Originally posted by Torgrim

Originally posted by Redcor

Originally posted by Torgrim

Heard that there is no key mapping is that true?

FALSE. you can key map

 

Thank god, I'm a lefty so default keyes in most games are very akward for me.

By keymap he may mean push Q, select favorite spells and continue playing. Its a quick select menu, you still have to pull yourself out of the game, into a UI, and select the spell or item you want. I havent seen anyone point towards normal spell keymapping yet.

Originally posted by VoIgore

Glad i didn't buy it.

No interest in supporting the development of console games with my money.

I am sure many will regret purchasing Skyrim after they see what Bethesda did to them.

For those who havent found out yet, or are going to find out the hard way... Bethesda totally UNDER DEVELOPED the rest of the game. The only polish is in the first zone "region" which they heavily marketed at events such as E3. Once you get out to the other farther reaches of the game, such as the city of Windhelm... you see nothing but textured boxes and horrible textures. In short it looks like an LOD model. Half-life 1 quality, no joke. Just look for videos and screenshots of the city.  In short its the usual rushed, half developed garbage they have been serving since Oblivion.

This video was streamed from an Aussie guy who streamed the game the moment he got it (PC). The moment everyone gets this game, go to windhelm and see what Bethesda is serving you in terms of quality. Looks like they got an intern to make it.

Originally posted by Khrymson

So I've been thinking!  If I'm planning on only using this new HDTV as a monitor, that which only takes advantage of up to 60Hz, because attempting to use 120Hz causes mouse lag and several other issues {according to tons of gaming forums, as well as many consumer reviews}.  Not to forget mentioning, I highly doubt I'd consider getting a Blu-ray player anytime soon, nor do I own any consoles or watch sports regularly {did watch the Cardinals in the World Series since they're my home team} thus I wouldn't really need 120Hz.  Although it could be useful in the future or help in pursuading me to get some other HD sources.

 

Anyway, to save myself some money like $200+ I could just get another 60Hz HDTV instead.  What do you all think, just get another 60Hz, or go all out for the 120Hz?

 

 

This is not quite accurate. These tv's double the refresh rate through built in technologies. Meaning even if the computer says 60hz, the image on the screen can still have the 120hz-240hz effect. I notice this on my sony and it does make gaming much more enjoyable.

Much of their technology involves adding an additional frame between frames, and some of the models will insert a black frame between the real ones making it seem sharper and clearer. 

Say I am playing a game like Dragon Age 2 and I switch my TV's setting to animation mode. I immediately notice super smooth animations and effects because its emulating 240hz on the tv itself, not from the computer. I can go into my tv settings and adjust this effect per preset.

You can do the same with the Samsung. It is worth it if you are going to get an HDTV, otherwise just stick with large monitors.

Originally posted by Khrymson

OK, just spent about an hr or so at Best Buy, and even though I had a horrible experience with the staff there last time, this time however, rekindled the flame that not all are stupid and know nothing.  This guy knew everything about the LG and Samsung models I was looking at, down to individual specs without looking at a cheat sheet, including full history of the companies and who pioneered what, and which technologies are shared between the two...etc etc etc

 

It was mindbogglingly informative ~ the best CS experience ever!

 

Also, this guy went so far as to go and get the controllers for both HDTVs, and let me play around with all the settings, plus fully explained each feature and gave me tips on how to get the best picture based on my personal preferences.  Then when I brought up that I'd be using it as a PC monitor primarily, holy crap he delved into PC specs, what GPU and CPU I had, knew the models and all the little details of them, and countered with his own custom build.  That was a great discussion, and not once did he display any negativitiy towards parts I used or counter with well this brand is better. {Ex. nVidia / AMD}

 

Ultimately though, like I said in my last post, it has come down to the LG and the Samsung from the OP, but I have a few concerning Pros and Cons making it difficult to choose.  Also before I forget, I've been getting antsy to make a purchase, between waiting on Black Friday or getting a new HDTV now, but I didn't want to miss out on any price drops.  I was told and even shown in writing, that any purchase made now and for the next 30-days would be subject to a price match refund not only from Best Buy should one of these HDTVs go on sale, but also from any competitor B&M and even Online deals!   Now thats incredible, because other stores I asked this of said they wouldn't even match themselves on a BF Sale.

