More quests!! ))

I like the sound of this new expansion I may just download a digital version and give EQ another go. Not really playing anything at the moment and it would be nice to have something to pass the time during the winter months. SOE certainly doesn't waste time with getting their expansions out though.

-Manaia

It's been a year since the last expansion, I'd hardly call that rushed or anything, unless you're used to Blizzard's "once every three years is good, right?" release schedule.

I guess most of you are satisfied with one expansion that raises level caps every 2 years so you are bored out of your skull with the game by the time the levle caps come around. The last 2 expansions that did not raise level caps were great...for about 3 months...So after 3 months you were relagated to playing alts or playing another game. It would be great if SOE could keep it's word and release a new expansion about once evey 4 months....

Originally posted by ohreally

It would be great if SOE could keep it's word and release a new expansion about once evey 4 months....

show me where it has ever said that

Originally posted by Dulissa

Originally posted by ohreally

It would be great if SOE could keep it's word and release a new expansion about once evey 4 months....

 

 

show me where it has ever said that

Or better yet. Give me a Developer that can push out an expansion of the magnitude of RoK or TSO in just 4 months!

Everyone with more then 1 braincell in their head knows that's downright impossible!

Cheers

The original plan as I recall from the forums was to have several adventure packs a year, which were like mini-expansions, followed by 1-2 expansions a year. 

They did indeed follow that pattern...there were adventure packs in Q1 and Q2 of 2005 followed by an expansion in Q3 of 2005.  There was another  expansion in Q1 of 2006 followed by a third adventure pack in Q2 of 2006.  So during the first two years of the game there were two full expansions and three adventure packs.

Then EOF fell into the present pattern of an annual expansion in November, and there has been no adventure pack since the Fallen Dynasty in 6/06.

So in terms of the lifespan of the game, it was:

• Year 1    2 Adventure Packs and 1 expansion
• Year 2    1 Adventure Pack and 2 expansions
• Year 3    1 Expansion
• Year 4    1 Expansion

Originally posted by Martie

Yep soe keep pushing out all these peice of crap expansions to eq2, because the game was a total failure at launch and for 2+ years, only now after 100 usless expansions and millions of dollars is it even an average game.

Do you have any rational argument about what you call "crap expansions" beside the invalid point "x game sold more copies'?

I would like to read the details that make you think EQ2 expansions are crap and if you really experienced them.

People that actually play EQ2 had a lot of good moments from DOF to this new expansion, can you explain why they are useless? If you dont play EQ2, it is pretty obvious they are useless to you, but in that case, your opinion without any rational argument is totally useless aswell.

Shadow Odyssey in my point of view if much more impressive than ROK, it is good to see such a good MMO as EQ2 going into the right direction.

...

Originally posted by Martie

Yep soe keep pushing out all these peice of crap expansions to eq2, because the game was a total failure at launch and for 2+ years, only now after 100 usless expansions and millions of dollars is it even an average game.  Its funny how people keep thinking because soe push out these piece of crap exansions  just to keep up, that they are somehow good and that the speed which they come out means they are good. Jesus 4 of the 4 expansions were made just to counter wow, as they were expcting eq2 to continue the sucess of eq.   

Wow, your problem is simple.  In your head, SOE = crap.  Sure, they made a lot of mistakes as a big company; but that does not make their individual efforts crap.  EA is the same monster.  A lot of people do an EA = Horrible Game and its not true.  Sure, if you had to judge a game without playing it based solely off the parent developer, then yeah, more times than not you would be right.  But you don't!

EQ2 has always been a good game; ever since beta.  It had its ups and downs, but dude, to say it was a total failure is crap.  It makes money, it has a stable player base.  I have had a lot of fun with EQ2, most recently for RoK.  As a group oriented PvE game, it is tough to beat.  Only LotRO comes to mind.

I would love to see them redo the graphics engine.  If they did that, I would probably return and try it out.  Until then, I'm content in WAR.  Either way, the expansion looks great, and I hope they keep moving EQ2 in the right direction.

Originally posted by ohreally

I guess most of you are satisfied with one expansion that raises level caps every 2 years so you are bored out of your skull with the game by the time the levle caps come around. The last 2 expansions that did not raise level caps were great...for about 3 months...So after 3 months you were relagated to playing alts or playing another game. It would be great if SOE could keep it's word and release a new expansion about once evey 4 months....

An expansion that provides entertainment for about 3 months? That sounds pretty amazing to me actually......considering I never play any mmo for longer than a few months before the boredom causes me to go and play something else.....pretty much like any single player game actually. How do people play these brain dead games for years anyway?

SOE said when they released EoF that future expansions would be on one year cycles and adventure packs would just be free content.  They did this because their old schedule meant they released small expansion filled with lackluster content.

As an old EQ player and someone who played shortly after retail and also played at EoF and RoK launches... they were right.

Unfortunately TSO though great from a content point of view is terrible from an appeal point of view.  I left EQ2 because no other classes interested me, I was out of casual content on my mains and raids in EQ2 are just plain painful to play through.  TSO in announced and I think great... finally scalable dungeons ala CoX... not so much.  Get an outdoor zone to grind AA and loads of dungeons that require ideal group makeups to enjoy.

Meanwhile WoW, which I cannot bring myself to play anymore, release another everything for everyone expansion that breaks down even more barriers in people getting to the content.  Giving AoC a little more growth time, bored in WAR, guess its back to LotRO and Champions Online beta :)

Can anyone tell me where the lvl 50 content is? I haven't found any as yet for my lvl 58 Berserker.

Originally posted by Umbral

Originally posted by Martie

Yep soe keep pushing out all these peice of crap expansions to eq2, because the game was a total failure at launch and for 2+ years, only now after 100 usless expansions and millions of dollars is it even an average game.

Do you have any rational argument about what you call "crap expansions" beside the invalid point "x game sold more copies'?

I would like to read the details that make you think EQ2 expansions are crap and if you really experienced them.

People that actually play EQ2 had a lot of good moments from DOF to this new expansion, can you explain why they are useless? If you dont play EQ2, it is pretty obvious they are useless to you, but in that case, your opinion without any rational argument is totally useless aswell.

Shadow Odyssey in my point of view if much more impressive than ROK, it is good to see such a good MMO as EQ2 going into the right direction.

...

Actually the point of "x sells more copies then Y" is very much valid. I mean, what other objective way to define which product is better? Certainly not by asking someone like you who likes EQ2 or someone who hates it - their opinions would be biased. SO, the only objective way to define how good of a product is - how many people actualy play it. So, if 10 people play a game, I guess the game is crap. If new expansion does not bring in hordes of new and/or old players, well, then I guess it is mediocre at best, crap at the worst. Im sorry I had to break your bubble there buddy.

While you and other people may enjoy EQ2 and may or may not consider it to be the messiah of the MMORPG genre, to the rest of the world it is just a mediocre product. Thinking that a few thousand of people's opinion outweight a million more is just irrational. Thought id point that flaw in your logic there.

Originally posted by jimmyman99

 

Actually the point of "x sells more copies then Y" is very much valid. I mean, what other objective way to define which product is better? Certainly not by asking someone like you who likes EQ2 or someone who hates it - their opinions would be biased. SO, the only objective way to define how good of a product is - how many people actualy play it. So, if 10 people play a game, I guess the game is crap. If new expansion does not bring in hordes of new and/or old players, well, then I guess it is mediocre at best, crap at the worst. Im sorry I had to break your bubble there buddy.

While you and other people may enjoy EQ2 and may or may not consider it to be the messiah of the MMORPG genre, to the rest of the world it is just a mediocre product. Thinking that a few thousand of people's opinion outweight a million more is just irrational. Thought id point that flaw in your logic there.

No Jimmyman, it is not valid, especially among games.

I will show you why using some examples:

Shadow of Colossus-fantastic game.

Disciples serie- fantastic rpg/strategy serie.

Riddick - pretty good FPS.

Silent Hill serie, deeper, more complex and very impressive horror serie but Resivent Evil is much more popular even with the fact that it is a cheesy horror serie if you compare to Silent Hill.

Legacy of Kain series.

See, examples of fantastic games but less sucessful than The Sims, Fifa and Brain Age...

Same happens with quality MMOs like Everquest2, Eve, Guild Wars, they are less popular than Runescape, Ragnarok and Tibia.

Outside games, in musical and cinematography industry the logic of "numbers are not equal to quality/expressiveness is even stronger.

If you belive that only the popular and common opinion of the masses is valid, it would be good for you if you reevaluate your ideas, the sheep behavior will always limit you.

The only thing mediocre and unoriginal here are the values you expressed, and Im sorry to say, you didnt burst any bubble.

