| VDusen04 |
08-23-2011 05:19 PM |
Re: The Curious Case of Charles Barkley, and NBA 2K12
Quote:
Originally Posted by eko718
(Post 2042756595)
Even if theoretically this is what they did, they could have accomplished the same goal without positioning the poll as if it would actually have an IMPACT on which legends would be included. Ronnie implied as much in his insight, in addition to it being implied on the facebook site itself.
I don't know the story, so I'm not going to conclude 2K didn't want to get these guys in there, or Barkley is being a prick(etc)... I don't have that inside track. I just feel that marketing move was misleading and ill advised.
|
I can agree with you there. I don't even really mind that Charles and Reggie will not be a part of the cast. Of course, I would welcome them but as I've said before, I'm pretty sure the other 34 classic teams (in addition to current) teams will be able to hold me over for about five years.
Anyway, yes, I knew it seemed to be too late in the production game to be holding a Facebook poll to discover which legends they should add. However, I still agree that it was misleading. Directly below the published Facebook results in Insight #1 was this line:
Quote:
"I can’t emphasize enough the importance of community involvement over the next two months. We’ve created a skeleton list of the 15 players and rivalries to be featured in NBA’s Greatest. But we’ve been interested in your feedback. Is there a particular game or player you want to relive in NBA 2K12? You’ll finally get the chance to do so come Oct 4."
|
And surely, there's nothing set in concrete from that quote that states the poll would be used to help centralize their focus on who to included. But they did kind of make it sound a little imperative that we vote, as if a certain portion of the game depended on it. Further, the "skeleton" list seemed to hint at 2K having a rough idea of who they were adding while perhaps tweaking things to cater to our liking. It was a funky advertising tactic if nothing else. It seemed to promote genuine confusion in many cases just as well as curiosity. |
