Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jackal
Riiiiight. Gimme a break.  You referred to OUR preview as marketing for the game. I must have missed the so-called context. If you feel your case is being picked on, maybe your case is the problem.
Ah, so you mean exactly like the situation we're dealing with, then. Emily playing a demo of the game and commenting on it. |
Why so defensive? I really liked the article!
It's just that referring to any puzzles as "illogical" in a genre that relies on logic tells me, and others it seems, that the game will have the same type of obscure (read: not fun) hit-and-miss puzzling as its predecessor. I've no problems accepting I've misread the intent of its use if that's the case, but there you go.
As a preview, it's publicity
therefore critical marketing for a future game. Sorry 'bout that! If the preview takes the word illogical as a keystone in the gameplay, it doesn't really bode too well for those that didn't enjoy the first one. I apologise if it came across that I was referring to the article as a straight piece of marketing.
Even so, a preview is marketing in the eyes of the publishers and investors, which is why they're used. It's all controlled-condition stuff.
