Just to be clear, there is more evidence to the existence of SC than there is God, and Christians aren't referred to as cultists.
Really pulling out all the stops here, eh CK? At risk of pulling this even further off-topic, lets just say I disagree.
"Cult" comes from Latin to worship, which is also where we get culture interestingly enough (although a different, though related meaning). "The Christian Cult" is actually a term I've seen used professionally, though very uncommonly, in America.
This is vastly different from what people sometimes colloquially mean by "cult"; terrible, tragic cases resulting in loss of life with many warning signs ahead of time: cases like Jonestown, or the Waco siege. I won't bother enumerating the many ways to reality-check oneself regarding whether or not one might be involved in an unhealthy cult, but some of them include loss of personal identity, unquestioning devotion to a particular individual or charismatic leader, and controlling of one's personal finances. I don't think anyone would seriously compare Star Citizen to something like this; any such comparison would be sidelong, irreverent, and at best, tongue-in-cheek.
There is also a third "middle ground" way in which people use the word "cult", and that is in the sense of a cult following, or a cult classic; usually referring to media that isn't necessarily commercially successful at first, but gains a devoted audience over time. This is also somewhat tongue-in-cheek, because it riffs on the fact that fans of whatever media may be in question often have "insider knowledge" that sets them apart from the rest of the general population, hence 'cult'.
So... many different ways to use the word "cult"; some less benign than others. All respect due to those that have actually been involved in cults and gotten free through any means available.
And no, to me, there is less evidence for the existence of Star Citizen than there is for the existence of God.
Thanks for the English lesson. That was a very in-depth analysis. We should probably call Dictionary.com and let them know to index it
You're not wrong, but he mentions it as "a cult" which pretty much negates it as referring to it as a cult classic or similarly descriptive wording. I didn't know about your reference to "The Christian Cult". That's pretty interesting. Thanks.
As for the existence of either said deities, I suppose that it's up to personal interpretation.
No lesson intended, but it seems like you really are seriously trying to set up Star Citizen as a valid 'deity'.
As Torg would say: "not a good idea".
Lol, by the way, that actually was one of the few times I wasn't being sarcastic. I actually found it quite interesting. I'm not a religious person, but I do enjoy the hypocrisy of religion.
No, I'm certainly not setting SC up as a deity. I have actually said on multiple occasions that my expectation lies somewhere north of an updated, bigger Privateer. I'm totally cool with that, though. If it actually met the marketing hype, I think it could be a revolutionary game, but anyone who has ever worked with a marketing department should understand how exaggerated their claims can get. Just watch any Nerf or Supersoaker commercial. I rarely see any of those toys shoot with that kind of accuracy. Doesn't mean they aren't fun, though.
But the fan response to this game has been odd. I cannot see any parallels in other media. For example, a lot of people are hyped for the new Star Wars film (particularly after the abortion that was the prequels), but no-one is pretending to be able to review it already.
This is what is happening with Star Citizen. In the heads of a certain group of people, this game exists in all the glory sermonised by CR. Reality, objectivity and rationality have left the building. People want to believe in this vision so they blindly believe. The reaction of these groups is beyond hype.
Do you have that much investment in Star Wars fan forums to say, without doubt, that fans AREN'T saying it's going to be the greatest thing ever? I know that one of the stars of the movie already said it's the best Star Wars film to date. I also know that it's beaten all pre-sale records by over 10 times. That's certainly putting your money into something that you, ultimately, don't know whether it's going to be good or bad. In fact, if you were betting on it, why would you think that Disney would come in and make the definitive Star Wars film? Yet it's eclipsed all pre-order ticket sales by 10 times...... Less than a day after going on sale.
I would counter your argument and, also, say that the people on the opposite side of the fence have very few logical arguments. To believe that nothing will materialize, at all, is just as irrational.
Hello! As others have pointed out, we make our plans with all sorts of contingencies in mind. It's only a topic for discussion right now because folks who have absolutely no insight into our finances want you to be starting threads like this.
