144 réponses à ce sujet

[FlamingBoy]

David7204 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

Please stop cherrypicking our arguments, attack it as a whole and don't pick the bits you feel like

Please learn what cherry-picking is. Even the dumbest arguments have some legitimate points to them. I have every right to attack whatever part of the argument I please.

cherry picking is a logical fallacy in which people only use the information to feed there confirmation bias, sometimes its unintentional.
Your ignoring large parts of my and polaris arguments, in favour of small snippets which are easier to attack.

Picking parts that support your argument while ignoring the information that will go against it
So yes I accuse you of cherry picking

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

Did you even read the page you sent me? It sure as hell doesn't look like it, because according to it, the law only requires disclosure, which of course was in place. Both IGN and BioWare were fully open about an IGN employee having a role in the game.

Where in the game does it declare that the model for Dianna Allers is an IGN employee?  No where.  You have to be told (as is true of any paid advertising).

You are also cherry picking.  Payola is generally defined to be the payment of money to get more or more favorable coverage of your product.  Given IGN's stance and the fact they let one of their employees TAKE PART ina a product they were covering FOR MONEY, this would be a clear case of such a conflict.  At the very least EA/IGN would be in danger of a payola prosecution.  However, in the digital media, there is no Payola law.

It is still a clear conflict of interest and still unethical, and you have shown anywhere that they aren't.  I never claimed what IGN/Chobot did was illegal.  Only that it would have been in a different medium.  Even if you disgree with that last sentence, it's still a clear conflict of interest.
 
-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

That's a fair point. But that kind of implies that fans are at fault for drawing conclusions that aren't true.

No, it is not the fault of the customer in such a thing.  EVER

If the customer can reasonably think there might be a conflict of interest, then there is the appearence of a conflict of interest, and the fault isn't with the consumers but those that create the appearence.  The customer is never at fault if there is a genuine appearence of a conflict of interest.  The rule is:  If a reasonable person can infer a conflict of interest (true or not), then the appearence of such a conflict exists, and that is the fault of those creating the conflict (or appearence of it).

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

IanPolaris wrote...

David7204 wrote...

That's a fair point. But that kind of implies that fans are at fault for drawing conclusions that aren't true.

No, it is not the fault of the reasonable customer in such a thing.  EVER

If the customer can reasonably think there might be a conflict of interest, then there is the appearence of a conflict of interest, and the fault isn't with the consumers but those that create the appearence.  The customer is never at fault if there is a genuine appearence of a conflict of interest.  The rule is:  If a reasonable person can infer a conflict of interest (true or not), then the appearence of such a conflict exists, and that is the fault of those creating the conflict (or appearence of it).

-Polaris

[FlamingBoy]

Well I think this debate has gone as far as it will go tonight I am going to bed, I might have a look at it tommorrow

[dreamgazer]

I'm a pretty tolerant, benefit-of-the-doubt fella, and even I was irked by what came out of the Chobot-Allers deal.

[David7204]

No. That's stupid.

Suppose you argue "Bob is wearing a red shirt. People who wear red shirts are murderers. Therefore, Bob is a murderer."

I look at Bob. He's indeed wearing a red shirt.

I'm going to totally ignore the first part of your argument. That's not confirmation bias. That's not 'ignoring information that goes against my argument.' That's not cherry picking. That's simply focusing on the faulty part of your argument. For an argument to be legitimate, the logic needs to be legitimate entirely.

[ssltrain]

Exile Isan wrote...

Her VO is mediocre and the way she's dressed is unprofessional. And we already has two journalist that could have filled the spot she took.

Exactly. Much better writing/planning would have given us a choice to take along either Wong or Al-Jalani. People already liked Wong, so getting to know her character would've been cool. Also, there would've been a lot of interesting depth and growth to explore with Al-Jalani's character, too, for the duration of the mission. Whoever you didn't take could've wound up dying on the Citadel in a blaze of glory, if that's what the writers wanted, rather than giving us the character's death via a stupid Twitter feed.

[HiddenInWar]

Side-note, is the context of video game journalists accepting money to give out good reviews illegal in any way? Curious.

[David7204]

ssltrain wrote...

Exactly. Much better writing/planning would have given us a choice to take along either Wong or Al-Jalani. People already liked Wong, so getting to know her character would've been cool. Also, there would've been a lot of interesting depth and growth to explore with Al-Jalani's character, too, for the duration of the mission. Whoever you didn't take could've wound up dying on the Citadel in a blaze of glory, if that's what the writers wanted, rather than giving us the character's death via a stupid Twitter feed.

That is simply ridiculous. You're acting as if the writers could have brought in Wong, but it was just too much work because the writers are lazy and stupid. Complete nonsense. In fact, it would be LESS work, considering they wouldn't have to model a new character.