By your incredible logic, soap operas and self help books are better than Victor Hugo´s and Nietzsche´s works.

By your logic, you should only watch mainstream silly action movies, read the bible and self help books, play only wow, gta and the sims etc... sad, dont you think? I will not even say anything about music, sexual behavior, clothes etc.

...

Originally posted by Umbral

No Jimmyman, it is not valid, especially among games.

I will show you why using some examples:

Shadow of Colossus-fantastic game.

Disciples serie- fantastic rpg/strategy serie.

Riddick - pretty good FPS.

Silent Hill serie, deeper, more complex and very impressive horror serie but Resivent Evil is much more popular even with the fact that it is a cheesy horror serie if you compare to Silent Hill.

Legacy of Kain series.

See, examples of fantastic games but less sucessful than The Sims, Fifa and Brain Age...

Same happens with quality MMOs like Everquest2, Eve, Guild Wars, they are less popular than Runescape, Ragnarok and Tibia.

Outside games, in musical and cinematography industry the logic of "numbers are not equal to quality/expressiveness is even stronger.

If you belive that only the popular and common opinion of the masses is valid, it would be good for you if you reevaluate your ideas, the sheep behavior will always limit you.

The only thing mediocre and unoriginal here are the values you expressed, and Im sorry to say, you didnt burst any bubble.

By your incredible logic, soap operas and self help books are better than Victor Hugo´s and Nietzsche´s works.

By your logic, you should only watch mainstream silly action movies, read the bible and self help books, play only wow, gta and the sims etc... sad, dont you think? I will not even say anything about music, sexual behavior, clothes etc.

 

...

 

I don't know most of the games you listed. In any case, the only objective definition of which product is better is going by numbers. Anything you say about you liking the product is subjective and does not count. It doesn't matter how much you like EQ2 or anything else, if everybody else hates it then it sucks. Plain and simple.

If you think that your opinion is better then  "the masses" then, well, you have a narcissism complex. Everyone here has the same rights you have.

And yes, soap operas are better books then Hugo or Nietzsche. Better philosophical book? No. But better books in general. And no, I do not watch ONLY mainstream movies or listen to mainstream songs. I listen to what I like, not what everyone else likes. However, I do not have the audacity to claim that songs I listen or movies I like are the best in the world if only I and maybe a few others enjoy them.

That's the whole point of my original post. X sells more then Y. Which makes X a better product. I may hate X, or may love it. I don't care. Its not about what I like, its about which product is better. Same with EQ2, I don't hate it, I don't love it. I kinda like it. But my liking it does not make it best in the world. It takes 50% of world population plus 1 to say definitely and without a doubt that that specific product is the best in the world. Its all about statistics, and not about opinions - yours or mine.

Originally posted by jimmyman99

I don't know most of the games you listed. In any case, the only objective definition of which product is better is going by numbers. Anything you say about you liking the product is subjective and does not count. It doesn't matter how much you like EQ2 or anything else, if everybody else hates it then it sucks. Plain and simple.

No, rational observations of a game are more important than numbers, soon I will tell you why.

If you think that your opinion is better then  "the masses" then, well, you have a narcissism complex. Everyone here has the same rights you have.

Opinions are just opinions, Im talking about rational arguments related to them, the term "better" was introduced by you in this subject.

And yes, soap operas are better books then Hugo or Nietzsche. Better philosophical book? No. But better books in general. And no, I do not watch ONLY mainstream movies or listen to mainstream songs. I listen to what I like, not what everyone else likes. However, I do not have the audacity to claim that songs I listen or movies I like are the best in the world if only I and maybe a few others enjoy them.

I see, you belive soap operas are "better" books than Victor Hugo´s books because they are better in "a general sense" in your "follow the numbers" sense, see, it is obvious we came from different places, but I think you are very confuse, there is a huge gap between what is "better" and what is marketed and acessible to the masses...

Again "best in the world" was introduced by you, my initial claim was asking why EQ2 expansions are useless (as they are not as you can see, they are good mmo expansions), I didnt say EQ2 is the best game in the world.

But you have the audacity to claim, what is more popular is better, what is indeed mediocre.

That's the whole point of my original post. X sells more then Y. Which makes X a better product. I may hate X, or may love it. I don't care. Its not about what I like, its about which product is better. Same with EQ2, I don't hate it, I don't love it. I kinda like it. But my liking it does not make it best in the world. It takes 50% of world population plus 1 to say definitely and without a doubt that that specific product is the best in the world. Its all about statistics, and not about opinions - yours or mine.

Your whole point is totally wrong, when we compare why x  game sells more than y , aspects as marketing, acessibility, brand have more weight than pure "quality" and the personal experience.

Your argument is a flawed statistic.

I really dont understand why you are so attached to the "best in the world" aspect, see, "follow the masses", "best in the world", "I will consume what everyone consume", "I need to fit in" are pure examples of mediocrity.

When someone say, "Everquest 2 is a great MMO", "EQ2 expansions are huge and impressive", this expansion sounds good and it is a pretty good add for who PLAY EQ2, you dont need to be offended and start to think someone is trying to make YOU belive EQ2 is the best game in the world, so I really dont understand why insist in your flawed "numbers" argument".

You have a techinical argument why EQ2 and its expansions are not good? Go ahead, but as I said, pure numbers are not accurate.

You want to fit in? Go ahead.

But the fact that there are good games like Everquest 2, Silent Hill, Shadow of the Colossus, Eve, Disciples, there are writes like Victor Hugo and Nietzsche (the funny thing is, these writers are very popular, just not "masses" material) and there are movie makers like David Cronenberg and Andrei Zvyagintsev are a relief for everyone that doesnt belong to the masses.

edit do add:

The funny thing is , we are talking about games and not some kind of elitist or underground culture, but marketing is an important role and Im pretty sure you dont know that in South America and a lot of Asian places there is not marketing related to EQ2 right?

I cant say the same about WoW and L2, see, you cant use numbers and popularity to make a rational comparison when the gap between marketing, acessibility and brand are so huge.

Your "what is popular is good" theory may be popular around you live, but it is nothing more than an illusion, "fit in" is not what everyone desire and is not related to personal exprience, depth or "quality".

Everquest 2 has, good community, good graphics (not talking about artstyle as it can be relative), good performance today, huge world, a lot of raids, dungeons, quests and a long term gaming experience, so, we can say, it is a good MMO, probably one of the most expanded MMOs of all times... see, not relate to taste or opinion, just a rational statement, EQ2 is one of the good mmos in the market, it doesnt matter if you like it or not.

...

 

Originally posted by jimmyman99

Originally posted by Umbral

Originally posted by Martie

Yep soe keep pushing out all these peice of crap expansions to eq2, because the game was a total failure at launch and for 2+ years, only now after 100 usless expansions and millions of dollars is it even an average game.

Do you have any rational argument about what you call "crap expansions" beside the invalid point "x game sold more copies'?

I would like to read the details that make you think EQ2 expansions are crap and if you really experienced them.

People that actually play EQ2 had a lot of good moments from DOF to this new expansion, can you explain why they are useless? If you dont play EQ2, it is pretty obvious they are useless to you, but in that case, your opinion without any rational argument is totally useless aswell.

Shadow Odyssey in my point of view if much more impressive than ROK, it is good to see such a good MMO as EQ2 going into the right direction.

...

 

Actually the point of "x sells more copies then Y" is very much valid. I mean, what other objective way to define which product is better? Certainly not by asking someone like you who likes EQ2 or someone who hates it - their opinions would be biased. SO, the only objective way to define how good of a product is - how many people actualy play it. So, if 10 people play a game, I guess the game is crap. If new expansion does not bring in hordes of new and/or old players, well, then I guess it is mediocre at best, crap at the worst. Im sorry I had to break your bubble there buddy.

While you and other people may enjoy EQ2 and may or may not consider it to be the messiah of the MMORPG genre, to the rest of the world it is just a mediocre product. Thinking that a few thousand of people's opinion outweight a million more is just irrational. Thought id point that flaw in your logic there.

No, your wrong.

The X sells more then Y, so X is better argument is the utterly worst way to measure success.

It is not a good way to judge what games you play, what music you listen to, or what movies you watch. Populariity has rarely been a good indicator of quality.

Objective measures of success according to others? nah.. don't need 'em tbh.

I wil stick with looking for what connects to ME, appeals to ME, inspires ME.

You, in the meantime, can be measuring a games 'success' by units sold, while watching High School Musical 3, listening to Britney, and playing WoW.