 

Onto the Pros and Cons then:

Samsung 46" 120Hz LCD 630 Series TV ~ $849.99

• #1 Con is asthetical ~ there is a brown strip along the bottom of the panel, under the screen that just doesn't look right, and doesn't match well with the design.
• #2 Con is also asthetical ~ the glass border which sticks out about 1/2 inch from the black case around the entire screen, just looks odd!
• #3 Con ~ No picture setup wizard.
• #4 Con ~ Had a bit of a glare, but not much...still though it was there and noticable.

 

• #1 Pro ~ 250,000:1 Contrast
• #2 Pro ~ Colors were much darker and richer.  Blacks were very dark, and red was quite vibrant!
• #3 Pro ~ 4 HDMI ports, 2 USB, 1 Headphones
• #4 Pro ~ Sertup menu was great, tons of options

 

 

LG 47" 1080p 120Hz LCD TV ~ $799.00

• #1 Con ~ 150,000:1 Contrast
• #2 Con ~ Colors were a tad brighter and not as dark or vibrant.  {although I did change the settings and made it better}

 

• #1 Pro ~ Asthetically looks better, has a thick border like my current HDTV, no glass or brown strips.
• #1 Pro ~ Forget the technical term, but has a special anti-glare screen, didn't see any background of the store in the screen.
• #3 Pro ~ Has an extensive picture setup wizard.
• #4 Pro ~ The setup menu was great and easy to use.
• #5 Pro ~ 1" larger and $50 cheaper...

 

 

Both are rather equal on just about everything else, save for a few minor differences here and there.  {Not worth comparing...}  I'm sure there may be a few more major not listed above, but I'm drawing a blank page suddenly.  May have to go look at them one last time, but this is gonna be a tough one to decide on.

 

May as well add a poll to the OP, and let you all vote to better help me decide.  Its a lot of money, so I wanna be sure and make the right choice~!

Go with the Sammy. Remember the image quality is really the most important part. Samsung has much better support and they also have other accessories such as android tablets that link with their tvs. Their firmware will have more updates and if you are not liking the frame and style, which is unique, you can always take it off. There should be tutorials on the net on how to remove it.

Both are South Korean TVs, though Samsung continues to impress. LG is always a hit or a miss, usually because many of their LCD's come from different sources.

I use a 40' 2011 3d Sony led lcd as my primary pc gaming monitor and i can understand exactly what you are going for.

First its good you dont want a tv for the 3d...its horrible on tv's and pc gaming.

Second, go with the Sammy. Samsung is much better, and I actually regret getting this more expensive Sony over the Samsung, which clearly has better picture.

Third, I really wouldnt recommend anything above a 40". Not only is it over kill, but the bigger the screen, the more jaggies you start to see. Remember the pixels dont stay the same size as the tv size goes up..the pixels get bigger and you lose definition unless you sit farther away.

I might even go as far as to recommend just getting a projector as its size can always be adjusted, but otherwise get a Sammy. The other option is to get one of the newer big screen monitors... or two of them and double your resolution from it. But thats just me.

As great as PC gaming on a 40' 3dtv is... i realized the monitor just gives better performance and color. Then again I also want to do more 3D gaming, which is amazing if done right. The new nvidia 3d technology and monitors actually fixes the dark screen effect current 3d has.

Samsung is the best choice if you have to make it.

-cheers

Originally posted by Eir_S

Christmas this year?  That's a good one.  If that happened, I'd eat my hat.... my limited edition GW2 hat.

Considering it was labled as the earliest and most desirable period in which to release a game, as well as the following few months after the said holiday, I hardly see how its a "good one", of which I think you suggest is a joke which connotes a level of stupidity.

The game, which they have admitted is already in quite a polished state can release whenever the publish wants it to given the fact that online game culture is usually followed by patches and expansions. These kinds of games are never truly complete, just certain features and milestones will be present for phase 1 of the game. The localization and legal aspects are just as time consuming when figuring out a good and ideal release date, along with the usual popular release dates for AAA games.