Modifié par David7204, 17 mai 2013 - 05:21 .

[David7204]

IanPolaris wrote...

Where in the game does it declare that the model for Dianna Allers is an IGN employee?  No where.  You have to be told (as is true of any paid advertising).

How is it relevent whether it's directly in the product or not? It's easily accessible and widely distrubuted information that anyone can access. Nowhere in the page you sent me does it say that such information must be intergrated into the product itself.

You seem to be under the delusion that you're proving something by the amount of times you can type the phrase 'conflict of interest.' You page you sent me very clearly points out the the crux of the issue is secrecy and disclosure, which you've simply ignored.

Modifié par David7204, 17 mai 2013 - 05:25 .

[IanPolaris]

HiddenInWar wrote...

Side-note, is the context of video game journalists accepting money to give out good reviews illegal in any way? Curious.

It is not.  It would be for TV and Radio (unless you were clearly told that the review was bought and paid for).

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

No. That's stupid.

Suppose you argue "Bob is wearing a red shirt. People who wear red shirts are murderers. Therefore, Bob is a murderer."

I look at Bob. He's indeed wearing a red shirt.

I'm going to totally ignore the first part of your argument. That's not confirmation bias. That's not 'ignoring information that goes against my argument.' That's not cherry picking. That's simply focusing on the faulty part of your argument. For an argument to be legitimate, the logic needs to be legitimate entirely.

You need to learn more about situational/professional ethics and 'conflict of interest'.  If a REASONABLE person could with a reasonable review of the information available, come to the conclusion that their might be a conflict of interest, then there IS the appearence of a conflict of interest, always.  Futhermore, those that generate this appearence are always considered to be 'at fault'.

Note the term 'reasonable' which is actually fairly well defined in most professinal and legal circles.  The sort of person you are talking about is not a 'reasonable' person, nor is drawing a reasonable inference from the data.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Where in the game does it declare that the model for Dianna Allers is an IGN employee?  No where.  You have to be told (as is true of any paid advertising).

How is it relevent whether it's directly in the product or not? It's easily accessible and widely distrubuted information that anyone can access. Nowhere in the page you sent me does it say that such information must be intergrated into the product itself.

You seem to be under the delusion that you're proving something by the amount of times you can type the phrase 'conflict of interest.' You page you sent me very clearly points out the the crux of the issue is secrecy and disclosure, which you've simply ignored.

Who cares?  If it clearly can be seen by a reasonable person as a conflict of interest, then there is the appearence of a conflict of interest.

Done.

-Polaris

[Han Shot First]

I didn't like her because she was a shallow character with terrible voice acting. That, and it made little sense that Bioware spent resources modeling a very minor character (complete with face mapping), while Tali's reveal was a barely edited stock photo.

I honestly wouldn't have cared that Chobot was an IGN employee if her character had been well-written, and she knocked the ball out of the park with her voice acting work.

[Archonsg]

Gotta love personal attacks.

I do not *hate* the character.
I actually thought that it was a good and cool idea.

However, they did already have two well established in game journalists whom past players and fans not only recognize but can emphasize with.

The fact is, there is little to no reason why a new character had to be made, animated and voiced by an employee of an online magazine reviewing the game, especially when you already have existing characters who *should* have filled.Ms Aller's role.

That above is conflict of interest.

[PsyrenY]

I don't hate her, I hate what she represents: game companies climbing into bed with "journalists" to secure favorable ratings. As if IGN wasn't going to give ME3 a perfect score anyway.

[Archonsg]

To the OP, didn't quite respond to your question above, so here goes.

First off I thought that having an embedded reporter is kinda cool given that Shepard's role this time in ME is as much political as it is military, was a very good idea.

However the character itself was done in a halfhearted way.
Why wasn't there more questions, why wasn't there after mission declassified telecasts that the crew could watch and comment on. Fact, she IS brought on board to get you support, but if you aren't going to use her, why bring her on board in the first place?

What I thought would have been a better skew, if instead of Ms Allers (whose character obviously is mire deep in conflict of interest stemmed from the fact that its voice by an employee of a review site reviewing the game) if they had made it a choice for the player to choose either Ms Wong or Ms Al-Jilani and these two reporters did interviews based on * their* character. Character growth follows as either of these two follow Shepard and witness things that would shock anyone. (Banshees?)

Would Emily Wong's professional persona crack?
Would Kalisha Al-Jilani grow from the shallow reporter that she is into someone who after seeing first hand what the reapers are capable of, a reporter who would look first for the truth no mater how ugly it gets?
Would Shepard's Paragon / Renegade persona affect how they report these missions?
Would they against their corporate advice broadcast news that could cost them viewership but in the long run help steel the populace for a war that will come to a people so used to thinking "these things happen to other people."?