Originally posted by jimmyman99

Actually the point of "x sells more copies then Y" is very much valid. I mean, what other objective way to define which product is better? Certainly not by asking someone like you who likes EQ2 or someone who hates it - their opinions would be biased. SO, the only objective way to define how good of a product is - how many people actualy play it. So, if 10 people play a game, I guess the game is crap. If new expansion does not bring in hordes of new and/or old players, well, then I guess it is mediocre at best, crap at the worst. Im sorry I had to break your bubble there buddy.

While you and other people may enjoy EQ2 and may or may not consider it to be the messiah of the MMORPG genre, to the rest of the world it is just a mediocre product. Thinking that a few thousand of people's opinion outweight a million more is just irrational. Thought id point that flaw in your logic there.

That would also say that the music on the charts are better than the one that is not. It. And Mozart and Shakespear wasn't that popular while they were alive either.

Good is a very tough term, believing good is only based on comercial succes is ignorant. Also you should coun't in that many other MMOs actually are stealing the ideas from EQ2, it do have many good ideas that have later shown up in other MMOs (like Wow).

UO never sold that many copies but it have still affected the genre a lot. And if you wan't to look how good something is you really need some kind of formula. Just saying that Coke is better than Dr Pepper just because it sells more is not right, there are other things that matter, like commercials, for how much a something sells.

I sure ain't saying that EQ2 is better than Wow but saying that something is better than something else just because more people buy it is stupid, Cow meat ain't better than moose meat.

Originally posted by Loke666

That would also say that the music on the charts are better than the one that is not. It. And Mozart and Shakespear wasn't that popular while they were alive either.

yes, Mozart and shakespear wasnt popular at a time when they were alive. The term "best" is not a constant, it keeps changing. Today, I consider Mozart to be the best. TOmmorow, Bethoven.

Good is a very tough term, believing good is only based on comercial succes is ignorant. Also you should coun't in that many other MMOs actually are stealing the ideas from EQ2, it do have many good ideas that have later shown up in other MMOs (like Wow).

Im not trying to debate who steals from who. Im trying to prove a point and definte the term "best".

UO never sold that many copies but it have still affected the genre a lot. And if you wan't to look how good something is you really need some kind of formula. Just saying that Coke is better than Dr Pepper just because it sells more is not right, there are other things that matter, like commercials, for how much a something sells.

Yes, being best depends on many factors. Just being "high quality" or "affordable" or "healthY" is not enough to be the best. Its a combination of many factors.

I sure ain't saying that EQ2 is better than Wow but saying that something is better than something else just because more people buy it is stupid, Cow meat ain't better than moose meat.

Its hard to compare cow meat and moose meat because no1 does anything with moose meat (as far as I know). But, if you were to compare cow meat and shark meat, then, you COULD say that cow meat is best because:
- cow meat is cheaper
- cow meat is more accessible
- cow meat is marketed better
- shark meat is more healthy (i think, not 100% sure)

....

As you see, if you keep trying to compare these two, eventually, u will have COW is better then shark in X number of cases and SHARK is better then cow in Y number of cases. Then, you just compare X and Y and you have the winner. This is the ONLY objective way to tell which product is the best. The only way that I can think of. If you know ANY other objective way to compare products ( please, NO opinions, NO thoughts, NO preferences, just pure mathematical numbers) then by all means do tell me. This is ALL im trying to define here, the ambiguous term of being the "best".
 

Originally posted by vesavius

No, your wrong.

The X sells more then Y, so X is better argument is the utterly worst way to measure success.

realy? I hear all those "no you are wrong" and such. But none of you gives me an OBJECTIVE way to identify the "best" product.

It is not a good way to judge what games you play, what music you listen to, or what movies you watch. Populariity has rarely been a good indicator of quality.

First of all, im NOT judging anyone. In my original post (please re-read it) I was trying to support the person's opinion who said "X sells more then Y that means X is better". And you mentioned quality. Being best is NOT just about quality. Its a combination of many factors. Luxury cars have good quality. Are they the BEST cars? No. Quality is just one factor of being the best. If i were to say specifically "best quality" then yeah, you judge a product by the quality of it. Even then, the term quality is fairly ambigous and heavily subjective. You can't really put a number on quality.

Objective measures of success according to others? nah.. don't need 'em tbh.

I dont nderstand this sentence.

I wil stick with looking for what connects to ME, appeals to ME, inspires ME.

Yes. I do that too. Everyone should do that too. I listen to MY music. I watch MY movies and i play MY games. I would NEVER claim that things I watch/listen/play are the BEST because I play them. That would be subjective. I like pineaples. But, if you were to show me a reliable statistic showing that more people eat bananas then pineapples, then I could say with certainty that a banana is a better fruit then pineapple.

You, in the meantime, can be measuring a games 'success' by units sold, while watching High School Musical 3, listening to Britney, and playing WoW.

Why are you implying that I listen to mainstream music? Why do you insist on putting subjective meaning to an objective idea? Just because I say "BEST" does not mean I consider it the best. The whole idea of being "best" is not what I think of it. Im only one human. I can say "in MY opinion this is the best game ever" but not "this is the best game ever". The first is subjective. The second is objective.

Originally posted by Umbral

You can't apply rational observation because every person has one. You do not have the right to value your rational observation over someone else's.

Opinions are just opinions, Im talking about rational arguments related to them, the term "better" was introduced by you in this subject.

Rational argument is an opinion because each and every single individual has his/hers own reasoning. Some people are more reasonable and some are less. That's why you get probation in America for stealing a car and you get your hand chopped off in Saudi Arabia

I see, you belive soap operas are "better" books than Victor Hugo´s books because they are better in "a general sense" in your "follow the numbers" sense, see, it is obvious we came from different places, but I think you are very confuse, there is a huge gap between what is "better" and what is marketed and acessible to the masses...

Being marketed and accessible are two sides of being the best. Being "best" includes but not limited to "best in quality", "best in price", "best in accessibility", "best in health", "best in safety" and many many other factors. You CANT say Hugo is best just because his books have great philosophical value. You can't say bananas are best just because they are sweet and soft. You can't say (insert company name here)  is the best just because their cars are safest.

Again "best in the world" was introduced by you, my initial claim was asking why EQ2 expansions are useless (as they are not as you can see, they are good mmo expansions), I didnt say EQ2 is the best game in the world.

But you have the audacity to claim, what is more popular is better, what is indeed mediocre.

My initial post was a reply to your post. I quote: 
"Do you have any rational argument about what you call "crap expansions" beside the invalid point "x game sold more copies'?

I would like to read the details that make you think EQ2 expansions are crap and if you really experienced them.

People that actually play EQ2 had a lot of good moments from DOF to this new expansion, can you explain why they are useless? If you dont play EQ2, it is pretty obvious they are useless to you, but in that case, your opinion without any rational argument is totally useless aswell.

Shadow Odyssey in my point of view if much more impressive than ROK, it is good to see such a good MMO as EQ2 going into the right direction."

I marked the specific part where I disagree with you in red.

Your whole point is totally wrong, when we compare why x  game sells more than y , aspects as marketing, acessibility, brand have more weight than pure "quality" and the personal experience.

Thats the ONLY way currently available to objectively judge a product. If there was a way to gather an opinion of every single individual in the world, AND to be certain that that opinion is 100% truthful, only then could we move away from the cold statistics and overgeneralization. But you can't get an accurate reading on people, you can't get everyones opinion. So how can you objectively define which product is best?

Your argument is a flawed statistic.

I really dont understand why you are so attached to the "best in the world" aspect, see, "follow the masses", "best in the world", "I will consume what everyone consume", "I need to fit in" are pure examples of mediocrity.

Why are you implying that I will need to fit in or that I eat what everyoone else eats? The whole point of my argument is objective definition of "best".  It has absolutely nothing to do with my post.

When someone say, "Everquest 2 is a great MMO", "EQ2 expansions are huge and impressive", this expansion sounds good and it is a pretty good add for who PLAY EQ2, you dont need to be offended and start to think someone is trying to make YOU belive EQ2 is the best game in the world, so I really dont understand why insist in your flawed "numbers" argument".

Becuse my "flawed" argument is the only objective way to measure something up. No opinions, no moods, no randomness, just cold numbers. Again, im not saying that EQ2 is bad or crap or that you should stop playing it. That woldn't be objective. I think BEST example would be this: why does the law usualy forbid relatives testifying against each other? Why wouldn't you be allowed to be a jury when your relative is the defendant? Becuase your judgement wouldn't be fair. It wouldn't be objective. That is all I wanted to prove.

You have a techinical argument why EQ2 and its expansions are not good? Go ahead, but as I said, pure numbers are not accurate.

Never said they aren't good. EQ2 is a decent game. Not best, but decent.

