Feathermoore, on 25 January 2014 - 12:16 AM, said:
If you have taken a logic class, why are you arguing the example and semantics instead of arguing the point?
Logic at it's core is the study of language. Logic is
semantics. Reason is what you're referring to, but that's a whole new unit.
That doesn't really contribute anything to a discussion. Sure the example is iffy since it is a statement of taste. Apologies if my post ended up written in a way that misrepresented what I was actually saying. Hastily written messages have that quality.
It isn't that it wasn't understood. The reason I picked on this is because it's not that it was poorly written but instead you had to read "beyond" what was written to understand it. In short it's an insider's thing.
Think of it as Appealing to Emotion. People who enjoyed the niche game GW1 will not enjoy the game GW2 for a myriad of reasons but one of the cores is that the niche has shifted almost completely. Most of the comparisons are based on subjective memories ( nostalgia ) which is usually the worst thing to remember; people fail to remember all the problems in a system or don't mention, esp. with dissent, anything that another product or arc or whatever is doing better
than it's predecessor. You never really get an actual comparison that lays out the two systems side-by-side; you do tend to get "This sucks". Nothing objective.
Opinions can be used in a discussion and discussed in an objective fashion. The reasons behind an opinion can be dissected reasoned, and refuted in order to strengthen or weaken the apparent position. You can not dismiss a statement as an opinion wily nilly. It is not a valid discussion strategy. Especially when you aren't in an academic environment where you can assume everyone has the same grasp of debate skills, and therefore can not hold others to fully evoking their opinions in a complete, concise manner that fully presents their view in its entirety. Christ, now I have written an abomination of a sentence. You are also misrepresenting typical comparisons in order to make them seem absurd.
The idea that I can't take my past experiences, combine those with my current observations, and make an argument based upon that is silly. The idea that subjective experiences can not be compared in a way that results in an objective finding is poppy♥♥♥♥ Or if it isn't you should go talk to those thousands of people that work in the so called "soft sciences" and let them know that everything they do is a lie. There is an entire science based around trying to figure out what makes certain things fun. When we are talking about games, which the actual underlying point of all games is fun, the subjective is always relevant. The degree of the relevancy to a specific discussion may vary.
You can't take GW2 in a vacuum. Even if you wanted to, it is impossible for anyone to talk about it in a vacuum As I said, everything we perceive we perceive through comparison. Without it.... nothing (even the subjective). You are oversimplifying and arguing ad absurdum.
Unless you are misunderstanding me and I am misunderstanding you and we are aruging in circles. Then we should go invest in a maypole.
Opinions themselves produce claims which can never be used to argue for ambiguous ( subjective ) truths. How much someone loves or hates something for instance or what would make something better or worse overall
are examples. You can back an opinion with your reasons but they don't work the same as evidences in a rhetorical sense.
Basically I think you have every right to pass your opinion and judgment and you can definitely discuss this. I just don't think that the subjective patternwork behind that is strong enough to consider it more than conjecture. An objective comparison between the two games shows that the mechanics in one probably wouldn't work in it's "cousin" if you will.
I'm also going to avoid using latin terms. Though I know what absurdium is you misused it.XD
Cube, on 25 January 2014 - 12:22 AM, said:
Of course you can compare the games. Even if those two games are significantly different they are still supposed to be the same in some shape or form. They are still Guild Wars. Well, except GW2 is not anything like GW except for some lore. You often compare something to make a point, if it makes the point then it is a valid comparison. If they wanted no comparing perhaps they shouldn't have made a sequel...
That's a good point, it shouldn't share the name, and it is true that they used the name as a marketing ploy. I admit I am not happy with the company for that.