MrMcDoll wrote...
YOU are the one who uses subjectivity as a defense for why "nobody's opinion is more valid than another's" or something to that effect, yet when I show that subjectivity is such a babyish defense, you start saying that i'm off topic?
It is. Both because if a thing is obviously subjective you cannot say that using that evidence is "babysh defense" and both because of the way you used the argument.
MrMcDoll wrote...
My argument is logical and sound, yours is trivial semantics and violent protest.
Not at all. As I said probably you looked up a bit on wikipedia about what you could say on the thing and you did found Cartesio. Seeing as it was opportune for your point (in your view) you said: "oh well, this looks good, surely I will destroy his argument with these big names and words" without however understanding much of what the thing was really about in its full subtlety.
MrMcDoll wrote...
They should do it because they are a BUSINESS.
BUSINESSES run because they have CUSTOMERS
A vocal group of those customers have quite clearly proclaimed their hate for the endings.
It doesn't matter a sweet goddamn if they aren't the majority, or you like to think their opinions don't matter as much because they will OBJECTIF*CKINGLY reduce business through bad word of mouth, and reduced future sales etc.
So, let me guess. You are a corporate business. You don't know how many like/don't like your product for real. So, in your great logic, the best thing to do is not mind all of that but just about a bunch of people (that you don't know how many they are in percentual) just because they whine about it and do bad word of mouth, all of this without considering minimally the fact that if these people are, in fact, a minority, you could risk of making angry the real people that count?
So you say that a business should, to take care of these people that whine, completely disregard all the others (that we don't know how many they are) that are perfectly fine with the product just because some give bad mouth word to the product?
I understand, it makes perfect sense.
Do you know the only logic I see in this and in your argument: "it is obvious that Bioware must do it because we are obviously better than the others and so our opinion count much more, no matter all the rest".
MrMcDoll wrote...
It doesn't matter if you like to think we need some sort of omniscient statistical measurement of the numbers or whatever to weigh up whose opinion matters more, because bad reputation and a lack of customer support is OBJECTIF*CKINGLY bad for a company.
It can be objectively bad for a company, but it is either objectively worse when to avoid it you risk to compromise the major part of your audience (because people that whine are NOT the major part, just look at the numbers of copy sold and the numbers of people posting, there's a great difference; the majority can not like the ending, but it's not the people that whine the majority, of this you can be sure).
Morover what you call "bad word mouth" is anyway marketing. You can think that since it's bad it is better to avoid it, but there's an old saying that goes as this: "it doesn't matter if they talk badly about you or not, the important thing is that they are talking of you" and that's exactly what it happens in marketing.
You consider this a "bad" thing, but, depending on how Bioware uses the thing, it can actually become quite a way to make free advertising. Until you hate it means that there's a part of you that cares about the thing, it is indifference that you must beware really about as a company, not hate.
MrMcDoll wrote...
Following so far?
MrMcDoll wrote...
If Bioware do offer a different ending, it won't change anything for the people who don't play it.
Oh, it will change.
Both from an intention pow (i.e. those that does like the ending would see just the MOVE a bad thing)
Both from a lost time pow (i.e. those that do like the ending will consider work done on the same wasted time).
Both from "option doesn't make a thing plausible just because it's an option" (i.e. if you add rape as an option it doesnt matter if it is just an option or not, many would not like it to be there at all; those that consider the ending as plausible already would consider a branch with a total different context - because that's what it would require - a thing totally unacceptbale, either if just as an option)
MrMcDoll wrote...
You said that if person a wants y added to x, and b doesn't - it ain't fair on person b.
You also said there was nothing wrong with sidequest DLC.
What does have sidequests to do with this? First of all you don't know the content of the sidequest before (so people cannot decide a priori if it's a waste of time or not) and then there's obviously all the "intention" context that you completely ignored.
Also the intention of doing a thing you don't approve is seen as a waste of time.
MrMcDoll wrote...
HOW THE HOLY HELL ARE THEY DIFFERENT IF YOU PLAY NEITHER???????
I explained this in fully, I just provided short summaries above.
Modifié par Amioran, 01 mai 2012 - 04:00 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Guest_slyguy200_*
Retour en haut