You want to fit in? Go ahead.

Fit in where? Im trying to be objective. If you were to ask me my PERSONAL opinion about ANYTHING, it would most likely differ from the one when I try to be objective.

But the fact that there are good games like Everquest 2, Silent Hill, Shadow of the Colossus, Eve, Disciples, there are writes like Victor Hugo and Nietzsche (the funny thing is, these writers are very popular, just not "masses" material) and there are movie makers like David Cronenberg and Andrei Zvyagintsev are a relief for everyone that doesnt belong to the masses.

You contradict yourself here. If they aren't "masses" material, then they are NOT popular. See again you are separating yourself from the masses. Last time I checked, the whole human race is one big "mass". Unless you are a separate species and not part of us, "masses".

edit do add:

The funny thing is , we are talking about games and not some kind of elitist or underground culture, but marketing is an important role and Im pretty sure you dont know that in South America and a lot of Asian places there is not marketing related to EQ2 right?

I cant say the same about WoW and L2, see, you cant use numbers and popularity to make a rational comparison when the gap between marketing, acessibility and brand are so huge.

What other way to objectively compare 2 products? Asking people? I wanna see how you can ask for 100% accurate opinion of 100% earth's population. We must go by the numbers if we were to filter out "opinions".

Your "what is popular is good" theory may be popular around you live, but it is nothing more than an illusion, "fit in" is not what everyone desire and is not related to personal exprience, depth or "quality".

Am I trying to fit in or are you trying to stand out?  Oh my god, im NOT listening to mainstream music, Im not watching mainstream movies, im not using a PC... im not a lamb! You are trying to stand out so hard you are separating yourself from the world and you value your one ego more then everybody else. If there were only 10 people in the world and you were one of them, youd go against them just becuase your very own opinion is only one of ten, and if things go not the way you wanted youd be mad at them for making you do things everyone else wants.

Everquest 2 has, good community, good graphics (not talking about artstyle as it can be relative), good performance today, huge world, a lot of raids, dungeons, quests and a long term gaming experience, so, we can say, it is a good MMO, probably one of the most expanded MMOs of all times... see, not relate to taste or opinion, just a rational statement, EQ2 is one of the good mmos in the market, it doesnt matter if you like it or not.

I agree. EQ2 is a decent game. And, please pay attention to what im gonna say now, I NEVER SAID ITS NOT THE BEST BECUASE I DO OR DO NOT LIKE IT. The whole point of being objective is not what "I" like or dislike, but what everyone else does. Do you know how to take an average ? You add up ALL the numbers and divide by the amount (i was gonna say a "number of numbers", but didn't want to confuse you anymore) of those numbers. And thats your average. You can't claim a number is an average because you THINK it is an average.

 

...

 

No, rational observations of a game are more important than numbers, soon I will tell you why.

I already answered about "rational observation" above.
 

Originally posted by jimmyman99

Originally posted by vesavius

No, your wrong.

The X sells more then Y, so X is better argument is the utterly worst way to measure success.

realy? I hear all those "no you are wrong" and such. But none of you gives me an OBJECTIVE way to identify the "best" product.

 

Here is why your pseudo statistic point of view is wrong.

You cant formulate an statistic with such simplistic values, you need to put marketing and acessibility and more variations to the equation.

Just to be clear, you are the one using the "best x" term.

Just an idiotic example, a movie company use 3.000.000 bananas ( a large part of bananas were used to pay for marketing and publicity) to produce movie X, this movie is very "popular" and sell 10.000.000 copies, then the same company made a small cult movie with almost no publicity with 20.000 bananas, this movie sells 1.000.000... you see, in your eyes, you will just scream, movie x "is so popular, it is a sucess", but in the end the small movie without publicity is more sucessful even with less popularity.

There is not ONE way to identify the "best" product, a product is not "the best" in all circumstances, it is even more relative when we talk about entertainment products that have personal experiences and artistic aspects in it...really I dont think you are serious, if you are joking with such simplistic arguments I think I just fell in it.

Your comments about culture are tottaly  not accurate, but I prefer stay silent about it.

 

-----

 

About this expansion, I hope the end game Dungeons are as good as EOF Dungeons, I still think MMCastle is  one of the most challenging and interesting Dungeons I ever saw in a MMORPG.

 

..

Originally posted by Umbral

Originally posted by jimmyman99

Originally posted by vesavius

No, your wrong.

The X sells more then Y, so X is better argument is the utterly worst way to measure success.

realy? I hear all those "no you are wrong" and such. But none of you gives me an OBJECTIVE way to identify the "best" product.

 

Here is why your pseudo statistic point of view is wrong.

You cant formulate an statistic with such simplistic values, you need to put marketing and acessibility and more variations to the equation.

Just to be clear, you are the one using the "best x" term.

Just an idiotic example, a movie company use 3.000.000 bananas ( a large part of bananas were used to pay for marketing and publicity) to produce movie X, this movie is very "popular" and sell 10.000.000 copies, then the same company made a small cult movie with almost no publicity with 20.000 bananas, this movie sells 1.000.000... you see, in your eyes, you will just scream, movie x "is so popular, it is a sucess", but in the end the small movie without publicity is more sucessful even with less popularity.

There is not ONE way to identify the "best" product, a product is not "the best" in all circumstances, it is even more relative when we talk about entertainment products that have personal experiences and artistic aspects in it...really I dont think you are serious, if you are joking with such simplistic arguments I think I just fell in it.

Your comments about culture are tottaly  not accurate, but I prefer stay silent about it.

 

-----

 

About this expansion, I hope the end game Dungeons are as good as EOF Dungeons, I still think MMCastle is  one of the most challenging and interesting Dungeons I ever saw in a MMORPG.

 

..

 

 

I already quoted you, but ill do it again ""Do you have any rational argument about what you call "crap expansions" beside the invalid point "x game sold more copies'? When I was saying "best" I meant beast between X and Y. It is obvious that you were replying to a post where someone compared 2 products (or any other number, X, Y , Z, whatever) and you applied your opinion (yes, rational reasoning is still an opinion) to counter his objective argument. In other words, you used a subjective argument to coutner his objective argument.

"There is not ONE way to identify the "best" product, a product is not "the best" in all circumstances"

Now you are getting it! What other objective way is to compare 2 products? If the average  of  ALL the "best"s of product A is greater then that of the product B.

Look at the movie categories, lets say you only had 3 types of awards: "best male actor", "best female actor" and "best child actor". how would you define which movie is better if only 2 movies are competing? Obviously the one with 2 awards. THATS objective. That was the WHOLE point of my post. Not what I like, not what you like, not whether EQ2 is a good game or has good expansions. In fact, my point does not even concern EQ2. It was pure statistics, if X sells more then Y, that means that, objectively speaking product X is better then Y. Thats the ONLY objective way that I know to compare 2 or more products.

Originally posted by jimmyman99

Originally posted by Umbral

 

Fit in where? Im trying to be objective. If you were to ask me my PERSONAL opinion about ANYTHING, it would most likely differ from the one when I try to be objective.

You already know your statistic is to simplistic to be taken seriously.

To belive popularity makes quality is a way to fit in into the majority.

You contradict yourself here. If they aren't "masses" material, then they are NOT popular. See again you are separating yourself from the masses. Last time I checked, the whole human race is one big "mass". Unless you are a separate species and not part of us, "masses".

No there is no contradiction, ultra popular products are different than products well known by a niche, dont try to win an argument using the same word with different meaning.

What other way to objectively compare 2 products? Asking people? I wanna see how you can ask for 100% accurate opinion of 100% earth's population. We must go by the numbers if we were to filter out "opinions".

You cant do this if you ask people that only know and experienced the entertainment product A and doesnt know the product B, see how your statistic about popularity and what is the "best" is almost silly?

If you ask all the manking wich taste better, cow or moose you will get the cow answer because most of people just dont know how moose taste.

Am I trying to fit in or are you trying to stand out?  Oh my god, im NOT listening to mainstream music, Im not watching mainstream movies, im not using a PC... im not a lamb! You are trying to stand out so hard you are separating yourself from the world and you value your one ego more then everybody else. If there were only 10 people in the world and you were one of them, youd go against them just becuase your very own opinion is only one of ten, and if things go not the way you wanted youd be mad at them for making you do things everyone else wants.

You are even more confused about what I said than about statistics, see, I didnt atack mainstream and masses products, I dont care what you like or dislike, I never said EQ2 is better than WoW or Naked Lunch is better than Batman Begings, I only said how it is good to know that there is a EQ2, there is a Naked Lunch.

