My EVE

Thank you for not understanding what i have said.

I'll try again:
Consequences of actions are unrelated to actors perception of good/bad.

Crack is perceived perfect by crack addicts, while it's perceived as **** for everybody else.
Sarin is perceived as perfect for killing people in a specific way by those seeking the killings,
while it's **** for those who get killed by it.

The perception of good/bad comes from individualism and has nothing to do with facts.

Fact:
Sarin kills people.

You may perceive killing people as bad, but others might not.
Additional edit: Many equal opinions don't magically become facts.

It's wondering me that you believe opinion is fact, because that's what you're trying to communicate.

…and I'm not talking about the perception.

No, that's what you're saying: that WoW is good just because people perceive it as good. The fact of the matter is that it's only good at delivering something that's bad for you… just like crack and sarin gas.

What is that?

WoW isn't bad for you.

Being a stupid **** with no ambition to make anything of your life beyond playing a video game 18 hours a day is bad for you.

Simple difference is that if I give crack to someone who isn't an useless loser it'll still **** them up. If I give WoW to someone who isn't an useless loser they'll either remove it right away or play in a way that doesn't interfere with the rest of their lives.

Yes, and that observer in this case is you. If it seems to you to be good for some set of people, then you are indeed saying that it is good.

Yes. In fact, being bad is its whole purpose of existing. If it was just a matter of killing people, there are far better ways of doing it — sarin just ensures that they die in horrible horrible ways.

Oh, and with its skinner-box:y design, archaic mechanics, simplistic story and narrative, and its outmoded tech, WoW is objectively a pretty bad game. It's the Monopoly of MMOs.

Really love the way you use capitalization to emphasize your content.

Sequels are always disappointing.

Christ, why do you people want to discuss WoW so badly? You're being obsessive and it freaks me out.

Anyway, I was at the threadmi... I mean work, seriously contemplating just sticking a gun in my mouth and pulling the trigger.
This video saved me. Thank you, Ivy!

Are people really arguing about wether WoW is good?

Seriously...?

Nobody really cares and arguing about it makes you look a little dumb... just saying.

People who try to tell other people what to think don't really know what to think, if they did they would be content in thinking that, and simply let others alone, arguing about something suggests your open to another persons perspective, but it doesnt look like anyone is. so it's very much an excersize in futility.

Ah.

Skinner-boxing is bad because it's the lowest form of “entertainment” — it's just a matter of tickling the reptilian part of the brain that gets triggered when you push a button and receive bacon. Tricking an autonomous system is a pretty sad substitute for providing genuine cerebral (or emotional) stimulation.

The mechanics are archaic because they go back to the outmoded class/level/XP design of '70s D&D and the wargames (and Chainmail) that preceded it. In the near half-century that has passed since then, far superior systems of character design and advancement have been created. It's easy (read: lazy) to design for, but that's about it. It generally offers no depth and little in the way of player choice and interaction, and this kind of progression also severely trips up the social aspect that could be seen as the main redeeming feature of the whole thing.

The story and narrative are simplistic because it's just a succession of “bad guy over there, go nuke” with a smattering of “collect 20 bear-asses” thrown in for variation. Granted, this isn't all that surprising since it's not the focus of the game (or, indeed, any game in the genre because the genre isn't well-suited for it), but it's more of a fall-through complaint: if it had nothing else, at least a good narrative would save it… but no luck there.

…and of course, the tech is old at this point, in terms of visuals and sound and world and server limitations and all of that. Age could be an excuse if other games hadn't proved that it's something that can be improved over time.

Monopoly is a bad game because of many of the same reasons: it's a roll-to-move, next-to-zero-choice, uncontrollably random game with ridiculously cheap components (lol paper money) — the best strategy of the game is to try to lock yourself out of the game to avoid all the randomness, but unfortunately, this strategy is subject to random chance as well. Compare this to a modern game like, say, Space Alert or BSG or Twilight Imperium. Hell, even silly-random games like Talisman and Arkham Horror have managed to introduce a modicum of player choice into the mix and manage to avoid the whole “to win, don't play” aspect of many older games.