There was so much that Bioware *could* have done with the character, Normandy's Embedded reporter.

But they didn't.
It was a shallow attempt, it stank of an under table back room deal for ratings.

[David7204]

Literally every single character is derided as 'wasted potential' if s/he doesn't have much content, or 'shoved down our throats' if s/he does have a lot of content.

A reporter really should not be given the meat of character development.

Modifié par David7204, 17 mai 2013 - 07:22 .

[wright1978]

An atrocious parody of a war correspondent rather than the real thing.
An atrocious voice actress with no experience instead of a real actress.

[Archonsg]

David7204 wrote...

Literally every single character is derided as 'wasted potential' if s/he doesn't have much content, or 'shoved down our throats' if s/he does have a lot of content.

A reporter really should not be given the meat of character development.

It is wasted potential if its made with little or no content whatsoever as was in the case with Ms Allers.

As for the other point, as long as there is *choice*, allowing the player to choose if he or she wants to or whom he or she wants to interact with, then its not "shoved down our throats" now is it?

As for that last line, I can't belive you said that. 
But then again...

[Daniel_N7]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

I honestly don't think people particularly hate Diana Allers. She's a fairly wooden character that is poorly acted. That's not all that unusual, even for a Bioware game.

It's all the real life stuff and really fuzzy conflict of interests surrounding her voice actor that is being criticized.

That's why they hate her. A professional voice actor could have filled that spot and done a much better job.

Not even a professional voice actor could have saved the bad character modeling BioWare did with Diana Allers.

[Argolas]

David7204 wrote...

Literally every single character is derided as 'wasted potential' if s/he doesn't have much content, or 'shoved down our throats' if s/he does have a lot of content.

A reporter really should not be given the meat of character development.

I agree that we don't need a lot of character development, Shepard can have professional relationships to a few others just as well, no problem. However, the concept of having a reporter on board could have been worth something. Allers said that Shepard gets a veto right on everything she releases- let us decide what she can and can't publish. Let us decide what our propaganda should focus on: Promoting inter-species cooperation may boost alien support while focusing on humans could get some of Cerberus sympathizers over to our side (such as rich investors like Henry Lawson or some of the companies that covertly operated for Cerberus before). The war asset system provides perfect means to implement such a system. It even was kinda there, but only in a few intervew answers that only have a very minor effect on a few assets. That's what I call "wasted potential".

I also don't think that "wasted potential" and "shoved down our throats" is merely about how much content we have. For example, I think that both of the above can be said about Liara. She got a ton of dialogue in ME3 ("shoved down our throats") and half the time I didn't understand why it was Liara who told Shepard about those things, that could have been Traynor's job who in turn collects, manages and analyzes intel- what? We have the Shadow Broker on our ship, why doesn't Liara do that instead? Once again, we could take part in that. Some sidequests could be about gathering intel that we can later trade with certain factions in the game for support (=war assets), money, technology or other intel to trade or of direct use for us. That would even provide a better context for all the fetch quest- traded intel about some useful ancient artifact sounds more plausible than evasdropping some random guy on the Citadel talking about it and considering that hearsay important enough to travel through half the galaxy and get it. Again, wasted potential.

As a side note, both of the above features would have helped the feeling that there is a war going on. We wouldn't only be gathering war assets, we'd use the Normandy's specialists (reporter and information broker) in order to support them.

Modifié par Argolas, 17 mai 2013 - 08:07 .

[Archonsg]

@argolas

True, you don't need a a Companion level character development, well those that we do see anyways.
But some form of development would have worked.

It'll make the character feel like she's there, experiencing what the crew of the Normandy, even as a bystander, rather than as someone far away, reading 2nd, 3rd hand reports and trying to form a story from that.

As a reporter, all three if you include Ms Allers were desk reporters. They never got into the thick of things. They wan't put in the line of fire.
That changes perspective and one line of "development" that could have worked very well in terms of game immersion.

Just as your example of Liara's and Traynor's roles, so too could the embedded reporter played not just as a "story so far" for the player, but can be used when the emotional hammer is needed.

/shrugs
As is, given the amount of actual content that Ms Allers has, I blame her for Tali not having a face.
Had she actually made me felt that, yeah, it was worth having her along / the story would have been different without her, than not so (well I might STILL think she's to blame for Tali's face...but less so )

Modifié par Archonsg, 17 mai 2013 - 08:28 .

[Megaton_Hope]

David7204 wrote...

'Uncharacteristically high'? Complete nonsense. Plenty of reviewers game ME 3 scores of 9.5, and often higher. IGN's score is at most, a few points higher than the metacritic score.

You mean its 4.7 our of 10?