{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
11/4/2015 4:36:21 PM
1
Either that, or, just throwing this possibility out, I'm disagreeing with the OP because 1) the article he claims "proves" his point does no such thing, and 2) I have known victims of abuse and the analogy is offensive.
Also, 3), he has 2 Level 40 characters, so clearly he himself can't break away from this "relationship". If the game is not good value for money, you, I, or the OP are free to leave at any time. Obviously, the game is enjoyable. This is merely a whiny cry that it costs more than $20.
What's sad to me is that you don't have a counterargument, merely an ad hominem attack on "how I come off". I don't apologize for having an education and knowing how to connect thoughts together logically. If we had some more of it around here, we would have fewer of these threads.
English
-
You'll see my counterargument in other posts I made in this thread, I'm not going to repeat it for every person who defends Bungievision. If you're hanging on his battered wife analogy (which I agree wasn't a great one), then you're creating a strawman argument by attacking something largely irrelevant in order to discredit or draw attention away from his underlying point. Now, let me address the "cut-up" comment the OP made and the article he referenced for his point. If the article is based on truth, it was indeed stated that Bungie re-purposed content that was originally slated to appear much earlier on in the game under Joe Staten's version. It also states that they put together a round-table whose objective was to figure out how to reintroduce the dissected content into the game. While it stops short of stating that they did this for the sole purpose of selling it for maximum profit later, that seems to be what ended up happening at some point in the timetable. Here, you're attacking minutia such as semantics/misquotes instead of acknowledge the OP's overall point. The small-minded might have read that and thought you turned the tide of the argument but all you did was spin it in an irrelevant direction. Seems to be your go-to tactic. So, now let's talk about your attempt to rationalize that the game itself must be good/enjoyable because someone can't stop coming back to it. Do you also rationalize that about all people addicted to gambling? It might alleviate a nagging itch/impulse for him to play this game but that doesn't mean it meets his expectations of what this game should/could have been. In the case of Destiny, it seems like they focused on trying to make it addictive and [i]then[/i] build a game around those addictive components. Now, if you want to defend that as simply being "good game design", go ahead but know which side you're on. Hint: it's not the side of the consumer and the fact that you are in fact a consumers and still choose to view that as good game design is sad. It has to qualify as some category of Stockholm syndrome.
