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.
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.
all I do was defending Japanese mythology at the beginning of the argument.
No, you didn't. What you did was launch an unfounded counterargument over me pointing out (with proof) on the fact MaRo has denied that flavor wasn't an issue. Said argument I made was based on the conception that "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. This is a lie based on the information MaRo has presented over the reasons Kamigawa has failed: Kamigawa did not fail because of Japanese mythology. Kamigawa failed because, along with other issues, it did Japanese mythology wrong. Your initial argument can't be true because you didn't specified Japanese mythology, you specified KAMIGAWA and its AESTHETIC and ATMOSPHERE. You are mixing up the facts and trying to move the goalposts to attest the former while everyone else is telling you that the latter is true.
I will not answer you any further. I do not know what your first language is, but it has been made pretty clear that your understanding of the English language is extremely weak and faulty. Learn to speak English properly before coming into an online forum and accusing other people's arguments of being false.
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.
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.
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.
And if you read the discussion thread carefully, you'll see no one claimed otherwise. The issue, however, is disregarding the failings of flavor and put the blame solely on card design or bad timing, which is wrong, based on the most legitimate source we have, that being Mark Rosewater. Therefore, tweaking the flavor and aesthetics of Kamigawa for a "return set" is justifiable, at least based on WotC's market research.
I don't care about your childish non-sense game or whatsoever. because it's logical fallay an "Ad Ignorantiam"
My point is it was the mechanics that failed Kamigawa not the it being Japanese myth. plain and simple and every "sources you post supported my claims. which was also back up by multiple Kamigawa discussion and all you got is out of context and misquoting a single article that supported my claim also. lol
First off, fallacy fallacy. Ad ignorantiam is not used to disprove a claim under ignorance but create one, it's made to make a unverifiable claim under the pretense we don't know X therefore Y must be true. YOU made the bold statement "FALSE!" as a counterargument, and therefore burden of proof falls under you now and said argument can be disproven by lack of proof at any time.
Second, moving the goalposts. Your initial argument was NOT "failed Kamigawa not the it being Japanese myth", whatever that poor imitation of English even means. The goalpost was pretty clear from the first post - "It's not the plane aesthetic and atmosphere that failed Kamigawa.", disproven by my source as MaRo did mention that the aesthetic and atmosphere DID fail Kamigawa and backed up by another user with several more claims.
Third, once again, no misquotes happened, unless you can prove otherwise, in which case we're back into my game. Your crying over my "out of context" claims are pathetic as you analyze YOUR claims that bold three words to make an "argument" or use bold text to completely misrepresent the person saying the quote, and that kind of shady trash is why I made the simple argument: prove it, with your own words, using ONE quote and nothing else. Once again, a counterargument is still an argument, and if you can't substantiate it with the proof estabilished by my rules you lose.
It's terrible basically those were just taken out of context and misquoting a single article because in complete detail it prove my claims to be true which is also supported by other discussion in the same topic in tumblr. So you lose.
Wrong. Because we aren't playing your game. I already did, I provided a source which confirmed what I said. The rest of the context is irrelevant because it's neither relevant to what you asked in the first reply to me nor relevant to my own argument.
Now it's your turn to play my game, and I laid the simple game rules and you can't follow them. I asked ONE singular source, saying in black and white that a flavor wasn't a factor. You didn't provided any, therefore you lose.
Kamigawa was very faithful to its source material, but played around in a lot of spaces that weren't very resonant for the majority of the audience, making the set feel more "weird" than focused. It definitely has a distinctive look, but not one that scored well in the market research. Again, through the lens of time and the Commander format, it has built up some new fans.
As I've explained numerous times on social media, this return is a tough sell for me to make internally based on how disastrous the first visit went. The biggest factor that a return hinges on is how much are we allowed to change and still call it Kamigawa. The set has minimal mechanical space we want to return to and many creative choices we would do differently if we started over with the source material. I wouldn't count out the chance of a return, but it's not a big one.
Source specifically cites in the bolded parts that the creative and flavorful aspects were NOT well received. Therefore, while "your" source does proves that MaRo thought Design was A issue in the full quote, it wasn't the ONLY issue in the quotes mentioned above. Therefore, WRONG.
The set mechanically was very parasitic (it required too much playing with itself) and the setting, while authentic, was not recognizable enough by most players. It rated very low in market research on mechanics and world.
Setting and world cited specifically as failings that didn't resonate with players in market research. Therefore, WRONG.
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.
Not only MaRo flat-out states that the creative and flavor aspects of Kamigawa were poorly received, but he specifically does so citing not only as one of the WORST worlds but also debunking a statement not unlike yours from Tumblr user "per-mariam-ad-jesum". Therefore, WRONG.
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 reason I think there are people who are huge fans of Kamigawa is that there are elements that are very cool. The source material has tons of fans so it seems to reason that players would like those elements they see reflected in the game.