Thing is, publishers rarely ever want to release a game when its ready, but rather during certain times in which consumers spend more...such as holidays. It is entirely possible, and more than likely that GW2 is being delayed to around Christmas for the few key months during Quarter 1 of 2012.  

Also to consider, they may hold the release off in any one country until it has been localized in other regions such as Asia, South America and Europe. Its kind of annoying but this does happen often.

Originally posted by Corehaven

But demons are a religious term.  Not just of one religion but many.   A flower by any other name is still a flower.   If you called them devils so what? 

 

Indeed, and it is also important to note that in many of the cultures which accepted the concept of "evil" or "malicious" beings (such as devils), it wasnt considered religious but just a fact of reality to them.

Just as they knew there were fish in the ocean, they knew also there were "devils" or evil spirits out there. It was a reality, not a choice of religion for them. This is important for many fantasy themed narratives as well (as opposed to science fiction).

What it comes down to is Mythology. Its a field of study, its part of every culture and human nature to the core. There are patterns that exist within Mythology regardless of what naming conventions they are given.

The casual audience has continued to be the lowest common denominator which developers and publishers alike tend to vie for, knowing full well the rest will just have to jump on board if they want any games to play at all. That said, I am not sure GW2 falls for the casual audience completely. It is afterall not consolecentric, which is a pretty big plus. 

Though there are signs of it being pretty streamlined for the largest audience, which does include PC casuals. Things like automatic breathing masks when underwater are put in to remove any management challenge associated with holding breath are a good example. It is something that would appeal to casuals whose challenge threshold is often pretty weak, but not intrusive to the point where it would really bother the hardcore either.

The caster class in the video looks like it might be the most "fun" to play with all the abilities it was using. Impressive, hopefully not over played.

Originally posted by Unlight

Originally posted by mrshroom89

Originally posted by Venomania

Originally posted by mrshroom89

yessssss huge learning curve istead of running out of the fire we roll out of the fire.  Good attempt though.  Also in that video, no one dodged any projectiles and the one time somone did the spell followed them, just like every other game, soooo im pretty sure your just making stuff up now.  

Ive played god of war and got my fair share of barrel roll tactics. tyvm 

Your post provided nothing other than proving that people are sucked up into this barrel roll hype, that and a failed attempt at a personal attack. gg 

Edited for above above poster:  Ive asked on multiple forums whats so revolutionary and all i get is barrel rolls.  But your wrong i will play this game just like i give every mmo worth visiting a couple months,  I just want everyone to get over the hype and admit, its just wow with barrel rolls. (Even though wow allready had pretty much the same thing just a class specific ability)

 

I’m more than happy for you to spout your opinions on a level my friends 5 year old is at. However I feel it is my duty to inform you, it still isn't true. You see the learning curve doesn’t come from barrel rolling out of an aoe fire attack. In fact, it comes from the very reason you gave that example. It’s because you sat here typing that example feeling just and correct that the learning curve for you is steep. You can protest this as much as you like, the Internet allows you to do so.

The majority of projectiles you can avoid, some you cannot. Let me offer up an example I’m comfortable you will understand. In wow Arcane missiles once connected will follow it’s target through obstacles until it’s duration ends. Likewise there are skills in GW2 that you will not avoid. That does not mean the ecception becomes the rule, you can simply los other spells in wow, as such the exception for arcane missles is not simply the rule of thumb

I’m also fine with you saying, barrel rolling out of an aoe isn’t original. You’re right, for you it’s not. It’s because of your way of thinking that’s the situation your mind puts you in. In mine I’ve evaded the aoe altogether, or I evaded behind obstacles and Los the foe. You see, it’s not the game at fault, it’s your ridged box method of thinking, this is the learning curve you have to overcome. It’s because you can’t overcome it now in your imagination alone, that the curve will be a might mountain you have to treck.

More personal attacks from the internet tough guy here, cool story bro.  Once again you post nothing of value.