There are some very important reasons why companies don't share their books in this way. While it would be reassuring to everyone here to know that we have X dollars from Y sources, it would also make things like hiring, contracting and outsourcing very, very difficult. Competitors would be able to outbid us for talented employees (already a worry!), we'd have a huge disadvantage in negotiating business partnerships and all forms of logistics. While you are all genuinely interested in the success of the project, the folks leasing us office space and selling us desks and licensing our software packages are more interested in how much we can pay them right now. We wouldn't have room to negotiate business partnerships... anyone or anything we wanted to work with could sit down with our numbers and name their own price.
Basic business to be honest.
Just because you have a ton of money doesn't mean you want everyone knowing exactly how much or people will take you for a ride. Just like in everyday life you want the best things you can get, but if you can negotiate a deal and get things cheaper or sweeten the deal, you are not going to shoot yourself in the foot and show all your cards.
Just like when you have almost no money, you don't want everyone knowing exactly how little you have or risk having them leave you at the curb.
If you worked in business finance it would make sense.
I'm sorry, but personally, I find this statement absurd. Public companies that earn over 10M in a year open their books to an independent auditor and publish the results for everyone by law, and the way that CIG/RSI have raised their funds is eerily similar to selling shares to the public (here, you aren't expecting a ROI but delivery of digital goods at some distant future date). The only reason they haven't is because crowdfunding is a brave new frontier, and the legislation has been slow to catch up.
Enron sure had a ton of money but didn't want everyone knowing exactly how much because they might have been taken for a ride.
CIG/RSI is well into the ballpark of public disclosure were they a public company; the only reason they haven't opened their books is because, well, they don't have to. They aren't offering stocks; they're "accepting pledges". It's a technicality, and will one day be a historical curiosity. Right now they have the footprint of a public company with comparatively little responsibility. Backers aren't trained investors. As someone versed in business finance I'm sure you see why this is a big deal.
The reasons Ben gave are good ones; they make rational sense (of course it's to CIG/RSI's advantage not to disclose), but they may not at all be the actual reasons CIG/RSI isn't disclosing. Applying Occam's Razor, the actual reason is pretty simply because they don't have to.
Plenty of public companies the size of CIG/RSI do just fine when negotiating with contractors. It's called accepting bids, and then reviewing the options. I'm not in favor of holding them up as a paragon of business finance without a little more detail than 'we've collected this many millions!'
Post edited by Phaserlight on
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
After watching that video my bullshite meter imploded and I had to scrub myself in the shower for an hour to try and get the stench off me.
This is a pic of me getting cleaned after watching Sandi's verbal diarrhea...you don't want to know what those black gloves are for...
LOL, Not the black gloves!!!!
Good one mate.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
Hello! As others have pointed out, we make our plans with all sorts of contingencies in mind. It's only a topic for discussion right now because folks who have absolutely no insight into our finances want you to be starting threads like this.
There are some very important reasons why companies don't share their books in this way. While it would be reassuring to everyone here to know that we have X dollars from Y sources, it would also make things like hiring, contracting and outsourcing very, very difficult. Competitors would be able to outbid us for talented employees (already a worry!), we'd have a huge disadvantage in negotiating business partnerships and all forms of logistics. While you are all genuinely interested in the success of the project, the folks leasing us office space and selling us desks and licensing our software packages are more interested in how much we can pay them right now. We wouldn't have room to negotiate business partnerships... anyone or anything we wanted to work with could sit down with our numbers and name their own price.
Basic business to be honest.
Just because you have a ton of money doesn't mean you want everyone knowing exactly how much or people will take you for a ride. Just like in everyday life you want the best things you can get, but if you can negotiate a deal and get things cheaper or sweeten the deal, you are not going to shoot yourself in the foot and show all your cards.
Just like when you have almost no money, you don't want everyone knowing exactly how little you have or risk having them leave you at the curb.
If you worked in business finance it would make sense.