Remember, I didnt atack what is for the masses, sure I claim now and ever that Victor Hugo is better than any soap opera, but I cant talk about it with you, would be pointless...Remember, you are the one atacking what is not popular, meaning if is not for the masses and if you are not with the majority, than, it is no good.

I disagree with you and Im not the only one, the main issue is, you truly belive in your simplistic logic even when some people showed how flawed your logic is.

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by jimmyman99

 

 

Look at the movie categories, lets say you only had 3 types of awards: "best male actor", "best female actor" and "best child actor". how would you define which movie is better if only 2 movies are competing? Obviously the one with 2 awards. THATS objective.  

You are wrong again if you take popularity in this circustance.

See

• Venice Film Festival 2003 Won 'CinemAvvenire' Award Best First Film; Golden Lion; Luigi De Laurentiis Award; SIGNIS Award; Sergio Trasatti Award / Cottbus Film Festival of Young East European Cinema 2003 Won Award of the Ecumenical Jury; Special Prize Feature Film Competition For best direction
• César Awards, France 2004 Nominated César Best Foreign Film (Meilleur film étranger)
• European Film Awards 2003 Won European Discovery of the Year
• Fajr Film Festival 2004 Won Crystal Simorgh International Competition: Best Film
• Gijón International Film Festival 2003 Won Best Actor: Ivan Dobronravov, Tied with Vladimir Garin for Vozvrashcheniye (2003) and Konstantin Lavronenko; Best Screenplay; Special Jury Award
• Ljubljana International Film Festival 2003 Won Kingfisher Award
• Nika Awards 2004 Won Nika Best Cinematographer; Best Film
• Palm Springs International Film Festival 2004 Won FIPRESCI Prize
• Russian Guild of Film Critics 2003 Won Golden Aries Best Cinematography; Best Debut; Best Film
• Thessaloniki Film Festival 2003 Won FIPRESCI Prize - Special Mention
• Tromsø International Film Festival 2004 Won Audience Award

These are the awards of the movie Vosvrashchenie.

You and probably most of people from US here doesnt know this movie.(it is a great movie by the way).

But Titanic a very popular movie won 11 oscars, an oscar is a very propular (or you can call for the masses) award.

So wich one will be the best to you? The popular Titanic? Or the expressive and unique Vosvrashchenie?

Using your so called logic, you would say Titanic, then you would say, because no one here knows Vosvrashchenie, but no one knows not only because it is not american, but because they had more than 50 times less money to use into publicity.

Me? I would not say wich one is better, I would only say Vosvrashchenie is a great great movie.

And by the record, I asked in my first reply for that person to explain why EQ2 expansions were useless and then said the "numbers" argument would not cut it, for some reason you introduced the "what is the best and what is good and what is not".

Originally posted by Umbral

Originally posted by jimmyman99

 

Actually the point of "x sells more copies then Y" is very much valid. I mean, what other objective way to define which product is better? Certainly not by asking someone like you who likes EQ2 or someone who hates it - their opinions would be biased. SO, the only objective way to define how good of a product is - how many people actualy play it. So, if 10 people play a game, I guess the game is crap. If new expansion does not bring in hordes of new and/or old players, well, then I guess it is mediocre at best, crap at the worst. Im sorry I had to break your bubble there buddy.

While you and other people may enjoy EQ2 and may or may not consider it to be the messiah of the MMORPG genre, to the rest of the world it is just a mediocre product. Thinking that a few thousand of people's opinion outweight a million more is just irrational. Thought id point that flaw in your logic there.

 

No Jimmyman, it is not valid, especially among games.

I will show you why using some examples:

Shadow of Colossus-fantastic game.

Disciples serie- fantastic rpg/strategy serie.

Riddick - pretty good FPS.

Silent Hill serie, deeper, more complex and very impressive horror serie but Resivent Evil is much more popular even with the fact that it is a cheesy horror serie if you compare to Silent Hill.

Legacy of Kain series.

See, examples of fantastic games but less sucessful than The Sims, Fifa and Brain Age...

Same happens with quality MMOs like Everquest2, Eve, Guild Wars, they are less popular than Runescape, Ragnarok and Tibia.

Outside games, in musical and cinematography industry the logic of "numbers are not equal to quality/expressiveness is even stronger.

If you belive that only the popular and common opinion of the masses is valid, it would be good for you if you reevaluate your ideas, the sheep behavior will always limit you.

The only thing mediocre and unoriginal here are the values you expressed, and Im sorry to say, you didnt burst any bubble.

By your incredible logic, soap operas and self help books are better than Victor Hugo´s and Nietzsche´s works.

By your logic, you should only watch mainstream silly action movies, read the bible and self help books, play only wow, gta and the sims etc... sad, dont you think? I will not even say anything about music, sexual behavior, clothes etc.

 

...

 

whats wrong with reading and believing in the Bible? i do and i dont agree at all with what jimmyman99 said

Originally posted by xbellx777

 

whats wrong with reading and believing in the Bible? i do and i dont agree at all with what jimmyman99 said

Nothing is wrong with believing in the Bible, I only used it because it is a popular book ( for obvious reasons).

...

Originally posted by Umbral

 

 

Originally posted by jimmyman99

 

 

Look at the movie categories, lets say you only had 3 types of awards: "best male actor", "best female actor" and "best child actor". how would you define which movie is better if only 2 movies are competing? Obviously the one with 2 awards. THATS objective.  

 

 

You are wrong again if you take popularity in this circustance.

See

• Venice Film Festival 2003 Won 'CinemAvvenire' Award Best First Film; Golden Lion; Luigi De Laurentiis Award; SIGNIS Award; Sergio Trasatti Award / Cottbus Film Festival of Young East European Cinema 2003 Won Award of the Ecumenical Jury; Special Prize Feature Film Competition For best direction
• César Awards, France 2004 Nominated César Best Foreign Film (Meilleur film étranger)
• European Film Awards 2003 Won European Discovery of the Year
• Fajr Film Festival 2004 Won Crystal Simorgh International Competition: Best Film
• Gijón International Film Festival 2003 Won Best Actor: Ivan Dobronravov, Tied with Vladimir Garin for Vozvrashcheniye (2003) and Konstantin Lavronenko; Best Screenplay; Special Jury Award
• Ljubljana International Film Festival 2003 Won Kingfisher Award
• Nika Awards 2004 Won Nika Best Cinematographer; Best Film
• Palm Springs International Film Festival 2004 Won FIPRESCI Prize
• Russian Guild of Film Critics 2003 Won Golden Aries Best Cinematography; Best Debut; Best Film
• Thessaloniki Film Festival 2003 Won FIPRESCI Prize - Special Mention
• Tromsø International Film Festival 2004 Won Audience Award

These are the awards of the movie Vosvrashchenie.

You and probably most of people from US here doesnt know this movie.(it is a great movie by the way).

But Titanic a very popular movie won 11 oscars, an oscar is a very propular (or you can call for the masses) award.

So wich one will be the best to you? The popular Titanic? Or the expressive and unique Vosvrashchenie?

Using your so called logic, you would say Titanic, then you would say, because no one here knows Vosvrashchenie, but no one knows not only because it is not american, but because they had more than 50 times less money to use into publicity.

Me? I would not say wich one is better, I would only say Vosvrashchenie is a great great movie.

And by the record, I asked in my first reply for that person to explain why EQ2 expansions were useless and then said the "numbers" argument would not cut it, for some reason you introduced the "what is the best and what is good and what is not".

 

The keyword that you use is "you" would say Vozvrashchenie is a great movie. You are just one person. You are being subjective when you say Vozvrashchenie is a better movie. It is your opinion that it is better. Not that is theres something wrong with that. NO. Why do peoplekeep insisting on that? I do NOT like most mainstream movies/music. Most of stuff I like is NOT mainstream. I like The Journeymen, the 4400, Daybreak, Dexter, Scrubs, 24, Heroes, etc. Some of them are fairly mainstream, but some arent. However, I cant say that Daybreak is the BEST series. Well, it is the BEST for me. But it is my personal opinion. If I were to say it is the BEST, then I bet there would be a thousand other voices saying otherwise.

PS: I did not like Titanic at all. but I can't say its a bad movie since, obviously, it has won many awards. That is the objective way to see things. If you were to ask me my personal opinion, id say the movie stank. You must separate your own "you" from your opinion.  Thats the only way to be objective.

In any case, you have pointed out on many occasions that this is not a good way to compare products, be that EQ2 expansion or anything else. And yet you haven't provided any objective alternatives (other then rational reasoning). Please be so kind and explain.

