[SolidSquid]

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

I want to understand at what point does informing the general public and calling out this seemingly unethical practice become encouraged instead of ridiculed and/or brushed off. In reference to OS, there has been a lot of inside information and things exposed about Madden on this site over the years, that while allowing it to remain posted, hasn't been put out front like the more balanced or pro-Madden elements. Some people confuse truth with balance or even requiring some silver lining but truth needs no such caveats, it is what it is. If that turns out to have balance, fine, if not, fine but adding things onto truth to make it less blunt, fair or "constructive" is no longer truth. There seems to be this unwritten rule, that some of the more independent video game media don't adhere to thankfully, where Madden gets some kind of pass or benefit of the doubt prerelease, in spite of its' track record. I'm referring to what the Op is, when they tout some feature as new or functioning in a certain way, even after that turned out bunk the first or second time they announced the same feature in the past and just the general track record of Madden's features. I don't get how that gets a pass every year, especially this time of year, how many times does a company get to provide snake oil but allowed to market it as tonic? It's cool that some people can deal with snake oil and that it's profitable but that's besides the point to marketing it to solicit to those that want tonic and not being calling out for it. I have a link that I keep debating about when to post because I want to believe the game will be what they claim this time and this all isn't some twisted EA marketing playbook or blueprint. However it's difficult discerning at what point does benefit of the doubt or hope become enabling and potentially allowing others to be duped.

If you don't want to post the link would you mind pm'ing it to me? I like knowing what other people think and their ideas