...says the pot to the kettle.

And another istance of you not only spamming one liner junk as evidence you cannot or did not actually read the posts in question. More often than not, you are the biggest hypocrtite here.

***

That said, regarding the subject of this thread and not to you specificically: There really is nothing "apparently" new in this battle ground like game instance.  It is old and over used now a days. Just about every mmorpg with pvp impliments not only a map like this but the exact challenge mechanics. That said, on the flip side, it would be strange if they did not have it in the game since "everyone else is doing it". The objective part is that this is NOTHING new, the SUBJECTIVE part is that it could be fun or boring depending on who plays it even if its not new. 

Secondly, because this is an instanced and quite tiny pvp map, there is no excuse for that level of environment art. The meshes are not very next gen and the design underwhelming. They could have used these instanced zones to really push what the engine was capable of instead of minimalize it even more. Lets hope this gets improved by release.

Originally posted by AKASlaphappy

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

 

1. Using quotes as you have does not make an intellectual and or more valid reply.

2. Explain to me how making an observation that plants have more to them than just leaves (which include hair like extrusions as well), plus an over use of leaves to sell the design (which is obvious, its not an opinion) is some how me claiming to be an expert on race creation?

Please enlighten me as to how you have come to that conclusion from just that?

Honestly your conclusion is absolutely and utterly absurd, given that you essentially begin making things up and flavorfully creating an asnine narrative as a means of valid counter argument. Please explain to me your reasoning based off actual quotes of mine rather than your far off fictional interpretation?

I'll accept an apology if you ever choose to give one.

 

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

 

Not true, in fact if this was intelligent design then the use of leaves is not very intelligent.

 

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

In short, the lack of creativity and the iconic use of the leaf to insinuate everything nature like, results in an over use of them without any real purpose. Furthermore, there seems to be a lack of consistency in the designs of such creatures produced by the trees, much of which is clearly far from being "human". The end result is a bit of hypocrisy in design, therefore, as nice as your explaination is, it is still flawed. It is not your fault though, but those of the designers who were in charge of this particular race and local. 

 

 

Everything in red is your opinion and not fact! With that you go out of your way to say it is a fact, and any other opinion is wrong, as if you are an expert and no one else’s opinion measures up to your intelligence and design process.  You are not interesting in discussing the design or even seeing other people’s prospective on the design, you just keep stating how your opinion as fact and everyone else even the creators are wrong. Nowhere in any of this do you say this is just my opinion and I would have done the design differently! You just bluntly tell everyone how your opinion is fact and how they are all wrong and that the only intellectual position is yours.

 

Like I said I am not trying to be rude, but there is no discussion here, it is only you telling people how the design choices made are not that good and anyone with a different opinion is not intelligent enough to grasp it. This sounds like a critic to me!

Seems like you dont know how to tell the difference between opinion and fact. For example, is what you are saying right now your opinion or a fact? You are stating it like a fact even though it is just your opinion.

You also selectively leave out the following explaination which clearly is important in decerning the difference between a blanket claim and an opinion with reasoning behind it. 

An observation: Over use of leaves to sell the design. You cannot logically argue with me on this.  Every single picture of the Sylvari in game has them covered head to toe in both leaf textures and meshes. I make and have been trained in the creation of concept art and other game assets including that which is used alongside a design doc. The leaves, and there is no way to deny this, are there to sell the concept, the theme.  This was posed as a question, which you ignore.

The second line contains the word IF, meaning its a hypothetical. So again, you missed the mark entirely.

This is all clearly my opinion mixed with some concrete details, this should be clear if you did not selectively pull pieces to try and fit your narrative. 

You say I am not interested in discussing the design, but yet when have you bothered trying to discuss it with me? Your first post was a fancyful story you made up in an attempt to go after not the content but the author of the post. Not once did you even bother to try and start a dialog regarding the design or what I have actually said.

Again, nice try but no cigar. You project way too much. The more you type the more you come across as a delusional fanboy, and that is the antithesis of any intellectual discourse that would be preferable in this forum.

