793 réponses à ce sujet

[Fexelea]

Khavos wrote...

Fexelea wrote...

Khavos wrote...

Fexelea wrote...

You can read it in his posts:

"...I'm sorry if you felt my comments were addressed to you or, indeed, anyone who presented their arguments in a professional, civil manner..."

"... If you did feel as if my comments were directed at you, and you were one of the former group, then I apologize wholeheartedly..."

"...I'm sorry if I inadvertently insulted you..."

Oh, yeah, he's said he's sorry you feel the way you feel.

He's never apologized for saying what he said, though.  And I like that about him.  Non-apology apologies always work on the right people.   

Hahaha. Thanks, that actually made me lol.

You keep trying to throw red herrings. Not gonna work. My point was not about how sincere his apology might or not have been. He does "apologize if he insulted". If you wish to question Stanley on his sincerity, I suggest you do so with him.

My point was that he has addressed the topic of this thread, that being people feeling insulted by his chosen words, with an apology. Once more, that is what the "topic" is about.

No, I'm afraid you said he apologized for his chosen words.

Fexelea wrote...

This does not change the thread's topic,
nor does it change the fact that even Stanley Woo himself has addressed
that topic repeatedly by explaining and apologizing about his chosen
words (and not the "message").

See? 

He didn't. 

You are grasping at straws, seemengly trying to find any flaw in my post that would devalidate the entirety of it in your eyes. Unfortunately, your efforts are not rewarded, as there is no such flaw because you are trying to validate your interpretation, and even if that interpretation was deemed correct it does not change the original point.

In short: Your further interpretation of what he has apologized about is irrelevant to the fact that he has addressed the topic and explained and clarified his statement, and apologized if it was offensive (since you are keen on argueing "semantics" I will add a /insulting).

The intentions behind the apology, or the direct phraseology of the apology, have no bearing on my original point.

Modifié par Fexelea, 09 février 2010 - 04:04 .

[Khavos]

Fexelea wrote...

The intentions behind the apology, or the direct phraseology of the apology, have no bearing on my original point.

That's true, unless we consider it being technically incorrect to have bearing. 

My "interpretation," by the way, is based on the fact that I can read and know what words mean.  You inferred what you liked out of it, which is precisely what everyone in this thread has been doing since the start.  Very few have been taking what was said at face value, instead choosing to find a way to get their feelings hurt over it.

Yourself clearly included.  You wouldn't stick around trying desperately to make the point that it was offensive if you didn't find it to be offensive. 

Modifié par Khavos, 09 février 2010 - 04:10 .

[Astranagant]

I'm more bothered by the fact that any aliens have breasts to begin with.

[contown]

The only part of the whole removal of nudity that bothers me is the idea that they might have done it because of the whole fox news incident. It'd be a shame if bioware "censored" their work just because of the ravings of a woman that hadn't even seen the material in question.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Khavos wrote...

Fexelea wrote...

The intentions behind the apology, or the direct phraseology of the apology, have no bearing on my original point.

That's true, unless we consider it being technically incorrect to have bearing. 

Woo lumped everyone together as being imature and wanting mindless nudity when in all honesty its not actually the case at all, backpeddled, then issued a weak apology for it. Which is the entire reason of this very topic. Why you're arguing semantics and the "intentions" of an apology is beyond me in the first place.

[Cat Lance]

Lucy_Glitter wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

Wow, Woo is actually trying to sift through this mountain and answer some of it. That will....take a while.

It's also showing that he is awesome imho. 

Seconded.

I think it's funny that when the devs give straight answers with no personality ppl get upset about the "company man" and the "party line" and call them robots, but when there is sarcastic joking banter...it's the sky is falling.

I think for some people, it's just going to be a matter of getting to know the Master of the Happy Fun Ball.

[Kwonnern]

If ME1 never got FOX attention, i am sure this wouldn't be a topic.



Then again, you have to be careful as a Game-developer, especially in Amish-County.



Getting Bad PR is not good for sales. That's what made Bioware a bit more cautious.



