Quote Originally Posted by Fyce View 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.
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.