Furthermore, if you are offended by people giving critism for ART, especially when it is part of a PRODUCT, then you sir are in the wrong place. 

Originally posted by AKASlaphappy

 

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

 

 

Plant life has hair, bristles and other elements that would be better suited to match and serve as a functional purpose over leaves though. 

In short, the lack of creativity and the iconic use of the leaf to insinuate everything nature like, results in an over use of them without any real purpose. Furthermore, there seems to be a lack of consistency in the designs of such creatures produced by the trees, much of which is clearly far from being "human". The end result is a bit of hypocrisy in design, therefore, as nice as your explaination is, it is still flawed. It is not your fault though, but those of the designers who were in charge of this particular race and local. 

I can pretty much promise you that they sat in a meeting and said 1) what kind of people do we want to play this race 2) what would appeal to them and 3) what can we use to sell the image. In addition to the "feature creep" disease which exists within the game development field, the "re-design" is the most likely result. As a whole my opinion is that it would be better off if they toned down the walking veggie element quite a bit and sold the concept through story and interactivity more so than using a base human mesh and covering it with an over used icon. 

 

I do not mean to be rude, but when did you become the expert on race creation in all works of fantasy and science fiction? In fact the only thing I see here is an opinion being held up as fact that supposable surpasses the creators of said works! I do not ever remember anyone electing you chief race designer for the human race, where do you come off telling other people that their opinion on race design is wrong and your opinion is the only right one. Everything I have read here only points to you being a critic and not a creator, and I am sorry but no one in the long history of earth has cared what a critic said one hundred years after they are dead, while the creators become immortal!

 

 

1. Using quotes as you have does not make an intellectual and or more valid reply.

2. Explain to me how making an observation that plants have more to them than just leaves (which include hair like extrusions as well), plus an over use of leaves to sell the design (which is obvious, its not an opinion) is some how me claiming to be an expert on race creation?

Please enlighten me as to how you have come to that conclusion from just that?

Honestly your conclusion is absolutely and utterly absurd, given that you essentially begin making things up and flavorfully creating an asnine narrative as a means of valid counter argument. Please explain to me your reasoning based off actual quotes of mine rather than your far off fictional interpretation?

I'll accept an apology if you ever choose to give one.

Originally posted by Meowhead

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

If you read the entire thread and why it was created, in addition to the subject regarding the leaves, I state quite clearly that they are being used solely for the cosmetics. You may have missed that fact. My point earlier was that I disagree with the use of parts which can be identified as something else as a means to just fluff and over sell a concept. Too much is not always a good thing. If you had a half human half robot race, and its ears were hydrolic tubes and its "hair" (or whats supposed to give the impression of hair) is long bolts and springs.... then it would be no different. A hydrolic system clearly does not equate the ears, no matter how "pretty" it looks (as its often an over used image to push mechanical imagery), and random bolts only make it less believable in the long run. How they are using the leaves and the varieties they come in from one plant is on the same level. 

Furthermore, my use of the word dumb is accurate, it does not need to connote intelligence as you would have it. Stupidity is long associated with ignorance, yet if you flip it around you can state that ignorance is not necessarily stupid, which is somewhat subjective. Regardless, for you to go off on that choice of wording merely shows you have very little to argue about with my post and as a result would rather just go off on a tanget.

Please drop the attempts at belittlement because you do not like my opinion.

Your point would only hold if the Sylvari as a race were evolved, rather than a case of intelligent design.  Since they ARE intelligent design, cosmetic appearance holds on a lore level, as well as the creator level, because in both cases there is design involved.  Now, if you want to talk about the hubris of deciding that a nigh-godlike being would choose to create things like a character designer would, well... I suppose that's a workable topic.

Also, there's two generally accepted definitions to dumb.  An inability to speak, and stupidity... as in slow-witted and inability to understand (Rather than ignorance, which... you know what?  You probably own a dictionary, actually.  Go use it.  I'm not going to explain basic meanings of words to you, even if you think you know what they mean, and don't.)

Calling somebody dumb is definitely an insult, so it's a little high handed of you to pass down that judgement upon all who disagree with you.  I'm not belittling you (While you're clearly belittling everybody who disagrees with you), I'm asking for a little consistency in your use of English, and less insults.