I'm sorry, but personally, I find this statement absurd. Public companies that earn over 10M in a year open their books to an independent auditor and publish the results for everyone by law, and the way that CIG/RSI have raised their funds is eerily similar to selling shares to the public (here, you aren't expecting a ROI but delivery of digital goods at some distant future date). The only reason they haven't is because crowdfunding is a brave new frontier, and the legislation has been slow to catch up.
Enron sure had a ton of money but didn't want everyone knowing exactly how much because they might have been taken for a ride.
CIG/RSI is well into this ballpark were they a public company; the only reason they haven't opened their books is because, well, they don't have to. They aren't offering stocks; they're "accepting pledges". It's a technicality, and will one day be a historical curiosity.
The reasons Ben gave are good ones; they make rational sense (of course it's to CIG/RSI's advantage not to disclose), but they may not at all be the actual reasons CIG/RSI isn't disclosing. Applying Occam's Razor, the actual reason is pretty simply because they don't have to.
Plenty of public companies the size of CIG/RSI do just fine when negotiating with contractors. It's called accepting bids, and then reviewing the options. I'm not in favor of holding them up as a paragon of business finance without a little more detail than 'we've collected this many millions!'
The biggest difference in this case, I think, is that CIG is pre-revenue (and by pre-revenue I mean they don't have a predictable revenue stream, like a product of some sort). Sure, if you've got $100 million in steady income, then competing for talent becomes less of a concern. When you're racing to a finish line, hoping it's where you estimated it would be, you've got to have contingencies in place. Look at what happened with 38 Studios. Project Copernicus was, apparently, 10 yards from the goal line and they just didn't have those contingencies in place. You've got to be able to adjust scope and cut features sometimes in order to get yourself into a state where you're earning revenue.
I would also be in favour of not holding them up as paragons in business finance, though. I highly doubt that any game company would be.
Hello! As others have pointed out, we make our plans with all sorts of contingencies in mind. It's only a topic for discussion right now because folks who have absolutely no insight into our finances want you to be starting threads like this.
There are some very important reasons why companies don't share their books in this way. While it would be reassuring to everyone here to know that we have X dollars from Y sources, it would also make things like hiring, contracting and outsourcing very, very difficult. Competitors would be able to outbid us for talented employees (already a worry!), we'd have a huge disadvantage in negotiating business partnerships and all forms of logistics. While you are all genuinely interested in the success of the project, the folks leasing us office space and selling us desks and licensing our software packages are more interested in how much we can pay them right now. We wouldn't have room to negotiate business partnerships... anyone or anything we wanted to work with could sit down with our numbers and name their own price.
Basic business to be honest.
Just because you have a ton of money doesn't mean you want everyone knowing exactly how much or people will take you for a ride. Just like in everyday life you want the best things you can get, but if you can negotiate a deal and get things cheaper or sweeten the deal, you are not going to shoot yourself in the foot and show all your cards.
Just like when you have almost no money, you don't want everyone knowing exactly how little you have or risk having them leave you at the curb.
If you worked in business finance it would make sense.
I'm sorry, but personally, I find this statement absurd. Public companies that earn over 10M in a year open their books to an independent auditor and publish the results for everyone by law, and the way that CIG/RSI have raised their funds is eerily similar to selling shares to the public (here, you aren't expecting a ROI but delivery of digital goods at some distant future date). The only reason they haven't is because crowdfunding is a brave new frontier, and the legislation has been slow to catch up.
Enron sure had a ton of money but didn't want everyone knowing exactly how much because they might have been taken for a ride.
CIG/RSI is well into this ballpark were they a public company; the only reason they haven't opened their books is because, well, they don't have to. They aren't offering stocks; they're "accepting pledges". It's a technicality, and will one day be a historical curiosity.
The reasons Ben gave are good ones; they make rational sense (of course it's to CIG/RSI's advantage not to disclose), but they may not at all be the actual reasons CIG/RSI isn't disclosing. Applying Occam's Razor, the actual reason is pretty simply because they don't have to.
Plenty of public companies the size of CIG/RSI do just fine when negotiating with contractors. It's called accepting bids, and then reviewing the options. I'm not in favor of holding them up as a paragon of business finance without a little more detail than 'we've collected this many millions!'
