What's your first impression of Eureka?

[Fyce]

And you're deflecting. The simple thing is whether or not you consider eureka new content it's simply not what people are complaining about, no one is complaining because eureka is new content. Which you asserted in your other post.

I'm simply saying that people are arguing sementics regarding the definition of "new content". What's your point exactly?
I'm not talking about what people are complaining about or not. I'm simply showing that people are currently having a meaningless argument. That's not being "deflective". That's pointing the obvious.

I don't know what kind of assumptions you are making regarding my intentions when I made that previous post, but you are clearly not getting the right idea. Is it wrong to try showing people that they fundamentaly agree with each other, yet are arguing because of sementics? Or is it wrong because it's coming from me?
It seems that anything I'll say will be used to start a fight with me now. Even if I'm not actually arguing about anything.

[Vidu]

I'm simply saying that people are arguing sementics regarding the definition of "new content". What's your point exactly?
I'm not talking about what people are complaining about or not. I'm simply showing that people are currently having a meaningless argument. That's not being "deflective". That's pointing the obvious.

Well, I could go back and change "new content" to "new concepts and gameplay", if thats what it needs to make you happy?

English isnt my first language, so I'm sorry if on occassion I'm not able to express myself that well, but I honestly feel you're a bit nit-pcking here.

Eureka might be a new zone, but without new things to do in it - so by my definition its not really new content and certainly not new content that was worth a 17 months wait.
They could introduce a Garuda HM version thats all dyed red instead of green, but with the excat same old mechanics etc. and it would be "new content" because it just got released, but not "new content" in the sense of "something new to do".

The core of my - and apparently others - complains is that Eureka was supposed to be "new content" in the sense of: innovative, creative, something, we didnt have already in the game. Thats the content we were promised. Its not the content we got. And wether or not you call it "not creative" or "not innovative" or "not new" doesnt really change the core of the argument.

[Fyce]

Well, I could go back and change "new content" to "new concepts and gameplay", if thats what it needs to make you happy?

English isnt my first language, so I'm sorry if on occassion I'm not able to express myself that well, but I honestly feel you're a bit nit-pcking here.

Eureka might be a new zone, but without new things to do in it - so by my definition its not really new content and certainly not new content that was worth a 17 months wait.
They could introduce a Garuda HM version thats all dyed red instead of green, but with the excat same old mechanics etc. and it would be "new content" because it just got released, but not "new content" in the sense of "something new to do".

The core of my - and apparently others - complains is that Eureka was supposed to be "new content" in the sense of: innovative, creative, something, we didnt have already in the game. Thats the content we were promised. Its not the content we got. And wether or not you call it "not creative" or "not innovative" or "not new" doesnt really change the core of the argument.

That's my point. You guys are debating over the meaning of the words "new content" without it having any impact on the debate whatsoever. I don't think that anyone here would say that Eureka isn't using gameplay mechanics that we haven't seen before, except for losing EXP and the Magia board (which, again, everyone agrees to say that these two things are new in FFXIV).
So, if everyone agrees on that, there's nothing to argue about. That's simply what I'm saying.
You can call it nit-pcking if you want, but if it serves to reduce meaningless argumentation, then that's fine by me.

For example, you said that Chimera and Hydra were "new trials and had new mechanics". Well, someone might say exactly the same thing for a lot of Eureka's bosses. Someone else might argue that they were just trials like we've always seen in the game, thus not being "new", or that Chimera wasn't even a new monster, or that 8 people dodging AoEs is the same thing whatever trial you do. Whatever the case, this debate would be absolutly pointless, as it just dives into sementics.
And that's why I pointed it out. To make meaningless arguments stop being used.

tl;dr: It's pointless to jump at people because they used the words "new content", when their subjective definition of these words isn't even the same as yours.

Even shorter tl;dr: Stop doing that:


Continue if you want, I already made my point and won't go any further into this rabbit hole.

[TheAngelneer]

Even shorter tl;dr: Stop doing that:


Continue if you want, I already made my point and won't go any further into this rabbit hole.

I'll just leave this here.

[Fyce]

I'll just leave this here.

It has no connection to the real world. It's an analogy. It doesn't need any rational explanation beyond the point it's making.

It's a picture trying to show that people will disagree because of a difference in their point of view. The two characters are arguing about what they legitimately perceive from their position, leading to a pointless argument. Nobody "painted" the 9/6. There's no "driveway" or "building". These characters do not exist and do not serve any other purpose than this analogy. There is no other context to that picture. Trying to explain it outside of the meaning it was designed for is stupid, as it wasn't meant for that purpose at all.

Besides, note that I choose a picture without the text. I really wanted to express the main point shown in the picture. This was deliberate.

I can't believe I have to explain this concept to someone.

Edit: And you are upvoted for this post too. Do you guys really don't understand what is an analogy? Or has this thread just derailed to the point of just being a choir preaching itself, even if it defies common sense, just because it's fun to make me "the antagonist that people should disagree with"? You guys have no interest in having a constructive discussion. Such childish behavior is scary.

I have no clue why such a toxic thread is still open. That's the second proof in a single page that this thread is just a hater nest.

[Ruf]

Thread went from describing that eureka is nothing to you draw an image! Hard to miss the point on the picture now, there is greater than>& lesser than & that's self explanatory on my standing point of view about eureka theres plenty of feedbacks about it already & I think the balance seems pretty clear to me

[Tridus]

I have no clue why such a toxic thread is still open. That's the second proof in a single page that this thread is just a hater nest.

It's a feedback thread. People are giving feedback. If you want the "only people who like Eureka" echo chamber thread, it's over here: http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...-Eureka-thread

That most of the feedback is super negative suggests a problem with the content, rather than "OMG toxic people being mean!"

[Fyce]

It's a feedback thread. People are giving feedback. If you want the "only people who like Eureka" echo chamber thread, it's over here: http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...-Eureka-thread

That most of the feedback is super negative suggests a problem with the content, rather than "OMG toxic people being mean!"

Disrespecting people isn't feedback. You can give your opinion on something without insulting others who don't think the same way as you do.
The last page has been mostly nothing but complete lack of respect towards people who actually like Eureka.
I'm not saying giving negative feedback is toxic. Being a d*ck to others is.

[MilanFrozen]

Edit: And you are upvoted for this post too. Do you guys really don't understand what is an analogy? Or has this thread just derailed to the point of just being a choir preaching itself, even if it defies common sense, just because it's fun to make me "the antagonist

The problem is that the analogy is poorly made. The "glass is half empty" analogy would've worked better for your argument as it is truly about perception.

[Fyce]

The problem is that the analogy is poorly made. The "glass is half empty" analogy would've worked better for your argument as it is truly about perception.

Any analogy can be debunked if you try hard enough. And that's exactly why it's ridiculous to do it. As long as it gets the point across, it has served its purpose.

For example, I could argue that the analogy of the half empty glass doesn't work either because the glass is never "empty", air molecules fill the upper part, so the glass is never technically empty... And I would bet you that if I used that analogy, someone would've came to me saying exactly that.

So, again, analogies aren't meant to be over-analyzed to be debunked. They just try to convey a simple idea. That's their sole and only purpose. As long as this idea is relevant to the point, it's good enough.