Not true, in fact if this was intelligent design then the use of leaves is not very intelligent. It also assumes that a tree only knows about leaves. Any biomatter can take and form a shape to its liking, so using leaves for everything is utterly silly, just as much as creating genders for a genderless species.

Again you are going off on a tangent and yes as a means to belittle me. Clearly you are looking for something to rag on my post about, and its hardly on the subject at hand. I used the word dumb, I told you why, i also used the word ignorance. If you dont like those word choices, then too bad. You can disagree with it, but keep it to yourself or just let it go. Trying to tie it into a means to insult me is just pathetic on your part.

Furthermore I didnt call anyone dumb, check your reading comprehension. To insinuate I am attacking those who disagree with me when I just now started posting in this thread in any detail is silly and you know it. In fact I am not attacking anyone unless you consider detailed and open for discussion replies "attacking". I think you need to relax a little bit and take another look at these posts. You are too "up in arms" over nothing it seems, but thats just my perception. 

If you continue to put meaning and intent where none existed, and continue these "attacks" or rather attempts at superiority, then this discussion is over. It serves no purpose and will only lead to a moderated thread. 

Originally posted by baritone3k

Originally posted by Meowhead

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

Leaves have a purpose on a plant, you just dont grow them for no reason or decor. There is a saying that ignorance is bliss, which in part is true. The dumber you are, the more immersed you might get in an over the top fictional world as you wont notice as many alienating factors.

Of course the leaves have a reason.  They're there to roughly simulate human appearance.  That wasn't hard to see.  Huh.  Guess you were too busy raging to notice that.

Also, ignorance doesn't equal stupidity.  Surprised somebody who thinks they're so smart doesn't know that.

 

@Rabenwolf

Anthropomorphicism acted out by the generating tree.

That explains the humanish appearance.

 

This is NOT an evolved species - it is designed by a magic, sentient tree.

 

The creatures the tree has come into contact with oftentimes have a a certain type of clothing, hair pattern, facial proportions, etc. The tree was planted by a Human and a Centaur. Both of which have human traits.

So - the tree that is absorbing all these facts and is the one giving rise to the Sylvari takes all that into consideration and is inspired to make a beautiful synthesis of its traits and the traits of existing species with which it has already and possibly hopes to interact with in the future.

 

It makes sense - for 2 reasons -

 

1. If you are sending out a group of sentient creature to learn, live and grow in a world, why make them totally alien to that world. If you are interested in integrating, you take on the traits of the people you are infiltrating. It puts them more at ease than say making a race that is all spikes and has teeth instead of eyes. The Sylvari were created with an eye toward integration and are meant to appeal to those who did evolve in that world.

2. Like the Xians and other cults and mythologies, the fake gods they come up with are often very human in appearance. Look at the pictures of Yahweh, Zeus, Odin... The believers in these gods created their gods to look like them. Well, the tree out of an inverse version of that is making its race look like the people who planted and guided it. It is in homage.

 

 

Does that make enough sense for you?

 

The Avatar creatures evolved, like we did, so they have to make sense with the physics, chemistry, terrain, flora and fauna of their world. BUT the Sylvari are created. They get to follow whatever rules their designer wants to put in place.

Originally posted by Unlight

 

Most people don't seem to feel alienated.  Most people like what they see.  Is it that you just don't like being in the minority that forces you to constantly beat this poor dead horse, or that you're just too self-superior to accept it? 

For one, we know you are already quite the fanboy for everything GW2. You are ultimately quite biased no matter what one says.

Secondly, you make quite a broad statement there which you can only somewhat tie to the people who use this forum, which is clearly a small niche. That said, I am basing off what results in alienation from actual behavioral science and how it is applied to not only games but entertainment in general. You can either respect my opinion or continue to play out the forum warrior role as you clearly do not like my opinion to begin with (fanboy bias).

As for beating a dead horse, I barely even talk about this on the forums outside 2 or 3 posts. Seems like you love to over exaggerate for the benefit of attempted belittlement. Please stop.