Originally posted by jimmyman99

The keyword that you use is "you" would say Vozvrashchenie is a great movie. You are just one person. You are being subjective when you say Vozvrashchenie is a better movie. It is your opinion that it is better. Not that is theres something wrong with that.

 -Yes, when I say "to me is a great movie" I am expressing only the fact that I like this movie, but I wanted  to show you I can express that without saying titanic is a crap movie because I dont like it.

 If we use your logic, you would say titanic is "better" than Vozvrashcheniye because it is more popular, just to show you that the concept of "more popular" is better is not a rational argument all the time.

 In my point of view Vozvrashcheniye is better because it is more artistic , unique and expressive, this is just my opinion.

 Some people would say, Titanic is better because it is "easy" to watch, more people know Titanic, so, would be this affirmation the "rational" and correct one? In my point of view no, in your point of view yes, but in a trully cold and rational observation, both are good in different ways, it doesnt really matter wich one is more popular... see? We can say the same about MMOs without use personal taste as base.

 

NO. Why do peoplekeep insisting on that? I do NOT like most mainstream movies/music. Most of stuff I like is NOT mainstream. I like The Journeymen, the 4400, Daybreak, Dexter, Scrubs, 24, Heroes, etc. Some of them are fairly mainstream, but some arent. However, I cant say that Daybreak is the BEST series. Well, it is the BEST for me. But it is my personal opinion. If I were to say it is the BEST, then I bet there would be a thousand other voices saying otherwise.

Then, would you agree that the most popular serie would not be exacly the best serie? As you know, some good series like OZ and Curb your Enthusiasm are not made to be as popular as OC.

PS: I did not like Titanic at all. but I can't say its a bad movie since, obviously, it has won many awards. That is the objective way to see things. If you were to ask me my personal opinion, id say the movie stank. You must separate your own "you" from your opinion.  Thats the only way to be objective.

 I never said a popular movie or game should be bad, this is the misconception you got since the beggining, when I say EQ2 expansions are great, Riddick is a great game, Silent Hill and King´s Bounty are great games, Im not saying Gears of War is a crap game. The one that said if someting is more popular it will be better was you.

In any case, you have pointed out on many occasions that this is not a good way to compare products, be that EQ2 expansion or anything else. And yet you haven't provided any objective alternatives (other then rational reasoning). Please be so kind and explain.

Lets focus in the expansion, hours and hours of content for people that play EQ2, great dungeons, group play focus, nice locations and long term entertainment are enough to say, EQ2 has great expansions.

The last wow expansion sold much more than EOF and TOS together, because of that EQ2 expansions are inferior? Not at all.

Are wow expansions bad because they are popular? No.

Forgeting about taste, both games have good expansions, I do prefer EQ2 expansions, you may prefer WoW expansions, but in the end, you cant say WoW expansions are better because they are more popular, most of people outside MMOs dont even know EQ2, this is when marketing, accessibility and brand make a difference and those aspects are not always related to "quality".

All this started when someone said EQ2 expansions are useless, with so much content, lore, challenge and fun for a stable playerbase and new players why would EQ2 expansions be useless? Because it is less popular than WoW? In your logic unfortunately, yes.

Unpopularity can be even good among mmorpgs because it results in an unite and more pleasant community.

 

 

Originally posted by Darkjinxter

Can anyone tell me where the lvl 50 content is? I haven't found any as yet for my lvl 58 Berserker.

Go to Sinking Sands, take carpet from east fp, or Nariak, DLW, BB, TD.

Guess you get the point of how to get there lol

Have fun

I think Darkjinxter was talking about the lvl 50 content for the new expansion, not the content from DoF. :)

 I bought playtime, but I cannot play BECAUSE THERES NO ONE PLAYING

Originally posted by Umbral

Originally posted by xbellx777

 

whats wrong with reading and believing in the Bible? i do and i dont agree at all with what jimmyman99 said

 

Nothing is wrong with believing in the Bible, I only used it because it is a popular book ( for obvious reasons).

...

ah ok i see what u mean but i do agree with what you are saying as a whole

Originally posted by Umbral

Originally posted by jimmyman99

The keyword that you use is "you" would say Vozvrashchenie is a great movie. You are just one person. You are being subjective when you say Vozvrashchenie is a better movie. It is your opinion that it is better. Not that is theres something wrong with that.

 -Yes, when I say "to me is a great movie" I am expressing only the fact that I like this movie, but I wanted  to show you I can express that without saying titanic is a crap movie because I dont like it.

 If we use your logic, you would say titanic is "better" than Vozvrashcheniye because it is more popular, just to show you that the concept of "more popular" is better is not a rational argument all the time.

 In my point of view Vozvrashcheniye is better because it is more artistic , unique and expressive, this is just my opinion.

 Some people would say, Titanic is better because it is "easy" to watch, more people know Titanic, so, would be this affirmation the "rational" and correct one? In my point of view no, in your point of view yes, but in a trully cold and rational observation, both are good in different ways, it doesnt really matter wich one is more popular... see? We can say the same about MMOs without use personal taste as base.

 

NO. Why do peoplekeep insisting on that? I do NOT like most mainstream movies/music. Most of stuff I like is NOT mainstream. I like The Journeymen, the 4400, Daybreak, Dexter, Scrubs, 24, Heroes, etc. Some of them are fairly mainstream, but some arent. However, I cant say that Daybreak is the BEST series. Well, it is the BEST for me. But it is my personal opinion. If I were to say it is the BEST, then I bet there would be a thousand other voices saying otherwise.

Then, would you agree that the most popular serie would not be exacly the best serie? As you know, some good series like OZ and Curb your Enthusiasm are not made to be as popular as OC.

PS: I did not like Titanic at all. but I can't say its a bad movie since, obviously, it has won many awards. That is the objective way to see things. If you were to ask me my personal opinion, id say the movie stank. You must separate your own "you" from your opinion.  Thats the only way to be objective.

 I never said a popular movie or game should be bad, this is the misconception you got since the beggining, when I say EQ2 expansions are great, Riddick is a great game, Silent Hill and King´s Bounty are great games, Im not saying Gears of War is a crap game. The one that said if someting is more popular it will be better was you.

In any case, you have pointed out on many occasions that this is not a good way to compare products, be that EQ2 expansion or anything else. And yet you haven't provided any objective alternatives (other then rational reasoning). Please be so kind and explain.

Lets focus in the expansion, hours and hours of content for people that play EQ2, great dungeons, group play focus, nice locations and long term entertainment are enough to say, EQ2 has great expansions.

The last wow expansion sold much more than EOF and TOS together, because of that EQ2 expansions are inferior? Not at all.

Are wow expansions bad because they are popular? No.

Forgeting about taste, both games have good expansions, I do prefer EQ2 expansions, you may prefer WoW expansions, but in the end, you cant say WoW expansions are better because they are more popular, most of people outside MMOs dont even know EQ2, this is when marketing, accessibility and brand make a difference and those aspects are not always related to "quality".

All this started when someone said EQ2 expansions are useless, with so much content, lore, challenge and fun for a stable playerbase and new players why would EQ2 expansions be useless? Because it is less popular than WoW? In your logic unfortunately, yes.

Unpopularity can be even good among mmorpgs because it results in an unite and more pleasant community.

 

 

 

We are talking about different things here. Again, you are justifying your argument by your own personal opinion. There is nothing wrong with that, except that is not what the whole issue is about. You can say all you want about what movie/game you think is the best, but all that time you will be subjective. The whole point of my argument is NOT to use your opinion. Be objective. The only way to be objective (as in NOT to you use your own opinion or judement or reasoning) is to go by the number. X game/movie sells more then Y game/movie = X is a more popular product, which means it is a better product. That is the only objective way to compare products. Please, do not give me the example where you think one product sells less and it is better. It will be a subjective comparison.

Every time you say "I think" or "in my opinion" you make your logic subjective. Which means it is not reliable because someone else may disagree with you. Since opinions are of equal value, there will never be a cosensus. Thats why there must be one way to compare - a pure objective statistical way. When I say "X sells more then Y" it is not my opinion, it is the fact. Thats why it is 100% objective. And ths the only thing I wanted to say.

Back to the original point. The whole argument started when Martie posted about SOE producing expansions that are (according to his opinions) a failure. You countered his argument with yours, stating that "X sells more then Y" is not valid

Originally posted by Umbral
Do you have any rational argument about what you call "crap expansions" beside the invalid point "x game sold more copies'?

The reasoning behind Martin is objective, but his comnclusion is not. Your reasoning AND conclusions are both subjective. The fact that EQ2 expansions did not sell well means that it is not the best product. Is it a failure? Thats debatable. TO him, obviously it is. But to you, it is not. Both are right becuase both are your own opinions. To someone, 100,000 sales is a failure. TO others,  10,000 is a success. So I was not arguing about your conclusion, I actualy agree that if EQ2 expansion sold 100,000 copies, it is a moderate success. I was arguing about the way you presented your logic. You tried to prove your point with subjective logic, which doesn't work.

