Will you play Guild Wars 3?

[Alaris]

How does my theories not line up with data?

If your theory is untestable, it cannot line up with data, because it makes no prediction. Also, http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redefine.html

A map pack is much smaller in content than a full game. The content in Factions and Nightfall is plenty to make them full games. That they use the same mechanisms as Prophecies is not an issue, lots of games are essentially little more than more content but with the same skeleton as their predecessor. By most common definitions, GW1 is 3 games and 1 expansion, despite the common core. Though for the purpose of judging innovation, these 4 titles have too much in common to be considered as showing a trend.

The philosophy of ANet can be seen in three ways: (1) innovation, (2) fixing existing common problems with the genre, (3) low grind. If not for those three aspects, ANet making a MMORPG with persistent zones would give us another WoW clone in the same way we got Rift and SWTOR. But that's not what we got. I'm not going to waste time giving data to back that up, the data is obvious to anyone but the mentally blind (e.g. those who care to win an argument more than finding the truth, e.g. jam).

Consistency can also be across features. For example, ANet has consistently been addressing existing common problems with the genre, and this can be seen with resource nodes that many can sample, dynamic events that scale, the removal of kill stealing (or most of it anyway), the scaling of players, the flattening of the levelling curve, etc.

[raspberry jam]

If your theory is untestable, it cannot line up with data, because it makes no prediction. Also, http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redefine.html

But it does make a prediction: That you consider map packs to be new games. This is a testable prediction. For example, ANet can put you in a maze, give you a computer and GW2. Then when ANet releases an expansion/new campaign/map pack, they can ask you if you think that it is a map pack or a new game. My prediction is that you will say "this is a new game". How is this not a prediction?

Also, how can a theory not line up with data if actually does line up with all known data? I mean, this does not confirm the theory, but if it lines up, how can it not line up? Please explain.

Also, please explain why the amount of content would make a map pack a new game. It will be interesting to see your take on this.

Also, please explain how "fixing problems" is a design philosophy when practically everyone who is not making a sequel is trying to do something new. Remember, design philosophy is about the philosophy of what you design, not the execution of your design.
If that is a too big task for you, please explain how for example Rift differs in design philosophy (not actual design) from GW2 when it comes to dynamic events.

Or you can admit that you would say any fanboy bull**** that comes up in your brain.

[Alaris]

But it does make a prediction

You are not predicting a future event, you are "predicting" an event that is already in the past. In that sense, you can always twist your theory to line up with any data you want and as a bonus, you might appear smart to yourself and the scientific-reasoning-challenged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction

Rift added a feature (Rifts) but otherwise cloned the game. They were not trying to fix the genre, as afaik all other common complaints remained because they did not even try and fail to fix them, rather they kept the other features as-is. Likewise, SWTOR added voiceovers and henchmen but otherwise cloned the game.

I predicted the downfall of SWTOR, remember? I also predicted that GW2 will be the WoW killer, you can quote me on that. It's a prediction because it has not yet happened.

[raspberry jam]

You are not predicting a future event, you are "predicting" an event that is already in the past. In that sense, you can always twist your theory to line up with any data you want and as a bonus, you might appear smart to yourself and the scientific-reasoning-challenged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction

Rift added a feature (Rifts) but otherwise cloned the game. They were not trying to fix the genre, as afaik all other common complaints remained because they did not even try and fail to fix them, rather they kept the other features as-is. Likewise, SWTOR added voiceovers and henchmen but otherwise cloned the game.

I predicted the downfall of SWTOR, remember? I also predicted that GW2 will be the WoW killer, you can quote me on that. It's a prediction because it has not yet happened.

But I am predicting a future event: That upon ANet's release of a GW2 expansion/new campaign/map pack, you will consider it to be a new game. Knowing ANet, they would pack a lot of content into it, and from your comment I have inferred that you (somewhat arbitrarily) consider map packs with lots of content to be new games. How can my theory not predict a future event when it does predict a future event? Do you mean that this future event cannot possibly have happened before? But I predict that the sun will come up tomorrow despite doing so today as well. Is this an untestable theory? Please explain.

Also, pretty sure that Trion did try to pull off something cool when it came to the Rifts. They failed of course, but that's beside the point: I asked about their philosophy, their intent when designing the rifts, not the execution.

I don't remember your prediction about SW:ToR, but I will take your word for it. It was not exactly an uncommon prediction to make. As for GW2 being the WoW killer, I think that WoW will fade out and the collapse on its own, but I hope (and believe) that GW2 will make said collapse come sooner.

