@MinerAvatar The statement you made is still contradictory in character. It is not a FALSE statement, but it is still contradictory because it takes two binaries--it isn't okay to hurt someone, and it IS okay to hurt someone--and mixes them together. That is contradictory, even if the statement is still accurate. And that was my whole point. When you are presenting a complex opinion, it is hard to voice without making some mistakes, so contradictions ARE going to happen in the speaking. Enundr implied that the contradictions in the statement issued by the ASA is proof that the ASA was paid off, but that's like claiming someone who gives a speech and stumbles a little bit is automatically an idiot. (Like President Bush) It features an imaginative LEAP IN LOGIC based on prejudiced PRESUMPTIONS.
Whenever your opinion of a game is more complex than "It is brilliant" or "It is crappy," you are opening yourself up to the possibility of contradictions. That's just the way our language works. It does not imply anything sinister that the ASA contradicted itself a few times in its statement. You know what WOULD imply something sinister? A xeroxed bonus check sent from EA headquarters to ASA headquarters. Got a copy of it? Does Enundr? If you do, I'll happily reverse my position. Otherwise, to suggest there is something wrong with me "defending a company" from this kind of slanderous claim is simplified black-and-white thinking designed to pressure me into joining your side. No thanks. I'm quite content standing where I am.
You have no facts that they were paid off by EA, so it IS slander until you DO have facts. It doesn't matter if EA screwed us royally or not; to claim that the ASA was paid off without evidence--which is what Enundr did here--IS slander. Is he free to state it? Sure, and I'm free to call him on what a load of crap it is until he shows me some proof. Sticking up for yourself isn't slander unless you can't support it, and nobody on here has GIVEN me support for this idea that ASA was paid off. It's all circumstantial and more of an indulgence of anti-capitalist gamer attitudes than something really based in facts. Forgive me if I don't appreciate that kind of nonsense.
Holy shit! A company said there would be more variation to the endings than there actually are? Whatever shall the hardcore gamer do! Because as we all know, the ONLY reason people put 300 damn hours into ME1, 2, and 3 was so they could watch a 1 hour ending that makes the whole thing worthwhile! Oh wait...why on earth would anybody rational do that? If they were playing it that long, they were probably gaining something from it. Like FUN AND ENTERTAINMENT. And now we're going to claim the whole thing was a slap in the face just because we didn't like the way it ended? How about from now on let's just have teachers read the end of our term papers and grade them based solely on that, rather than the 12 pages that came before them? Yeah, that makes PERFECT sense.
Furthermore, I'm sorry to break the illusion, but players never really HAD any control over the story of Mass Effect and it was merely a courtesy that Bioware even let us PRETEND to have control over it. It is THEIR story to end however THEY want to. You don't have to like it, but that's their right. Even if they HAD given us bigger control over the endings, I'm willing to bet no gamers would have been satisfied with them. How do I know? Because I've read Choose Your Own Adventure stories before and there's a reason none of those are recognized as great literature.
Now I will concede the possibility that Bioware lied in the advertisements for ME3, and MAYBE that's a crime, but it's something every company has done repeatedly without having criminal charges brought against them. Nintendo claimed that Twilight Princess would be 100 hours long before you even got to the sidequests in the game. In fact the whole experience is only about 60 hours TOTAL. Did anyone threaten to take Nintendo to court over that? Nope. Rareware claimed there were more than 2 hours of cinematics in Jet Force Gemini. There is nothing close to that number. Any pissing and moaning from gamers? Complete silence. If we brought up charges against every gaming company for all the times their advertising was false, our entire legal system would spend the next 10 years poring over pointless ads that any sane person can realize are exaggerations when there are a million better things our legal system could be doing. You got burned? Tough. Life's not fair. Deal with it.
The number of people who actually dare to defend corporations for making money is so minute compared to the number claiming that they are all greedy bastardized enterprises with no regard for human life that to suggest people like me are "destroying the industry" is laughable. If the entire industry was run by corporate-hating nutbags you'd STILL claim people like me were "destroying the industry," and it has nothing to do with reality; it's an indulgence of frustration at feeling you've been "burned." It is also an attempt to disenfranchise those who disagree with the majority, and I don't lay down and accept that without a fight.
Let's be clear: I am NOT happy with many of the industry's practices. I hate online codes, I'm not overly fond of On-Disc DLC, and I hate that they are trying to push for the used games industry to die. But I am not someone who works in the industry, nor is virtually anybody on this forum. I am too ignorant of the processes under which these decisions are made, which keeps me from being qualified to draw conclusions about them. That's true for most everyone on these forums, yet you'll never hear them acknowledging their own ignorance. They are all convinced they know everything, so they are qualified to declare these businesses "greedy" for these practices. They are arrogant, and they piss me off, so I call them on their ignorance. To suggest that I'm blanketing all their complaints as "slander" for "defending themselves" is akin to saying a jury should just openly accept whatever argument the defense throws out without any regards to evidence, truth, or common sense. No lawyer could get away with that in a court of law, and it's not any different here. If you're going to defend yourself, do it with some intelligence.
i'm sorry. What I wrote was kind of insensitive. I appreciate you clarifying your stance. I tend to get short-tempered when it comes to gamers complaining about things, and I projected some of those characteristics onto you. That was unfair and I apologize.