Originally posted by jimmyman99

 

We are talking about different things here. Again, you are justifying your argument by your own personal opinion. There is nothing wrong with that, except that is not what the whole issue is about. You can say all you want about what movie/game you think is the best, but all that time you will be subjective. The whole point of my argument is NOT to use your opinion. Be objective. The only way to be objective (as in NOT to you use your own opinion or judement or reasoning) is to go by the number. X game/movie sells more then Y game/movie = X is a more popular product, which means it is a better product. That is the only objective way to compare products. Please, do not give me the example where you think one product sells less and it is better. It will be a subjective comparison.

You are wrong again, I never said what is the best in any circunstance here, I said "for me the russian movie is better", this is when I was subjectve, I didnt judge what is popular, I said by a rational conclusion both movies are good, and in YOUR logic, Titanic is the BEST movie.

I think you should read all what I said again, you are implying Iam using the same base as you, Im not judging the "best", the "best"  IS a subjective title.

I already prooved to you using movies that the argument of X sell more than Y than it is better it is WRONG, because some products have more marketing,  and money on it to be more popular, it is not a choice made by the people, it is a choice made by money and marketing only.

A movie is more popular than other movie not just because more people like it, but because more people KNOW it and more people are more affected by marketing.

You are an example of it, you do know Titanic, but you dont know Vozvrashcheniye, so you cant compare them, even with the fact you know Titanic is more popular, because it is american and it has millions on marketing.

Every time you say "I think" or "in my opinion" you make your logic subjective. Which means it is not reliable because someone else may disagree with you. Since opinions are of equal value, there will never be a cosensus. Thats why there must be one way to compare - a pure objective statistical way. When I say "X sells more then Y" it is not my opinion, it is the fact. Thats why it is 100% objective. And ths the only thing I wanted to say.

"X sells more then Y" Is not objective because you need to use the marketing, brand, acessibility logic behind it.

There is no "I think" or "in my opinion", Im not forcing what I like here, you are trying to formulate a simplistic logic to judge what is "best" when the title "the best" is subjective and relative.

Back to the original point. The whole argument started when Martie posted about SOE producing expansions that are (according to his opinions) a failure. You countered his argument with yours, stating that "X sells more then Y" is not valid

Originally posted by Umbral
Do you have any rational argument about what you call "crap expansions" beside the invalid point "x game sold more copies'?

The reasoning behind Martin is objective, but his comnclusion is not. Your reasoning AND conclusions are both subjective. The fact that EQ2 expansions did not sell well means that it is not the best product. Is it a failure? Thats debatable. TO him, obviously it is. But to you, it is not. Both are right becuase both are your own opinions. To someone, 100,000 sales is a failure. TO others,  10,000 is a success. So I was not arguing about your conclusion, I actualy agree that if EQ2 expansion sold 100,000 copies, it is a moderate success. I was arguing about the way you presented your logic. You tried to prove your point with subjective logic, which doesn't work.

No , my conclusion is not subjectiv, amount of content and the technical details  are NOT  a subjective claim, it is just the reality.

Your "selling" logic without marketing in the equation is just, Im sorry to say, dumb.

I already showed it to you using movies as reference, you just decided to avoid this and talk about the series you enjoy.

You are not a child, but it seems you just dont know how things work today ( Im sorry if it sounded personal), you are just ignoring all my arguments trying to belive Im talking about things I "like", this conversation turned to be totally dumb.

If you want to reply to this, go back to the movie example and the marketing argument, forget about the simplistic logic, or this conversation will be pointless.

--To be clear, popularity is not (in most cases) decided by professional critics and the consumers/people, popularity is decided by money/marketing, and marketing doesnt make a better (or worse) product specially when it is related to expression and entertainment.

This is why you dont even know a russian movie that has the same amount of awards than an ultra popular american movie.(remember, you were the one using the awards argument)

So, your logic behind x sells more than y because more people like it, than it is better is wrong.

Just one more point, sometimes the entertainment product that sell more copies doesnt generate more money than a entertainment product that sell less but has less money on marketing and production.

And just to be repetivive, in most cases, people/consumers doesnt decide wich product will be more popular, money and marketing does it.

These days gaming industry is much more similar to movie industry than it was in the past, this make your logic even more pointless.

Originally posted by Umbral

I think you should read all what I said again, you are implying Iam using the same base as you, Im not judging the "best", the "best"  IS a subjective title.

I accept your explanation, we were talking about 2 different things.

I already prooved to you using movies that the argument of X sell more than Y than it is better it is WRONG, because some products have more marketing,  and money on it to be more popular, it is not a choice made by the people, it is a choice made by money and marketing only.

WRONG. People buy products regardless marketing hype. If the product is GOOD, then it doesn't matter if it has good or bad marketing, it will sell. If the product is crap, it wont sell. Look at AoC, Vanguard, D&L (best example) - they were hyped incredibly. Are they still being sold like crazy? No. Because not many people like those games.

A movie is more popular than other movie not just because more people like it, but because more people KNOW it and more people are more affected by marketing.

You are an example of it, you do know Titanic, but you dont know Vozvrashcheniye, so you cant compare them, even with the fact you know Titanic is more popular, because it is american and it has millions on marketing.

Oh cmon this is silly logic. You are saying "well, my movie is not bad ONLY becuase I did not advertise it so no1 saw it." You are being ridiculous here. Even so, there are cases where a product with NO marketing reached wide audience. A good example here is Counterstrike mod for halflife. It was created by a refular Halflife player, was very liked by people, reached critical mass where it was noticed by HL developers and went into retail as a separate product. There was no advertisement when he made the mod. It was just good.

"X sells more then Y" Is not objective because you need to use the marketing, brand, acessibility logic behind it.

It is objective. If your logic was right, then NOTHING would EVER be objective. There would always be someone who would blame marketing or what have you on anything else. Cmon, the whole point of being best/good IS being of good quality, content, healthy, accessibility etc etc. If your product is great but you do not advertise it, of COURSE it wont be purchased. Thats no excuse if the product fails to be succesfull.

If the product is successful, it means it had reached and/or surpassed the required quality, taste, price, accessibility, healthiness, marketing, environmentalism or what have you.

There is no "I think" or "in my opinion", Im not forcing what I like here, you are trying to formulate a simplistic logic to judge what is "best" when the title "the best" is subjective and relative.

No , my conclusion is not subjectiv, amount of content and the technical details  are NOT  a subjective claim, it is just the reality.

Oh really? please enlighten me, in what measurements are you measuring the amount of content here? is that gallons? meters? or inches? What is the reality?

Your "selling" logic without marketing in the equation is just, Im sorry to say, dumb.

On the contrary, marketing IS part of the equasion. If you have no marketing, your product has a lot less chances to be good. But its still possible.

--To be clear, popularity is not (in most cases) decided by professional critics and the consumers/people, popularity is decided by money/marketing, and marketing doesnt make a better (or worse) product specially when it is related to expression and entertainment.

No. Popularity goes by what is good and what is bad. No matter how much money you put into marketing, if your product is crap, it WILL not be popular. 

This is why you dont even know a russian movie that has the same amount of awards than an ultra popular american movie.(remember, you were the one using the awards argument)

Exactly. How can a movie be best if there is no one to compare it? How can you compare something you DONT know with something else? How?

So, your logic behind x sells more than y because more people like it, than it is better is wrong.

No. And I showed you why.

Just one more point, sometimes the entertainment product that sell more copies doesnt generate more money than a entertainment product that sell less but has less money on marketing and production.

That's profit. Most of the time we dont have the numbers to compare profit. While X may sell the most boxes, but it had a lot more expenses as Y, so Y makes a bigger profit. In that scenario, Y is financially more successfull then X. In this comparison,  volume of sales vs profit, I wouldn't know how to judge. But, as I said, you will never really have the profit numbers. So this scenario is not a practical one.

And just to be repetivive, in most cases, people/consumers doesnt decide wich product will be more popular, money and marketing does it.

Wrong. No marketing campaign FORCED you to buy a product. If you buy products based on their marketing or popularity, then you are the sheep that you (or somebody else, cant remember now)  referred to in your earlier posts. People buy products they want, not that are being advertised.

 

Jimmyman99

This started to be pointless, it seems you dont know how movie industry and cinematography industry works in this world, not only in US, when you say : "well, my movie is not bad ONLY becuase I did not advertise it so no1 saw it." you showed it... remember you said this when the example was one of the most rewarded and well known movies outside hollywood...