[Domitilde]

No, wait, it's way too soon! Lemme play GW2 first! NYAH!

This should be the only valid response.

[Alaris]

But I am predicting a future event

Feel free to ask when they do add expansion etc. By then I'll have forgotten this conversation, so you can actually test your prediction. Good luck.

My prediction is that I'll classify individual dungeons as "map packs", and non-standalones as expansions. Adding Cantha or Elona for example could easily classify as an expansion, if there's enough content then I would indeed consider that as "full games". But stuff like the Bonus Mission Pack was not nearly enough to classify as a full game, I did not count those despite that you can buy them and they do have quite a bit of content.

But I predict that the sun will come up tomorrow despite doing so today as well. Is this an untestable theory? Please explain.

OMG ur so smrt.

I have better things to do today than babysit a toddler. Go read a book on logic.

On Rift, yes, their philosophy was not to fix the genre, but to add a cool feature. It was a cool feature. But it didn't fix the genre.

On SWTOR, I made the prediction of failure contingent on it being clonish right on page 1 of the SWTOR thread, and later said it sounded very clonish based on reviews etc well before release.

I've been predicting GW2 being the WoW killer for a long time. If not for GW2, I think WoW would continue to live on for a while longer... probably until something like GW2 comes out. People are getting really tired of WoW, but they need a viable alternative to move to, and it cannot be a clone... it has to fix the genre.

[Raww]

i prob would but i dont even wanna think about that right now, all i want is GW2 and thats all i need. i hope if they do decide to make a GW3 that they dont release it for another 8 years. i just think its a lil soon to even think about a 3rd installment D:

[cosyfiep]

if it goes back closer to the original guildwars I might play it, however, I highly doubt that I will even want to play another online game when I am in my 60's....so 90% chance of NO.

[raspberry jam]

Feel free to ask when they do add expansion etc. By then I'll have forgotten this conversation, so you can actually test your prediction. Good luck.

My prediction is that I'll classify individual dungeons as "map packs", and non-standalones as expansions. Adding Cantha or Elona for example could easily classify as an expansion, if there's enough content then I would indeed consider that as "full games". But stuff like the Bonus Mission Pack was not nearly enough to classify as a full game, I did not count those despite that you can buy them and they do have quite a bit of content.



OMG ur so smrt.

I have better things to do today than babysit a toddler. Go read a book on logic.

On Rift, yes, their philosophy was not to fix the genre, but to add a cool feature. It was a cool feature. But it didn't fix the genre.

On SWTOR, I made the prediction of failure contingent on it being clonish right on page 1 of the SWTOR thread, and later said it sounded very clonish based on reviews etc well before release.

I've been predicting GW2 being the WoW killer for a long time. If not for GW2, I think WoW would continue to live on for a while longer... probably until something like GW2 comes out. People are getting really tired of WoW, but they need a viable alternative to move to, and it cannot be a clone... it has to fix the genre.

So now my theory does predict a future event despite not predicting a future event? I think this is very paradoxical, but I predict that if I say it is, then you will say it isn't. So I don't think that it is paradoxical at all and that what you say makes sense even when you totally contradict things you said in a post previous to the one we are talking about.
I am however happy that you changed your mind and now agree on that my theory about you considering map packs to be full games is probably true and that you probably will consider map packs to be full games and not map packs.
I still need you to explain how a theory that would seem to be testable in the sense that you can test it would actually be actually untestable.
Or how this has anything to do with logic when it actually has to do with scientific method. These two, while in a way related, are separate subjects, or such is my understanding, but apparently I am incorrect. Please explain.

Ok, so anyway, what you mean is that the design philosophy of both GW1 and GW2 was "let's fix the genre"?

[Alaris]

So now my theory does predict a future event despite not predicting a future event?(...)

Ok, so anyway, what you mean is that the design philosophy of both GW1 and GW2 was "let's fix the genre"?

You and creationists have in common. They need a course in logic and scientific method. I did give such a course once, but I got paid for it. 3 hours a week of teaching. Sorry, I won't waste that much time on a troll. There are websites you can read up on.

That is part of the philosophy. See, a big difference between clone MMORPGs and GW2 is that for every major complaint from MMORPG players themselves, clone makers say "don't mess with the tried and true method" and GW2 says "we fixed it by making this or that change".

And this is a big reason why clones die, and GW2 kills WoW.