The biggest difference in this case, I think, is that CIG is pre-revenue (and by pre-revenue I mean they don't have a predictable revenue stream, like a product of some sort). Sure, if you've got $100 million in steady income, then competing for talent becomes less of a concern. When you're racing to a finish line, hoping it's where you estimated it would be, you've got to have contingencies in place. Look at what happened with 38 Studios. Project Copernicus was, apparently, 10 yards from the goal line and they just didn't have those contingencies in place. You've got to be able to adjust scope and cut features sometimes in order to get yourself into a state where you're earning revenue.
I would also be in favour of not holding them up as paragons in business finance, though. I highly doubt that any game company would be.
Yeah, I'm not sure why I get so fired up about this. I guess I should just let them make the damn game.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Hello! As others have pointed out, we make our plans with all sorts of contingencies in mind. It's only a topic for discussion right now because folks who have absolutely no insight into our finances want you to be starting threads like this.
There are some very important reasons why companies don't share their books in this way. While it would be reassuring to everyone here to know that we have X dollars from Y sources, it would also make things like hiring, contracting and outsourcing very, very difficult. Competitors would be able to outbid us for talented employees (already a worry!), we'd have a huge disadvantage in negotiating business partnerships and all forms of logistics. While you are all genuinely interested in the success of the project, the folks leasing us office space and selling us desks and licensing our software packages are more interested in how much we can pay them right now. We wouldn't have room to negotiate business partnerships... anyone or anything we wanted to work with could sit down with our numbers and name their own price.
Basic business to be honest.
Just because you have a ton of money doesn't mean you want everyone knowing exactly how much or people will take you for a ride. Just like in everyday life you want the best things you can get, but if you can negotiate a deal and get things cheaper or sweeten the deal, you are not going to shoot yourself in the foot and show all your cards.
Just like when you have almost no money, you don't want everyone knowing exactly how little you have or risk having them leave you at the curb.
If you worked in business finance it would make sense.
I'm sorry, but personally, I find this statement absurd. Public companies that earn over 10M in a year open their books to an independent auditor and publish the results for everyone by law, and the way that CIG/RSI have raised their funds is eerily similar to selling shares to the public (here, you aren't expecting a ROI but delivery of digital goods at some distant future date). The only reason they haven't is because crowdfunding is a brave new frontier, and the legislation has been slow to catch up.
Enron sure had a ton of money but didn't want everyone knowing exactly how much because they might have been taken for a ride.
CIG/RSI is well into this ballpark were they a public company; the only reason they haven't opened their books is because, well, they don't have to. They aren't offering stocks; they're "accepting pledges". It's a technicality, and will one day be a historical curiosity.
The reasons Ben gave are good ones; they make rational sense (of course it's to CIG/RSI's advantage not to disclose), but they may not at all be the actual reasons CIG/RSI isn't disclosing. Applying Occam's Razor, the actual reason is pretty simply because they don't have to.
Plenty of public companies the size of CIG/RSI do just fine when negotiating with contractors. It's called accepting bids, and then reviewing the options. I'm not in favor of holding them up as a paragon of business finance without a little more detail than 'we've collected this many millions!'
The biggest difference in this case, I think, is that CIG is pre-revenue (and by pre-revenue I mean they don't have a predictable revenue stream, like a product of some sort). Sure, if you've got $100 million in steady income, then competing for talent becomes less of a concern. When you're racing to a finish line, hoping it's where you estimated it would be, you've got to have contingencies in place. Look at what happened with 38 Studios. Project Copernicus was, apparently, 10 yards from the goal line and they just didn't have those contingencies in place. You've got to be able to adjust scope and cut features sometimes in order to get yourself into a state where you're earning revenue.
I would also be in favour of not holding them up as paragons in business finance, though. I highly doubt that any game company would be.
Yeah, I'm not sure why I get so fired up about this. I guess I should just let them make the damn game.