Something pretty similar happen with games, all the time you are trying to use a coca cola/pepsi product analogy with entertainment products. If your logic would be accurate, the most popular (for the masses as you can say) movie award, the Oscar would be based in how much copies of a particular movie are sold.

Check any automobil magazine, search for "the best" cars, are they basing this title among sells and marketing?

It is clear you dont know what really happens in the movie industry and even in the game industry (as you said, you dont even know the games I mentioned).

See, this "the best" discussion is rather silly to me, but as you seems to love it, just take a look in absolute all awards related to entertainment, even the most popular ones, they are not purely related on "numbers" and marketing... so, you, the guy that loves what is popular, why every entertainment product judment and availiation are NOT based purely in marketing and sells, why they are not using your logic? Maybe because your logic is not accurate among this kind of creation/product?

Im done with this subject , but I will let you with a challenge, search more people that have knowledge about movies, games, cars and nutrition and use your "the best" product logic, you will be surprised with the answers you will get.

Oh, and before I forget  you said :   "People buy products they want, not that are being advertised."  Hmmm...

...

---

Originally posted by jimmyman99

The whole point of my argument is NOT to use your opinion. Be objective. The only way to be objective (as in NOT to you use your own opinion or judement or reasoning) is to go by the number. X game/movie sells more then Y game/movie = X is a more popular product, which means it is a better product. That is the only objective way to compare products.

---

I've been reading this thread for a while (I really have no idea why)...

There is a simple answer. There is *NO* objective way to say which game is better. You said earlier that what product sells more is not the only criteria but is the only objective criteria *available*. That does not mean which sells more = best - that means best = unknown due to lack of objective data.

If you define best as being the highest sum of a, b, c, and d where a is "most units sold" then it's an impossible comparison because b+c+d are unknown and could be higher value than a. For that matter, if you define max(a+b) as best and have an unknown b, then max (best) is undefined.

You can not measure a partial summation and claim it is higher (better) than some other partial summation (or average or any other measure you want).

Originally posted by Umbral

Jimmyman99

This started to be pointless, it seems you dont know how movie industry and cinematography industry works in this world, not only in US, when you say : "well, my movie is not bad ONLY becuase I did not advertise it so no1 saw it." you showed it... remember you said this when the example was one of the most rewarded and well known movies outside hollywood...

Something pretty similar happen with games, all the time you are trying to use a coca cola/pepsi product analogy with entertainment products. If your logic would be accurate, the most popular (for the masses as you can say) movie award, the Oscar would be based in how much copies of a particular movie are sold.

Check any automobil magazine, search for "the best" cars, are they basing this title among sells and marketing?

It is clear you dont know what really happens in the movie industry and even in the game industry (as you said, you dont even know the games I mentioned).

What does that have to do with anything I said? They pick a winner according to their own conditions, whatever that is. They aren't being objective, their winners are being picked by a few judges.

See, this "the best" discussion is rather silly to me, but as you seems to love it, just take a look in absolute all awards related to entertainment, even the most popular ones, they are not purely related on "numbers" and marketing... so, you, the guy that loves what is popular, why every entertainment product judment and availiation are NOT based purely in marketing and sells, why they are not using your logic? Maybe because your logic is not accurate among this kind of creation/product?

Yes, most awards do not use the pure numbers. Thats why they are never subjective. Thats why when a company making product X PAYS to write a good review for that product to company Y, people post crazy posts. Thats why people often do not trust those reviews.

Im done with this subject , but I will let you with a challenge, search more people that have knowledge about movies, games, cars and nutrition and use your "the best" product logic, you will be surprised with the answers you will get.

Everybody judges their product their own way. PErsonally, I do that in 2 ways, my personal - subjective, and the statistical - objective. When WoW came out and it was selling like crazy, both of those theories were telling me WoW was a great game. When I played Lineage2, my personal judgement was telling me the game sucked, but the numbers telling me the game is great. Both ARE right in their own way. Personaly I do not like L2, but I cannot deny the fact that many many people play it and love it.

Oh, and before I forget  you said :   "People buy products they want, not that are being advertised."  Hmmm...

...

I guess we have to agree to disagree. I haven't proven my point to you, it seems, and I still don't get yours. Guess we wondered off the main topic far enough to warrant a tactical retreat. See ya around.

Originally posted by wilcoxon

 

I've been reading this thread for a while (I really have no idea why)...

There is a simple answer. There is *NO* objective way to say which game is better. You said earlier that what product sells more is not the only criteria but is the only objective criteria *available*. That does not mean which sells more = best - that means best = unknown due to lack of objective data.

If you define best as being the highest sum of a, b, c, and d where a is "most units sold" then it's an impossible comparison because b+c+d are unknown and could be higher value than a. For that matter, if you define max(a+b) as best and have an unknown b, then max (best) is undefined.

You can not measure a partial summation and claim it is higher (better) than some other partial summation (or average or any other measure you want).

 IN a way you are right. I mean how can you measure something ambiguous as "which movie is best" and stay objective? But you have to do it at some point. You have to throw away some parameters that you cannot measure and have a standard way of comparing a product. I mean, it would be hella easier if we could ask 100% of earth population and get 100% accurate data then there would be no need for this charade.  But if you are a magazine editor and you are compiling a list of games and you must pick one game "best  game of the year" and you want to be objective so that people dont accuse you of being subjective or worse, getting paid to put a certain product as #1. How would you do it?

Look at MMORPG.COM, they dont really have "best game" (other then seasonal voting where people vote for best games in their categories), they were carefull not to do it that way. What they have is "most voted" game, which basically the same as "most bought game", which basically means "X product sells most, which means X is the best game".

This is like a freakin train wreck... I just can't stop reading .  As far as which game is "better" goes, WoW and EQ2 (no i'm not bringing other MMO's into this as i've not played them). They are the same game with different graphical engines. Which game is superior??  IT DOESN"T $#*&IN MATTER!! Some people enjoy WoW others enjoy EQ2 and other games. I hear WoW and LoTRO both had expansions, congrats it's a larger player base! I hope you and you're MMO are happy with it, it'll make group and raiding more fun i hope. I myself, I'm gonna go play EQ2 and enjoy my slice of the MMO pie, it's getting bigger... for everyone.

Darkjinxter

Since no one actually bothered to reply to this person in a correct manner:

There are 3 instances that scale down to 50 - one in CL, LS, and EF.

You can easily find this information on the SOE EQ II forums.

Originally posted by itpaladin

Darkjinxter

 

Since no one actually bothered to reply to this person in a correct manner:

There are 3 instances that scale down to 50 - one in CL, LS, and EF.

You can easily find this information on the SOE EQ II forums.

In fact there are 8 instances accesible to group 50+
Content (mobs and loots) will scale to adapt to your group average level.

3 of them can be accessed from Common (Befallen...), 2 from lavastorm (Deep forge and Najena's Hollow tower) and 3 from Everfrost (Anathema, Scion and Crucible).

Enjoy

Originally posted by jimmyman99

 

Look at MMORPG.COM, they dont really have "best game" (other then seasonal voting where people vote for best games in their categories), they were carefull not to do it that way. What they have is "most voted" game, which basically the same as "most bought game", which basically means "X product sells most, which means X is the best game".

No, it is not the same.

Everquest 2, Warhammer, Guild Wars, Lotro, are top voted games and all of them sell less copies than WoW and in some cases less than Lineage 2.

Most voted game is not the same as most bought game.

...

Originally posted by Umbral

Originally posted by jimmyman99

 

Look at MMORPG.COM, they dont really have "best game" (other then seasonal voting where people vote for best games in their categories), they were carefull not to do it that way. What they have is "most voted" game, which basically the same as "most bought game", which basically means "X product sells most, which means X is the best game".

No, it is not the same.

Everquest 2, Warhammer, Guild Wars, Lotro, are top voted games and all of them sell less copies than WoW and in some cases less than Lineage 2.

Most voted game is not the same as most bought game.

 ...

You are right there. As you can see, the voting is different from reality. It is distorted by the personal preference of the several thousand of MMORPG subscribers. Thats why I never trust reviews a magazine or a website. I trust people, if 10,000,000 people buy the game and keep playing it for years, it has to be good.

Companies that "review" the game often tend to be subjective because of the conflict of interest - they get revenue from the company that produced the game that they are reviewing. Same with web-voting, no way to really verify the truthfullness of the vote.

PS: after re-reading my post, i dunno why i posted that. Since voting is subjective, you can't really call its results objective "best". I think all this "logic" brained my damage.