Tamiyo, by the way, has a very split reaction. She tends to be polarizing. Those that like her really like her but those that don’t really don’t. Now I think Magic should have polarizing things so I’m a huge fan of Tamiyo. Worlds, though, are not the things that are supposed to be polarizing. We want as many players as possible to love our worlds.
Once again, MaRo states that both card design and world design were failures according to market research done by WotC, and specifically states that while the source of Japanese myths and culture are solid and well-loved, the execution in Kamigawa was poor and divisive, which is the exact argument being made by me. This post barely even mentions the failings of card design either, so you don't get even that going for you and therefore WRONG.
Four citations, not one proving your point about Card Design being the only failing of Kamigawa. Try again.
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.
LOL your demands are entire ridiculous. That's kinda "Ad Ignorantiam"
WHY?
Because YOU asked me to give any source to my claims that Kamigawa's worldbuilding and flavor was considered a failure by MaRo, and I did. Your argument is that Design failed it while also disregarding the failings of the setting's flavor. Therefore, either acknowledge the failings of the "plane's aesthetic or atmosphere" according to the provided MaRo quotes or give me proof of the contrary. Not that hard to understand, and it's literally the only demand I made while complying with yours.
And as I said ONE quote, not multiple, because your reading comprehension is too awful for me to debunk multiple arguments in one post and your scattershot, unfocused arguments of citing other games that have nothing to do with MtG or literally making stuff up about me regarding Japanese themes as a failure is getting boring. Either way, I'll accept your failure to comply to my demands as admittance you're wrong.
This was the complete post which makes it right and backup by the sources
It's the design that failed it.
OK, so this is going nowhere and I'm just wasting my time. Your English is poor and a headache to understand, your reading comprehension is even worse and you're so deep into your false dilemma fallacy that it's pointless to continue further. If we continue this i'll be posting multiple complete analysis by MaRo himself on all the angles Kamigawa failed, you'll see the words "Design: Weak" and disregard every other point while proclaiming yourself the all-knowing game designer, I'll rebuke your stupid claims providing more sources and we'll be repeating this all week while further derailing this thread.
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.
It's the design that made it terrible like the mechanics and etc not that it was a japanese myth theme.
It was clearly mentioned that the mechanics is the problem and it mentioned most of the time.
SO I AM RIGHT
You are "right" when analyzing an argument that was never made. Once again, you seem to be misinterpreting every reply in either an attempt of grasping at straws or an assumption based entirely on very poor understanding of the language.
Literally nobody here said that "Kamigawa was bad because it's japanese myths". The argument is that "Kamigawa was also bad because it's japanese myths done poorly". Your first reply is pretty clear stated that:
It's not the plane aesthetic and atmosphere that failed Kamigawa.
when every given source proves that yes, the aesthetics, atmosphere and overall themings DID contributed to the failing of Kamigawa.
Also, "misleading quoting" is a terrible argument when the original source is also provided. Every quote of any written source is shortened for brevity, be it in news or scientific/academic texts, otherwise you'd have to copy the whole thing and then you'd be doing plagiarism.
But speaking of misleading, how about that quote up there where you use bold to accentuate the "mechanics" argument while ignoring the very next sentence that mentions the failings of Kamigawa from a worldbuilding perspective were even worse? Or the one where you use bold text to accentuate something that was not said by MaRo? Or you accentuating three words of a 300ish word segment and ignoring the things that you don't like? Because THAT is misleading.
Your main point is the Kamigawa being the failure because of the Japanese Myth in it.
OK, so. Your post made it clear that you're ESL, and I'm not mocking you for it (I'm ESL too) but I'm not sure if you Google translated my post and got something completely broken out of if... but either way, if this is what you got from my post, you really need to reread it. The point is that the interpretation of Japanese myths in Kamigawa was poorly executed because it delivered many aspects that people didn't cared for or didn't know, while missing major beats that people would expect from Japanese myths and culture. People often praise how cool Ninjas and Ninjutsu was, for example, while missing the fact that eight cards out of 600+ were Ninjas.
As for citations, most of what MaRo says is said in Blogatog, however since Tumblr is, well, Tumblr, most of it is difficult to reach or lost in time. But here's two snippets from MaRo's "Rabiah Scale" article:
Kamigawa was very faithful to its source material, but played around in a lot of spaces that weren't very resonant for the majority of the audience, making the set feel more "weird" than focused. It definitely has a distinctive look, but not one that scored well in the market research. Again, through the lens of time and the Commander format, it has built up some new fans.
As I've explained numerous times on social media, this return is a tough sell for me to make internally based on how disastrous the first visit went. The biggest factor that a return hinges on is how much are we allowed to change and still call it Kamigawa. The set has minimal mechanical space we want to return to and many creative choices we would do differently if we started over with the source material.
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.
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.
