should not be stifled - game balance debates should never be silenced until inequality is gone, and inequality will never be gone.

There are some scenarios where L2P is valid, yes - inexperienced players who don't take the necessary measures to counter against certain things are naturally going to have a harder time arguing their point in a meaningful fashion. But to assign L2P as a throwaway term for anyone deemed "whining" about game balance is negligent and lamentably close-minded.

You may say it's "trying to win from outside the game" when you whine. Maybe it is. Maybe we do want this game to be the best it could be, and point out how we as individuals think it could be better. But learn to debate with mildly critical opinions and weigh their merits instead of throwing them away as hot air - sometimes, you may find, that the "whiners" are right. Or that, worse yet, ArenaNet agrees with them.

Critical opinions exist for a reason, and even if the game were somehow impeccably designed so as to be above any complaint? Quashing dissent still wouldn't be sensible.  Negative opinions are here to stay, and they contribute far more to improvements than gushing, insipid praise ever could.

Deal with it.