Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="doctorhook" data-source="post: 6607515" data-attributes="member: 58401">Take a deep breath and count to 10, my friend.I did a google search of my post history, and by my estimation this was probably the second time I've posted the word &quot;hyperbole&quot; on this forum since 2008, so I have to assume your rant was directed at people in general rather than me specifically. That said, I discovered several examples of other posters here using the word to refer to anything they find absurd, and I'm willing to accept that I might have allowed my own understanding of the word to drift. I'm also guilty of letting myself get too bitter and cynical, and I'm sorry for that, but I expect you to give your own words a critical look too.I called your comment hyperbolic because I think it's an absurd exaggeration to say, &quot;That's bad game design,&quot; just because one part of one spell (of hundreds) appears underwhelming. I understand that you think enlarge/reduce is broken, and you make a decent case for that, but do you seriously think this &quot;bad game design&quot;? Even if we agree that this spell is broken, it's a single failure, not proof that the whole game is badly designed. If LeBron misses a shot, do you call him a bad basketball player too? This kind of exaggeration is exactly the thing that gets under my skin. Exaggerations, generalizations, absolutes, and cynicism all diminish the quality of discourse here.It's pretty clear that you've got a well-reasoned perspective on the spell we're discussing, but frankly your post reads like you're letting yourself get too worked up about this. I would like to hear more about what you think enlarge should look like, because I think that's a more productive direction for you and I to continue this discussion. You've convinced me that it doesn't work properly, but you haven't yet convinced me exactly how it ought to have been implemented.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="doctorhook, post: 6607515, member: 58401"] Take a deep breath and count to 10, my friend. I did a google search of my post history, and by my estimation this was probably the second time I've posted the word "hyperbole" on this forum since 2008, so I have to assume your rant was directed at people in general rather than me specifically. That said, I discovered several examples of other posters here using the word to refer to anything they find absurd, and I'm willing to accept that I might have allowed my own understanding of the word to drift. I'm also guilty of letting myself get too bitter and cynical, and I'm sorry for that, but I expect you to give your own words a critical look too. I called your comment hyperbolic because I think it's an absurd exaggeration to say, "That's bad game design," just because one part of one spell (of hundreds) appears underwhelming. I understand that you think [i]enlarge/reduce[/i] is broken, and you make a decent case for that, but do you seriously think this "bad game design"? Even if we agree that this spell is broken, it's a single failure, not proof that the whole game is badly designed. If LeBron misses a shot, do you call him a bad basketball player too? This kind of exaggeration is exactly the thing that gets under [i]my[/i] skin. Exaggerations, generalizations, absolutes, and cynicism all diminish the quality of discourse here. It's pretty clear that you've got a well-reasoned perspective on the spell we're discussing, but frankly your post reads like you're letting yourself get too worked up about this. I would like to hear more about what you think [i]enlarge[/i] should look like, because I think that's a more productive direction for you and I to continue this discussion. You've convinced me that it doesn't work properly, but you haven't yet convinced me exactly how it ought to have been implemented. [/QUOTE]

Verification