Without the Fox-debacle, Bioware would have nothing to worry about and we would surely have the sequel more in line with ME1 regarding this.

[Khavos]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Woo lumped everyone together as being imature and wanting mindless nudity when in all honesty its not actually the case at all, backpeddled, then issued a weak apology for it. Which is the entire reason of this very topic. Why you're arguing semantics and the "intentions" of an apology is beyond me in the first place.

He didn't lump me in.  I'm not immature and wanting mindless nudity.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Woo lumped everyone together as being imature and wanting mindless nudity when in all honesty its not actually the case at all, backpeddled, then issued a weak apology for it. Which is the entire reason of this very topic. Why you're arguing semantics and the "intentions" of an apology is beyond me in the first place.

Did Mr. Woo hurt your feelings?  Poor baby, let me get you some tissues and the worlds smallest violin.

Not at all, if I want to look at sex all I need do is use google or turn on the tv. So no he didn't hurt my feelings in the slightest. Do I think his original comments were unprofessional? Yes I do. Though that seems to be par for the course with Bioware as of late unfortunately.

[Fexelea]

Khavos wrote...

Fexelea wrote...

The intentions behind the apology, or the direct phraseology of the apology, have no bearing on my original point.

That's true, unless we consider it being technically incorrect to have bearing. 

My "interpretation," by the way, is based on the fact that I can read and know what words mean.  You inferred what you liked out of it, which is precisely what everyone in this thread has been doing since the start.  Very few have been taking what was said at face value, instead choosing to find a way to get their feelings hurt over it.

Yourself clearly included.  You wouldn't stick around trying desperately to make the point that it was offensive if you didn't find it to be offensive. 

Words by themselves have meanings, words in context have interpretations. Language is not an exact science, as evidenced by the back-n-forth between people who agree, when trying to clarify what was expressed. Your interpretation of what Stanley wrote is as valid as mine or as anyone's. Your assessment that the apology is in fact a non-apology is not a fact.

Generalizing again? We have been through this. My point is that the topic is about users who felt the expression was innapropriate. Stanley addressed that. That's all there is to it. The thread diverging into sub-themes is not relvant to my point.

Your further assessments that I am "sticking around" and "trying desperately" to do anything are both innacurate and irrelevant.

[Wicked 702]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Woo lumped everyone together as being imature and wanting mindless nudity when in all honesty its not actually the case at all, backpeddled, then issued a weak apology for it. Which is the entire reason of this very topic. Why you're arguing semantics and the "intentions" of an apology is beyond me in the first place.

Did Mr. Woo hurt your feelings?  Poor baby, let me get you some tissues and the worlds smallest violin.

What, pray, does this add to the discussion exactly? Or is it just better to turn on the FLAMES?

[Kwonnern]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

Kwonnern wrote...

If ME1 never got FOX attention, i am sure this wouldn't be a topic.

Then again, you have to be careful as a Game-developer, especially in Amish-County.

Getting Bad PR is not good for sales. That's what made Bioware a bit more cautious.

Without the Fox-debacle, Bioware would have nothing to worry about and we would surely have the sequel more in line with ME1 regarding this.

Not really, the "flings" in ME2 aren't as intimate as Ashley or Liara.

All because of being very cautious due to the Fox-debacle (and not wanting it to repeat itself),as earlier stated.

[Khavos]

Fexelea wrote...

Words by themselves have meanings, words in context have interpretations. Language is not an exact science, as evidenced by the back-n-forth between people who agree, when trying to clarify what was expressed. Your interpretation of what Stanley wrote is as valid as mine or as anyone's. Your assessment that the apology is in fact a non-apology is not a fact. 

Nor is your interpretation that it's not a non-apology a fact, yet you presented it as one.  When are you going to learn that it cuts both ways? 

Generalizing again? We have been through this. My point is that the topic is about users who felt the expression was innapropriate. Stanley addressed that. That's all there is to it. The thread diverging into sub-themes is not relvant to my point.

