Quote from soramaro »Holy mother of unneccesary arguments. If you actually read the Maro quotes without being bent on "winning" an argument, it's stupidly clear that while the aesthetic/flavor wasn't the ONE problem that caused Kamigawa to perform badly, it was one of several factors that lead to the set's bad overall performance.
Quote from Flisch »Quote from Ernart »*snip*
Fun fact: Just because you specifically don't bold the parts that contradict your argument doesn't mean those parts of the quote don't exist.
Quote from Ernart »*snip*
Quote from Ernart »I didn't need to bold the whole article to begin with.
No one claimed it didn't exist, What I claimed was the snippets of the guy was part of the article that supported my claims. So I posted the whole article instead which clearly said it was the mechanics. That the mechanics is also the cause for the Kamigawa Set to be one of unpopular set and not for it being based on a Japanese Myth.
SO basically bolding the other text or whole article is non-sense and the best way is to post everything for clarity, it's better than cherrypicking fragments of that article.
Quote from Ritokure »Except that was not your argument, AT ALL, you're moving the goalposts. It's as if you started this conversation stating that "the sky is blue because there's an ocean in the sky", and now that you've been proven wrong, you're acting as if people are trying to prove you wrong on the "the sky is blue" part of the statement.
And second, no, emphasizing a part of a quote via bold text while ignoring the rest is not any different from quoting specific parts of a larger argument. Both have the exact same purpose and both are equally legitimate forms of information as long as you provide your sources. The difference is that latter is not plagiarism nor an eyesore to read.
Quote from Ritokure »
So, here you go: Give me ONE quote from Mark Rosewater stating that Kamigawa's flavor was NOT a contributing factor to its failings. DO NOT quote him saying that Card Design was a factor, quote him saying that Card Design was the ONLY factor.
Quote from Ernart »The Kamigawa's mechanics being restrictive and slow are the contributing factor to dislike a Japanese mythology based plane.
The dislike of the Kamigawa setting goes beyond the power level. We’ve had worlds of blocks of equal or lower power level test much better than Kamigawa did.
We tested the creative as well as the cards and the world (once again, not just the cards) didn’t test well. It didn’t quite jell with a majority of the players.
The world, not the mechanics which also did poorly, is the lowest rated world in market research since we started asking about worlds.
We test both the mechanics and creative elements for sets. Kamigawa did poorly on it’s mechanics. It did even worse on its world (I believe it holds the record for the worst results for any world since we did market research on them - Ulgrotha predates the market research). The idea that it was successful creative married to bad mechanics is false. At the time, both were strongly disliked.
Quote from Ernart »First of all your quoting me from my response in somebody else? That clarifying the it didn't exist of comment of someone else.
Quote from Ernart »And all I have asked you is for a link. You start saying this is a game and starts creating rules and demanding me not to quote maro.
Quote from Ernart »all I do was defending Japanese mythology at the beginning of the argument.
Quote from Ritokure »Because you're wrong. You talking bull to another person doesn't changes the fact you're talking bull.
Quote from Ritokure »Because you took my statement, demanded proof, then painted it as "FALSE". Your arguments for doing so are flimsy and erroneous, using sources that were used by multiple people to prove that you're wrong, and using selective arguments to misrepresent MaRo's opinions on the discussed matter. Therefore, I contested your "FALSE" statement with a simple alternative, and you still haven't delivered.
Quote from Ritokure »No, you didn't..... blah blah
Quote from Ritokure »I will not answer you any further.
Quote from Ritokure »It's not the plane aesthetic and atmosphere that failed Kamigawa. It was most of the printed cards being played was underwhelming and boring after mirrodin and before ravnica". This is NOT "defending Japanese mythology", because Japanese mythology was never attacked by anyone.
Quote from Ritokure »Calling it now: Lukka will be the villain of Kamigawa 2.0 and he'll be the one to bring Kaijus into the plane. No idea why he would do that, but then again it's Lukka. Dude couldn't even keep a consistent personality and motivation on a single set, nevermind a year.Quote from Ernart »It's not the plane aesthetic and atmosphere that failed Kamigawa. It was most of the printed cards being played was underwhelming and boring after mirrodin and before ravnica.Not entirely true, at least based on what MaRo told us. In their attempt to make Kamigawa accurate to Japanese myths and properly portray it in Magic lore, they "dug too deep" into Japanese mythology and showcased every part of the least resonant aspects of it.
Quote from Ernart »It's not the plane aesthetic and atmosphere that failed Kamigawa. It was most of the printed cards being played was underwhelming and boring after mirrodin and before ravnica.
Quote from Ernart »
My point is it was the mechanics that failed Kamigawa not the it being based on an interpretation of a Japanese myth.
Quote from YggyPlease, mill me. Mill my important cards. Mill my lands. Mill it all. Because I will still deal 20 damage before you can mill 45 cards most every time.
Quote from Obazervazi »Ritokure, please stop feeding the troll. No genuine person could possibly present a full quote definitively proving themselves wrong and present it as proof they are right. They'll stop mucking up this thread if you stop provoking them.
Quote from Mimeofacture »Mad Max Kaladesh when
Quote from mikol »i see the major issue with kamigawa was how underpowered it was compared to its surrounding blocks