Company makes a quality game that people are consistently playing, and decides it wants to monetize on that quality with an absurdly low-cost high return investment? Yeah, how dare they.
@Ceclor It is significantly harder to get very emotional, find a rock, and kill a person. They are far less defenseless against such an assault, and it takes considerably longer/more effort to do, giving the aggressor more time to rationalize.
I would be very, very surprised if avid gamers ended up being inferior or equal employees to non-gamers.
Constant and consistent practice in problem-solving and interactive thinking are vital components in learning how to tackle problems of all kinds.
It also would not surprise me at all (although less so than the above) if gamers who are avid participants in social structures through video games are also fairly good at participating in real-world social structures. The difference here, however, is that it is less likely to make you better than a non-gaming applicant, for the obvious reason that you can find social structures in many non-gaming activities, and that the constant learning and problem solving that takes place in gaming (of certain types I'll happily admit; grinding out hours in CoD or grinding levels in a RPG probably doesn't count) is seldom replicated; how many real-world activities match the experience of a game like Portal?
I might agree with you if that ending wasn't so egrigiously effing bad. You can argue about the art all you want, but as a business Bioware is in the business of providing goods and services for consumption by purchasers. The ending was a piss-poor product, and consumers can rightfully feel wronged by it after spending money for it. BW doesn't HAVE to change anything. And yes, the argument that changing a work of art based on consumer demand is demeaning and damaging to the moral rights of an artist. But they would build a great deal of goodwill by listening to the feedback of fans and constructing an alternate ending to the series. And there is certainly no law or moral dilemna on taking an existing work of art (especially one which you have created) and altering or improving it to make it more appealing to it's audience. There is certainly no requirement that an artist's work satisfy all or even a specified amount of it's audience. But when you are in the business of creating artwork for consumption and you create a peice which either entirely or in part is of such insufficient quality that purchasers create a petition to have you create a new one, I think it's possibly a good idea to listen.
moridin800's comments