I know why. Because it's massive. It's, arguably, one of the largest scale games in history. There is obviously debate over whether the tech is viable. That's a pretty big deal. Oh yeah, and then it just, basically, crushed any other crowd-funded game in history. Actually, it's raised more money than all games successfully-funded between 2011 and the end of 2013. That's more funding than over 400 projects. It's kinda like how easy it is to criticize Wal-Mart for being money-grubbing bastards. In the end, though, there are actually very few people who don't shop there. That's why they're a multi-billion dollar company. Oh yeah, and they basically price their stuff to crush competitors. All the smiley faces cancel out the negatives, though.
“Star Citizen is and always will be more than a triple-A game; so much more. Star Citizen speaks to the pure essence of humanity and the purpose of human beings, and I firmly believe that this is why there are so many passionate people on both sides of the fence." - Sandi Gardiner
Have Fun!
From certain "fans", I keep hearing something along the lines of, "the people making Star Citizen are soooooo passionate, just speak to them and you`ll know it!"
Reading that quote I can see that the people making Star Citizen are so possessed by their passion that they come out speaking in tongues.
I mean is that woman serious?
She is a mother, and having experienced the birth of her child...she still finds creating and marketing a [video game] to be the "purpose of human beings" and "speaks to the pure essence of humanity"...just wow.
What happened, have they bled dry the semi-sane people that they are now trying to appeal to the mutant-bat-shit ultra crazies with such spin statements? I doubt that even many of their hardcore fans would swallow that bit of drivel without throwing this woman a concerned look.
---
A proud User of [[Adblock Plus]], to block out all the bullshit paid advertisements (also read as "game reviews") spam on mmorpg.com.
----
I was banned for pointing out the obvious faults in a game 2 months before it released. Now after release, repeating the very same words from back then would be like preaching to the choir on this site.
Comments
Do you have that much investment in Star Wars fan forums to say, without doubt, that fans AREN'T saying it's going to be the greatest thing ever? I know that one of the stars of the movie already said it's the best Star Wars film to date. I also know that it's beaten all pre-sale records by over 10 times. That's certainly putting your money into something that you, ultimately, don't know whether it's going to be good or bad. In fact, if you were betting on it, why would you think that Disney would come in and make the definitive Star Wars film? Yet it's eclipsed all pre-order ticket sales by 10 times...... Less than a day after going on sale.
I would counter your argument and, also, say that the people on the opposite side of the fence have very few logical arguments. To believe that nothing will materialize, at all, is just as irrational.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Enron sure had a ton of money but didn't want everyone knowing exactly how much because they might have been taken for a ride.
CIG/RSI is well into the ballpark of public disclosure were they a public company; the only reason they haven't opened their books is because, well, they don't have to. They aren't offering stocks; they're "accepting pledges". It's a technicality, and will one day be a historical curiosity. Right now they have the footprint of a public company with comparatively little responsibility. Backers aren't trained investors. As someone versed in business finance I'm sure you see why this is a big deal.
The reasons Ben gave are good ones; they make rational sense (of course it's to CIG/RSI's advantage not to disclose), but they may not at all be the actual reasons CIG/RSI isn't disclosing. Applying Occam's Razor, the actual reason is pretty simply because they don't have to.
Plenty of public companies the size of CIG/RSI do just fine when negotiating with contractors. It's called accepting bids, and then reviewing the options. I'm not in favor of holding them up as a paragon of business finance without a little more detail than 'we've collected this many millions!'
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Good one mate.
The biggest difference in this case, I think, is that CIG is pre-revenue (and by pre-revenue I mean they don't have a predictable revenue stream, like a product of some sort). Sure, if you've got $100 million in steady income, then competing for talent becomes less of a concern. When you're racing to a finish line, hoping it's where you estimated it would be, you've got to have contingencies in place. Look at what happened with 38 Studios. Project Copernicus was, apparently, 10 yards from the goal line and they just didn't have those contingencies in place. You've got to be able to adjust scope and cut features sometimes in order to get yourself into a state where you're earning revenue.