If you read the entire thread and why it was created, in addition to the subject regarding the leaves, I state quite clearly that they are being used solely for the cosmetics. You may have missed that fact. My point earlier was that I disagree with the use of parts which can be identified as something else as a means to just fluff and over sell a concept. Too much is not always a good thing. If you had a half human half robot race, and its ears were hydrolic tubes and its "hair" (or whats supposed to give the impression of hair) is long bolts and springs.... then it would be no different. A hydrolic system clearly does not equate the ears, no matter how "pretty" it looks (as its often an over used image to push mechanical imagery), and random bolts only make it less believable in the long run. How they are using the leaves and the varieties they come in from one plant is on the same level. 

Furthermore, my use of the word dumb is accurate, it does not need to connote intelligence as you would have it. Stupidity is long associated with ignorance, yet if you flip it around you can state that ignorance is not necessarily stupid, which is somewhat subjective. Regardless, for you to go off on that choice of wording merely shows you have very little to argue about with my post and as a result would rather just go off on a tanget.

Please drop the attempts at belittlement because you do not like my opinion.

Originally posted by Filosorapt0r

This ain't no science fiction game, it's FANTASY mmorpg. They don't have to base everything on scientific facts, real world biology or how likely to happen some event is.

I am not sure you quite understand what you are talking about. Fantasy often classifices as the science fiction when it comes to genres. 

That said, fiction merely means the narrative is not based on any real world events. A story about a guy in New York who sells hotdogs could be considered Fiction if the person is a made up character along with the story arc. 

For immersion to take place, especially when it comes to fiction, the elements need to make some sort of sense to the viewer/reader, or else you just end up alienated. This is why backstory and detailed design are important in fiction because they need to create the impression of "it could be real", if its too far fetched from how it is presented then it loses much of what makes the immersion factor occur. 

In the movie Avatar, Neville Page had to literally create the creatures so they could realistically exist, with actual working bone structures, muscle and anatomy and all. This is what makes his creatures believable, better than others, even though they are just made up. That same attention to detail needs to apply to all fiction for it to be at its best. That is not so with this Sylvari race, which is clearly rediculous and over the top when it comes to any believability. Leaves have a purpose on a plant, you just dont grow them for no reason or decor. There is a saying that ignorance is bliss, which in part is true. The dumber you are, the more immersed you might get in an over the top fictional world as you wont notice as many alienating factors.

Furthermore, too much contrast in character and world design for any project is not a good thing. It is the antithesis of consistency. So when you have hardened grim looking races and world, suddenly intermingling with fruity exaggerated races and world, you get a contrast that leads to alienation and lack of consistency for belief. Tolkein did a good job at employing a wide range of characters and races, world and locations, while still maintaining the consistency and low contrast. 

It feels like, from my point of view that is, that the GW2 production is getting slightly out of control and probably too far away from their GDD concept. This is a not so rare effect in certain game studios, it may come back to bite them in the end. As for character designs and world designs, they seem to have a few feature creeps that are not being hushed. Google "Feature Creep" to see what I mean when it comes to GW2 and its direction.

Originally posted by megera23

Ugly males? And here I thought they were quite attractive. =) Actually, I like them more than most of the female Sylvari we were shown and I'm seriously considering making one of the two female Sylvari characters I had planned male instead. The armor isn't exactly my cup of tea, so I guess I'll just pick something available to all races. Overall reaction to the Sylvari redesign - favorable.

I think it is interesting that as a female you find the males more appealing than the female characters, image wise. 

Originally posted by Dream_Chaser

@Bhorzo

Good!

Now if people would stop being so prejudiced and viral in their desire to overwrite everything with what they see as perfection like some Nietzche-borne virus, then I'd be a much, much happier person. You have no idea. I think in abstracts, I'm like that, and I often look at the mind of the person as part of the equation and really it just amounts to people being a sort of macro-virus. Something else exists, it is there, I must overwrite it with myself. It's a very, very human thing and it defines human nature, but I personally don't think it should.