@Enundr Just because you see a "bug-ridden mess" doesn't mean one is actually there. This might be hard to believe, but it's kind of hard for even a big corporation like EA to pay off ALL of those positive reviewers, don't you think? Not to mention the absurd conspiracy theory it implies without proof. You're right that I don't have evidence saying they DIDN'T get a payoff, but that's an elementary "reactionary" argument that disregards what the law actually says. Ever heard the phrase, "Innocent Until Proven Guilty"? It's a principle our justice system is built off of. The burden of proof is not on me; it's on you.
"Effort" is not a word that is directly linked to results. I can put years of effort into flying off my house, but just because I don't succeed doesn't mean I didn't put in the effort. Call it semantic if you want, but it's a more important distinction than you realize. Don't claim Bioware didn't put "effort" into the endings unless you were there watching them develop the game. Cause that's the only way you can know for sure.
I'm not reading anything but "surface level" contradictions, and those don't prove anything sinister. Watch closely:
"It is never right to physically harm someone."
"People have the right to defend themselves from being attacked with force if necessary."
These statements are contradictory as well, but you won't hear most people saying this indicates anything except a conscious understanding of reality.
Finally, it wouldn't make a lick of difference if Bioware DID repair this "broken" game because "forgiveness" is not in the vocabulary of most hardcore gamers. Just look at the way people reacted when Capcom said they were reevaluating their stance on DLC. No more On-Disc DLC, so gamers are happy now, right? WRONG. Instead they just claimed they were going to REMOVE those elements and sell them separately. In other words, for gamers it is either their way or the highway, and that way is 1) no DLC EVER, 2) everything even remotely connected to a game's launch is automatically their property, 3) never charging more than $50 for a game regardless of how much it costs to produce, 4) all content the designers intend to provide must be ready and available as soon as the game launches regardless of whether it's possible to turn a profit under those circumstances, and 5) in spite of this, somehow, developers are still supposed to be able to get the games out fast enough that gamers don't get impatient and whine about the wait. If any of these basic tenets are broken, you can rest assured the hardcore gamer will declare the company the greatest evil ever to walk the earth.
You can reason with me if you actually provide proof, but until then, you're just getting the same ridiculous hyperbole from me that you've provided here.
@immortality20 What an elaborate, well-supported argument you make. Would you mind sharing your time-traveling abilities with me so I can see how Nintendo will NEVER have decent online? Can you also show me your proof that Nintendo will NEVER get any social gaming nor have they ever? And when was the last time you visited hell?
What? Don't like my ridiculous hyperbole? Good. Cause I don't like yours either. It's pointless and stupid. And frankly, I'm going to say what I've been meaning to say to a lot of whiny, entitled, bratty gamers for months: if you don't want to be a part of the future of this industry, A) I question whether you're actually a gamer and B) PLEASE get lost so those of us who actually, you know, LOVE gaming can regain control of our industry. I'll happily take people who appreciate gaming for what it IS over people who whine about what gaming WAS.
@bambrek And you and many other hardcore gamers would happily slander any businesses that earn their money legitimately on the simplified, black-and-white, intellectually lazy grounds that money is pure evil. Especially if it meant the price of games would go down. Because naturally, it is more important that gamers get to indulge their beloved, necessary-to-live hobby of gaming than it is that people actually remain employed.
How about providing some proof of this big fat paycheck you allege they received?
@mjc0961 Oh really? I never heard about that. Maybe that was something much more prominent at launch, cause I got mine in 2002 and have only ever had problems with the lens getting dirty.
Either way, console failure on a massive, consistent level--where they had to extend warranty to 3 years--was completely unprecedented (to the best of my knowledge) before 360 showed up, though to be fair, I've actually had more problems with my PS3 than with my 360. (It red ringed under warranty; meanwhile Sony wants to charge me $140 to fix the disc reader on my now useless 20 gig PS3.)
@Jebril To be fair I wasn't paying much attention to its launch, so maybe I got some things wrong.
What I DO know is this: the system launched as probably the first famous instance of consistent console failure with the Red Ring of Death, which didn't really get better until at LEAST a year later. I also know that the PS2 remained the top console in terms of quality and use until late in 2006. Maybe some of the stuff it launched with was good stuff, but most of it was just ports that honestly didn't look much better than the prior generation's versions.
But if you think of its "launch window" as the first year and a half--rather than the first few months--I guess you could ARGUE that the launch wasn't so bad. At least in terms of quality titles.
@Raeldor Well that's not unusual for a launching console. Xbox 360 launched poorly, PS3 launched even MORE poorly, and PS2 launched pretty badly as well. I'm more interested in what they do over the long haul, and we don't have to purchase the console Day One.
cachinscythe's comments