Also on AOL
- Autos
- Technology
- Lifestyle
- Gaming
- Finance
- Entertainment on AOL
- Lifestyle on AOL
- Sports on AOL
- Travel on AOL
- More on AOL
Featured Galleries
Joystiq
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | About Our Ads

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-30-2011 @ 7:37PM
omedon666 said...
The problem with statements like this, is it is rather presumptuous as to the "expected" success level of this sort of thing. Developers saying "you should be good enough" is a slippery slope. Blizzard overtuning their PVE content meant to be "accessible" has lead to many cases of insulted burnout that I am aware of. Sure, we can call them "bads", but good people getting frustrated are not the "bads" we should be thus ostracizing, those being counter-social d-bags that will throw up their social numbness blinders and down the bosses anyway.
Reply
6-30-2011 @ 9:09PM
omedon666 said...
I'd be wrong not to tack on to this, however, that I think the "eventually is for everyone" design is laudable, and I applaud this incarnation of it, but I don't think it's Blizzard's place to brazenly say, essentially "anyone who should consider raiding should be able to do this with a group of random strangers now", because every defeat (not wipe, defeat, there's a difference) now has an officially declared expectation attached to it, to the tune of "but not you, you're not good enough". This is why I felt that the dungeon finder being enabled at release for heroics, was a very bad idea as well.
Accessibility=good
Officially expressed statement of expected player competence=dangerous