Those are all direct quotes... taken out of context. I backed up every criticism with examples from the article and why they were factually incorrect or misleading (it is not just a matter of me disagreeing, it is them misrepresenting the game). They gave a link to t "An outline of the major changes coming in 1.19" when it was in fact a list of recipe changes, they left out a great deal of important information, the op-ed piece didn't provide any examples or evidence for half of his rants.
In fact the very first comment on the op-ed's thread outlined my grievances in detail, and I stand behind everything I said. You are only defending such a poor article because it confirms your bias against the game. You can't seriously sit there and say it was a good informative article outlining the changes which occurred in the first year of development.
There are trolls which were banned for trolling who presented better arguments against the game than the "professional" writer of this article. It was a lazy effort on his part, and as usual the editors there dropped the ball (both in actual "editing" which they apparently don't do given the horrible state of the article, and in content selection). I don't think I am stepping out of bounds in criticizing a website that earns money off of advertising "Free to Play" scams to me, or these people the employ who claim to be gaming journalists.
Journalists by the way, if these people do want to claim be journalists, are supposed to be held to an ethical standard to not mislead their readers with false or incomplete information. Real journalists would be fired for writing such an article.



Reply With Quote