Sure we had Samurais and Ninjas and everyone liked these, but they were overshadowed by all the stuff that got shifted too much from their original source (like Akkis, which very few people even realized were supposed to be a stand-in for Kappas), stuff that was just too obscure (like Moonfolk or the Deceiver/face-stealer cycle) or stuff that simply didn't felt different enough from what already existed in Magic (aka. the entire focus of the block, the Spirit/Arcane stuff), all while missing some major players like Tengus, Kaijus or classic Obakemonos. MaRo has been discussing this idea of making a 2nd brand new Japan-inspired plane since original Innistrad, so the "time skip" solution seems both realistic and acceptable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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.
No, you didn't. What you did was launch an unfounded counterargument over me pointing out (with proof) on the fact MaRo has denied that flavor wasn't an issue. Said argument I made was based on the conception that "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. This is a lie based on the information MaRo has presented over the reasons Kamigawa has failed: Kamigawa did not fail because of Japanese mythology. Kamigawa failed because, along with other issues, it did Japanese mythology wrong. Your initial argument can't be true because you didn't specified Japanese mythology, you specified KAMIGAWA and its AESTHETIC and ATMOSPHERE. You are mixing up the facts and trying to move the goalposts to attest the former while everyone else is telling you that the latter is true.
I will not answer you any further. I do not know what your first language is, but it has been made pretty clear that your understanding of the English language is extremely weak and faulty. Learn to speak English properly before coming into an online forum and accusing other people's arguments of being false.
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.
Second, moving the goalposts. Your initial argument was NOT "failed Kamigawa not the it being Japanese myth", whatever that poor imitation of English even means. The goalpost was pretty clear from the first post - "It's not the plane aesthetic and atmosphere that failed Kamigawa.", disproven by my source as MaRo did mention that the aesthetic and atmosphere DID fail Kamigawa and backed up by another user with several more claims.
Third, once again, no misquotes happened, unless you can prove otherwise, in which case we're back into my game. Your crying over my "out of context" claims are pathetic as you analyze YOUR claims that bold three words to make an "argument" or use bold text to completely misrepresent the person saying the quote, and that kind of shady trash is why I made the simple argument: prove it, with your own words, using ONE quote and nothing else. Once again, a counterargument is still an argument, and if you can't substantiate it with the proof estabilished by my rules you lose.
Now it's your turn to play my game, and I laid the simple game rules and you can't follow them. I asked ONE singular source, saying in black and white that a flavor wasn't a factor. You didn't provided any, therefore you lose.
Source specifically cites in the bolded parts that the creative and flavorful aspects were NOT well received. Therefore, while "your" source does proves that MaRo thought Design was A issue in the full quote, it wasn't the ONLY issue in the quotes mentioned above. Therefore, WRONG.
Setting and world cited specifically as failings that didn't resonate with players in market research. Therefore, WRONG.
And as I said ONE quote, not multiple, because your reading comprehension is too awful for me to debunk multiple arguments in one post and your scattershot, unfocused arguments of citing other games that have nothing to do with MtG or literally making stuff up about me regarding Japanese themes as a failure is getting boring. Either way, I'll accept your failure to comply to my demands as admittance you're wrong.
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.
Literally nobody here said that "Kamigawa was bad because it's japanese myths". The argument is that "Kamigawa was also bad because it's japanese myths done poorly". Your first reply is pretty clear stated that: when every given source proves that yes, the aesthetics, atmosphere and overall themings DID contributed to the failing of Kamigawa.
Also, "misleading quoting" is a terrible argument when the original source is also provided. Every quote of any written source is shortened for brevity, be it in news or scientific/academic texts, otherwise you'd have to copy the whole thing and then you'd be doing plagiarism.
But speaking of misleading, how about that quote up there where you use bold to accentuate the "mechanics" argument while ignoring the very next sentence that mentions the failings of Kamigawa from a worldbuilding perspective were even worse? Or the one where you use bold text to accentuate something that was not said by MaRo? Or you accentuating three words of a 300ish word segment and ignoring the things that you don't like? Because THAT is misleading.
As for citations, most of what MaRo says is said in Blogatog, however since Tumblr is, well, Tumblr, most of it is difficult to reach or lost in time. But here's two snippets from MaRo's "Rabiah Scale" article:
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.
Sure we had Samurais and Ninjas and everyone liked these, but they were overshadowed by all the stuff that got shifted too much from their original source (like Akkis, which very few people even realized were supposed to be a stand-in for Kappas), stuff that was just too obscure (like Moonfolk or the Deceiver/face-stealer cycle) or stuff that simply didn't felt different enough from what already existed in Magic (aka. the entire focus of the block, the Spirit/Arcane stuff), all while missing some major players like Tengus, Kaijus or classic Obakemonos. MaRo has been discussing this idea of making a 2nd brand new Japan-inspired plane since original Innistrad, so the "time skip" solution seems both realistic and acceptable.