Kotaku: The Story Behind ME:A's Troubled Five-Year Development

I'm one of those that roleplay a certain way. I'm inflexible like that. I've never tried playing FemShep or a female version of myself. I'm just inflexible in that mindset when I'm immersed. BioWare has always held my hand in this regard and I love that. I know a lot of people complain about love interests, but to me, that's the icing on the cake. The very fact that I have an option and it feels as natural as the setting you're invested in... is what sets BioWare apart in my opinion. Are all romances the same? No. Am I missing out? No. If the character's writing is great enough for a love interest that works, being his friend should work (Dorian, kicks ass!). Andromeda felt a little awkward in that respect, but that's my problem to deal with and in every case so far, it's not really a problem. Avoid "flirt." However, as far as the original trilogy, it's male Shepard every damn time. Renegade and Paragon mixed for the most part, but my canon run is puro-Paragon. For the most part, it was nobody in ME1, Miranda for ME2 and Ash for ME3. However, my last run (I'm done with Unreal at this level) is Male Shep, Liara, Tali and Ashley. I'm pimpin' yo.

People wanted to bang that green Asari chick in Feros and she had the personality of a potato, it's just the internet​ desiring more weird senseless pixeled porn, and it's an Alien, somehow - that gets even more attention, Jaal for starters, reveal trailer had barely anything about him or his character, yet most desired character. Go figure.

The legs of many of the aliens are the same. Tali had backward legs, so does the Krogan, Turians and now Angara. What's the whole idea? Also DAO, the werewolves had the same exact legs. ???

First, makebelief is not actually a word. It's technically two words. Make believe. 

Secondly, lack of named sources is still a huge issue and if lack of named  sources hadn't been so wildly abused by every fucking tabloid ever and every journalist hoping to advance their career, we wouldn't be seeing all this sort of abuse of something  that was meant only as a protection rather than a nifty little loophole to pretend whatever you want and act as if it is credible. Had you grown up in a time where journalistic integrity was actually a thing and tabloid journalism wasn't rampant (pre internet boom where any asshat can write whatever they want giving rise to true 'fake news' where people began write lies as either propaganda or to generate web income), you would understand that unnamed sources should  be a rare thing given the percentage of people or companies that would actually take the journalist to court to reveal the unnamed source is statistically insignificant (read tiny). So there are no checks and  balances. Nobody knows  the unnamed source or if the unnamed source even exists. And now you can write whatever the hell you want and  just say that 'a  friend' or 'a worker' or 'a whatever' said blah, blah, blah. This loophole has destroyed journalism and journalistic integrity is at an all time low.

I would guess that at most that article has one person giving information. Maybe two. And I would guess that whatever they said had a high chance of being taken out of context or twisted to fit the facts the writer wanted to tell. Why? Because nobody can refute the article simply because it would force the unnamed source now to be named. This  was always an issue and one of the reasons unnamed source articles were a rare thing. Another huge issues is the credibility of the source. We  have no way  of knowing how credible any unnamed  source is. For all we know the source of this article could be the cleaning lady at BW montreal who overheard things and took them out of context and wasn't very clear on details forcing the writer to fill in the blanks and have other people help him understand what made no sense because the cleaning lady didn't get it right. 

The level of willful denial and ignorance is astounding.

You clearly aren't even trying to understand what I am saying. If BW were to address this specific issue, they would have to have employees now state what is  and is not true. They would have to waste valuable time that those employees need to use on other projects. While they could do that (despite it having no plus side for them) there are countless  others who cannot which is why this abuse began in the first place. More often than not there is a grain of truth in these stories but that doesn't mean they were accurate. It just means that the writer took that grain of truth and used it. But in this specific case, what does bioware gain from refuting it even if it isn't true and even if they know it exists. And that is probably the bigger point that I didn't even bother to make but you shined a light on. So this writer can literally say whatever he wants realizing that BW cannot be bothered  because nothing in it is actually harmful to them. And  in fact, it generates  sympathy for the workers and the challenges they faced now making them underdogs, which frankly,  makes it more likely  that the  story was  deliberately leaked to him to do exactly that. And  now you have a planted story meant to win hearts and minds  of people who  may have been or were on the fence about MEA. Suddenly they feel for the staff and want to support them in their struggle and show them that the hard work they put in was worth it. Without a named source we don't know. Sure, they could name the source but within the team, BW people  who worked on the game might realize that this person acted as a news plant and that could create more friction among employees. Now you see more levels as  to why unnamed sources are as a rule a bad thing. It could be anyone. Their agenda and credibility cannot be understood. We don't even know  what the true end goal of running the story was. In fact, the writer could be 100% honest in their intention to tell an accurate story but their source could  be 100% attempting to mislead the public and using the author as a tool to get some sympathy garnering version of reality out there. And by keeping said source unnamed, nobody will ever be the wiser. This is actually a very common business  tactic.

And  makebelief is not a word. Keep using it though. Show the kind of stubborn, 'I am always right' person you are. 

One thing that's not apt to change anytime soon is the human capacity for rationalization and confirmation bias.

Yea, they had the legs, but the animation of the Angaran ones are just weird in this game.  You ever watch how rubbery they go when they die?  They flop around like eels.  The Turian legs don't do that so far as I've seen, they stay stiff.  I dunno, just something weird I've seen that I can't unsee when I tried to do the Jaal romance.

I think we should merge the Yongyea thread to avoid redundancy.

Listen, you really need to calm down and stop taking things so personally. All I'm asking is a merge, this Youngyea video is redundant because it talks about an article that's debated repeatedly.

Oh but that’s different for many of the dlc thread, for exemple majesticcjazz even if I can rarely agree with him did started a thread about the time where Bioware release their first dlc and he wrote a text on that spoke about it to lead the conversation in a different way than the other threads about the dlc.


This was not about the kotaku articles, it was the subject of dlc but on a different manner, it was on other aspects. Not the “is jason saying the truth in his articles?” but a different approach on the matter was how much time it usually takes for Bioware to make a single player dlc.

That was the major difference, while it was still about dlc, the manners to speak about the subject was different.



Your threads on the other hand is only about a video that is just retelling the kotaku articles, it brings nothing except being an audio book of the kotaku article.