It's the same with ideas regarding the sylvari (in regards to my Sylvari thread) and the charr. I like doing what I can to help sollidify ideas rather than take away from them, but so many people love kicking the sandcastle, the sandcastle that is the idea, to dismantle it and replace it with something of their own creation, and not accept diversity in any way, shape, or form. That sort of mind depresses me, and that there are so many people out there like that tends to make me a massive pessimist.

I mean, when confronted with charr technology, so many people across so many forums tried to destroy their industrial revolution, their vehicles, the Engineer's tools, and everything else because it didn't fit their own views. I could name some small-minded individuals responsible for this but I'm not that petty, they know who they are. Instead of taking an idea as something that someone has built, and trying to fortify it with suggestions as to how it might exist, they sought only to knock it down to replace it with something of their own.

It's the same with people who view the charr as bloodthirsty monsters, it's because they want to imprint their view of humanity and the charr unto humanity and the charr, even though it doesn't necessarily fit. In fact, there are shades of grey all over humanity and the charr, they've both done terrible things. To survive the charr have committed acts of atrocity that they can never be proud of, but humans have too, it's a giant mess which the alliance seeks to rectify. But the alliance is an idea, a sandcastle to be knocked over, people don't like the idea so they try to overwrite it with something more pleasant.

And that goes as far as the asura being incredibly clever magic users, too. They use quantum magicks to make stargates and giant cubes hang in the sky! Now see, that's the stuff of wonder and I love the asura for being the asura. But no, that's not good enough, it's an idea which contradicts the conceptions and ideas that people already have. The asura must be gnomes, so it has to be technology or techno-magic, they're not smart enough to this without technology and people don't want to listen to or even suggest how the asura might be smart enough to do this without technology.

And there is so much of that.

We must shut down all the ideas, they emit a highly creative notion which drives the nerds crazy.

@_@

And that's enough bearing of my soul. But that's my motivations, if you're curious.

At the end of the day you forget the most important part of what drives the feelings towards not liking visual and gameplay choices in games and other forms of entertainment. ALIENATION. 

If the person is alienated by something, if it doesnt fit the perspective which is immersive in a believable way then that is not only their right, but it makes more sense than "all is grey" rhetoric.

Imagine a game where, all the large buff hairy warrior men all had the voices of little girls and spoke like Twighlight Tweens, and where all the lithe sexual female charcters had burly man voices and belched all the time.

This is an extreme example of what can cause alienation, even if its in an utterly fictional world. Humans, by their own nature, identify and react. Its one of the core elements of game design from a challenge mechanics standpoint, it is also critical in visual presentation. To disgregard much of that just for the say of saying "anythings possible in fantasy" doesnt quite fly as a valid critism of those being alienated by the fact.

Originally posted by Bhorzo

Illogical? Fashion acessories?

Why do human beings have hair on their heads?

Think about that for a minute.

Really? You didnt even think it through before responding did you?

Hair does have a purpose, as do leaves...to replace hair with leaves goes against the purpose. Think about it. The primary function for leaves is to gather sunlight for photosynthisis. Naturally they reach for a light source. To replace leaves and their function with hair, muscle tissue and shape, as well as handbags and other growth objects for mere "fashion" results an opposition to their purpose. Did you know plants have hair like growths as well? Ever look at a stem recently? It serves as a protection mechaism from other orgamisms. The point being, leaves would not logically grow to replace hair and be done in such a way thats more of a fashion statement (with all its varieties from one single plant), no more than one half of a hydrolics pump would be used as ears for another race. 

Since some plants do have hair like growths, it would make more sense to allow that over a clearly cosmetic use of leaves as a hair, muscle, boob, and any other body part replacement. They are tools with a purpose, not fashion accesories on plantlife. 

It is for this reason your counter argument doesnt really work.

At its core, for many it seems to alienate rather than immerse and its purpose is purely cosmetic, overly so, without regard to what purpose the object we identify with serves. So yes its safe to say its illogical and used as a fashion accessory, a means for image saturation, not function. Some may be ok with this, personally I find it sloppy and dumb. You can like it, but dont say its not illogical.