What's remarkable is that I've said the exact same thing four or five times in this thread, and you've seen fit to continue making the argument that it was, in fact, inappropriate - all while claiming that you don't care if it was.  Is it two people typing separate parts of your posts or something?

Your further assessments that I am "sticking around" and "trying desperately" to do anything are both innacurate and irrelevant.

Is this an example of language being inaccurate in context?  I believe you meant to say "spot on" and "amusing for the spectators."

[Khavos]

Wicked 702 wrote...

What, pray, does this add to the discussion exactly? Or is it just better to turn on the FLAMES?

Making someone repeat a hilariously bizarre demand only makes it more hilariously bizarre.  Especially when they get passionate about it. 

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Khavos wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

What, pray, does this add to the discussion exactly? Or is it just better to turn on the FLAMES?

Making someone repeat a hilariously bizarre demand only makes it more hilariously bizarre.  Especially when they get passionate about it. 

What demand is that? I posted my opinion on the topic and not much else. I didn't think I demanded anything at all. But hey whatever delusional belief you have going there, don't let me ruin it for you.

[The Tony Show]

Jesus Tapdancing Christ- this again?   I know this comment will get lost in the sea of responses, but you people really need to get off the drama wagon and stop claiming that Stanley was condescending or insulting. 

All he said was "We decide what goes in the game, and you decide if you're going to buy it".  He wasn't insinuating that they they don't listen to fan feedback or "getting up on a high horse" (as many here have put it).  He was responding directly to a commenter that accused Bioware of having "no nads" and claiming that they were trying to be a parent to people's children by not including nudity.  His response to this rude and presumptuous comment was basically "Your theory is ridiculous, and we did not base the decision on any external feedback- from the fans OR the media".

Everyone in the world seems to spend all day looking for something to be outraged about, and it's moronic.  You people do realize that you're not only arguing in countless discussions about the lack of fake videogame pixel boobs, but arguing in countless discussions about a single comment made by a QA tester on an Internet forum about fake videogame pixel boobs.  Get a frigging life.  If you're that outraged, then never buy a BioWare product again.  Problem solved. 

Now can I please get back to reading about the game on these forums and not your childish whining when a BioWare employee slaps you with a hard truth that you don't like?  That'd be great, thanks.

[The Demonologist]

Ya'll need to quit raging and discuss this like smart folks. You're doing the latter, but the former you could do without.

His comments could be misconstrued as inappropriate, he apologized, no reason to really be going on and on about it. 'par for the course with Bioware lately' isn't exactly, er... Y'know. Useful? Constructive? And I hate to be 'that guy' but where the hell else have they been inappropriate? While I guess you could call this an exception(Not that I -really- believe that.) but I'd call Bioware more honest than anybody else on these subjects, and the willingness to discuss the subject is nice. It's not dickishness, its honesty.


The Tony Show sums up my feelings as well. Honestly, get over it.

Modifié par The Demonologist, 09 février 2010 - 04:35 .

[Wicked 702]

Khavos wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

What, pray, does this add to the discussion exactly? Or is it just better to turn on the FLAMES?

Making someone repeat a hilariously bizarre demand only makes it more hilariously bizarre.  Especially when they get passionate about it. 

Calling somone a child and patronizing them is intended to get them to repeat a statement? Huh?

You lost me at hello...

[Khavos]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Khavos wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

What, pray, does this add to the discussion exactly? Or is it just better to turn on the FLAMES?

Making someone repeat a hilariously bizarre demand only makes it more hilariously bizarre.  Especially when they get passionate about it. 

What demand is that? I posted my opinion on the topic and not much else. I didn't think I demanded anything at all. But hey whatever delusional belief you have going there, don't let me ruin it for you.

Nor did I say you did. 

[The Demonologist]

Unecessary commentary on other posters sanity was unecessary.



Sniping is... pretty... silly on a forum.

[Khavos]

Wicked 702 wrote...

Calling somone a child and patronizing them is intended to get them to repeat a statement? Huh?

You lost me at hello...

It's worked pretty well throughout the thread.