I would also be in favour of not holding them up as paragons in business finance, though. I highly doubt that any game company would be.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
As we are talking PRESS in this thread, I „call“ the one (old) negative article with one of my own choosing:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34548609
And "raise" them by 20 recent “normal” (dare I say … “positive”) articles …
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/star-citizen-crowdfunded-space-simulator-reaches-one-millon-members-with-93m-in-funding-a6697161.html
http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/10/12/star-citizen-cast-includes-mark-hamill-gary-oldman-gillian-anderson-and-more
http://www.pcgamer.com/star-citizen-is-now-fully-open-to-all-backers/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/10/11/gary-oldman-mark-hamil-join-the-amazing-star-citizen-cast/
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/star-citizen-passes-1-million-backers-pledges-exce/1100-6431440/
http://www.crossmap.com/news/star-citizen-release-date-news-and-updates-crowd-funding-reached-92m-21775
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2015/10/star-citizen-makes-modules-available-to-all-backers-to-commemorate-one-million-mark/
http://www.lazygamer.net/genre/sim-genre/cloud-imperium-celebrates-its-millionth-star-citizen/
http://www.vcpost.com/articles/98533/20151014/star-citizen-update-cloud-imperial-games-releases-cinematic-trailer-gary-oldman-joins.htm
http://www.gameplanet.com.au/pc/news/g5620125699f19/All-Star-Citizen-backers-can-now-play-all-of-Star-Citizens-modules/?utm_source=geo&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/3nalbj/translationgamestar_faq_on_star_citizen_allegedly/
http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/star-citizen/news/star_citizen,48820,3237501.html
http://gamingbolt.com/star-citizen-passes-one-million-backers-alpha-access-ends
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/94509/20151014/star-citizen-features-all-star-cast-mark-hamill-gary-oldman-gillian-anderson.htm
http://www.pcgamer.com/star-citizen-features-gary-oldman-gillian-anderson-mark-hamill/
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/i-dont-know-if-star-citizen-is-a-real-game-but-it-looks-insane
http://www.gamersnexus.net/gg/2132-citizen-con-2015-squadron42-cast-multicrew-more
http://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2015/10/75633-gary-oldman-shares-details-about-working-on-video/
http://www.pcgamesn.com/star-citizen-the-journey-so-far-and-the-promising-future-of-alpha-2.0
http://www.game-debate.com/news/?news=18317&game=Star%20Citizen&title=Star-Studded%20Cast%20For%20Star%20Citizen%20Revealed%20As%20Squadron%2042%20Module%20Wows%20At%20CitizenCon
(it would be easy to find a few dozen more .. recent ! articles ... in various languages... use Google or something similar)
Have fun
I know why. Because it's massive. It's, arguably, one of the largest scale games in history. There is obviously debate over whether the tech is viable. That's a pretty big deal. Oh yeah, and then it just, basically, crushed any other crowd-funded game in history. Actually, it's raised more money than all games successfully-funded between 2011 and the end of 2013. That's more funding than over 400 projects. It's kinda like how easy it is to criticize Wal-Mart for being money-grubbing bastards. In the end, though, there are actually very few people who don't shop there. That's why they're a multi-billion dollar company. Oh yeah, and they basically price their stuff to crush competitors. All the smiley faces cancel out the negatives, though.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Reading that quote I can see that the people making Star Citizen are so possessed by their passion that they come out speaking in tongues.
I mean is that woman serious?
She is a mother, and having experienced the birth of her child...she still finds creating and marketing a [video game] to be the "purpose of human beings" and "speaks to the pure essence of humanity"...just wow.
What happened, have they bled dry the semi-sane people that they are now trying to appeal to the mutant-bat-shit ultra crazies with such spin statements?
I doubt that even many of their hardcore fans would swallow that bit of drivel without throwing this woman a concerned look.
---
A proud User of [[Adblock Plus]], to block out all the bullshit paid advertisements (also read as "game reviews") spam on mmorpg.com.
----
Now after release, repeating the very same words from back then would be like preaching to the choir on this site.