Assassin's Creed Lawsuit Author Gets Amazon-Bombed

[Susurrus]

SNIP

That's only true up to a point. I got bought for Christmas a book commenting and critiquing the work of Terry Pratchett.

It's terrible. I mean, I'm glad I've read it, to know that it's possible to have absolute dross published, but I would recommend everybody in the strongest terms to never ever ever ever ever read it, because it's bad (in case you were wondering, it's by Craig Cabell, and is called "The Spirit of Fantasy"). It's not just a little bit bad, it's appalling.

Why?
The writing is of terribly poor quality, coming across not only as overly conversational, but with a terrible analytical style (often providing no evidence for any analysis, just saying "This is so". It's often provably factually wrong, parachutes in meaningless and unrelated cliches, and is both unoriginal, unnecessary, and a chore to read.

To say that it is worse than essays I wrote as an A Level English student would not be a commentary on my skill at A level, nor would it be an exaggeration to say that it compares unfavorably to, and is less insightful, than some of the worst examples of last-minute essays I had the misfortune to read on an English degree course.

Sadly, whoever bought it for me did not check the Amazon review scores, because if they had, they would have found all of this set out in plain language, including several who have written back saying "Thank you, I decided not to buy this based on the reviews". The only really positive review is one which is word-for-word repeated on at least two different websites, and smacks of someone close to the author increasing its rating rather than providing a genuine review.

In general the reviews did dissuade buyers, and a bloody good job too, because the book is terrible. The author has something like 16 books behind him, some of which are academic works, but I honestly struggle to see how such a hack could have published even one. Maybe he just totally phoned it in for this book, but I shall never read anything by him again. Utter garbage.

 

[Helloo]

"What better place to look beyond than through the mind of one who saw to that point but not further"

In my opinion, the 1 star reviews are justified because of the crap I just quoted. What the.. I can't even..

I wasn't even aware Ubisoft had any fans who would go to this length to review-bomb a pretty much unknown author. Aren't Assassin's Creed fans supposed to be angry at Ubisoft for their annualisation of the franchise?

 

[wooty]

This whole "oooo, something has mildly similar ideas to one I had, and now that its popular I can sue" is getting faaaar too out of hand.

All I can say is......go get him, I guess.

 

[Vivi22]

Well the game DOES have a few similarities to the dudes book.

Is it really THAT inconceivable that a the Assassins Creed writers took "inspiration" from this guys book?

Even if they did take inspiration from an unknown book by an author few had probably ever heard of before this, my understanding of copyright law is that it would take a lot more than simply using a similar idea as the driver for the story for this guy to have a case. As it is, based on what's reported I don't believe he has a case at all and I think that will come out in court assuming Ubisoft doesn't settle. And frankly, I hope they don't settle. I don't believe they're in the wrong here and I'd like to see this guy saddled with some extra court fees for his trouble.

Wait... people are defending Ubisoft? What madness is this?? This is a company that actively dicks all over it's consumers every chance it gets. Shouldn't the internet hate machine be sending this author donations to fund his law suit?

Not that I care either way. I'm just commenting on what an irrational creature the webbed mass consciousness is.

This would assume that Ubisoft gets hate leveled at them whether it's justified or not, which I don't feel is true. Ubisoft has certainly had its share of fuckups where they tried to screw over the end consumer, but they're not in the wrong here. This guy doesn't have a leg to stand on as far as this case goes, so he should lose. He's just after a nice fat payday and doesn't seem to understand how copyrights actually work, and that is stupidity that's worthy of the hatred he's getting. I'd be the first to lunge for Ubisoft's throat if they had done anything deserving of it, but in this case they're a legitimate victim of an unfounded lawsuit, and I bet that will come out in court.

 

[putowtin]

wow I remember that book, think it's still on the bookcase, let me check....

no, now I think on I gave it charity. Crappy poorly writen piece of junk it was! And from memory its plot was nothing like the Assassin's Creed story

 

[Saviordd1]

Yes, the author is an idiot.

No, amazon bombing like pissed off children doesn't make you right.

 

[Metalrocks]

ah the internet. so many things are possible.

made a little research about the book and the story doesnt even come closely to the story line of assassins creed.
his book must have been sold poorly and saw the opportunity to make more money that way. he sure gets more attention that way but might lose the case anyway.

 

[Andy Chalk]

As I said, to me critics and reviews are absolutely pointless as their purpose - to persuade or dissuade someone from watching/reading/playing something - is indeed a fool's errand.

Except this isn't criticism, this is an abusive manipulation of a system. The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

 

[RJ 17]

As I said, to me critics and reviews are absolutely pointless as their purpose - to persuade or dissuade someone from watching/reading/playing something - is indeed a fool's errand.

Except this isn't criticism, this is an abusive manipulation of a system. The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Woo-Hoo! Finally got quoted by an article writer! +1 personal achievement for me!

Anyways, I understand what you're saying, however I'd argue that this article helps emphasize my point more than anything else: people who might actually be interested in the book shouldn't be put off by an Amazon Bomb dropped by an angry internet. Any douche can write up a review and slap it onto something, but only each individual person can decide whether or not they like something. Basically to prove what I'm trying to say: just think of any book/movie/game that got crappy reviews but you genuinely enjoyed. Or look at any book/movie/game that got raving, outstanding reviews but you thought was absolute crap. Suppose you're interested in this book Link, you're just a casual browser and click the link and find out "Holy crap, this book's only got a 1.5 rating." From here you can either say "Well this book obviously sucks, look how many people rated it with such a low score" or "Well I still think it sounds interesting so I'll give it a shot." Or, of course, check out the comments and realize "Well this low score is due to an amazon bomb so I shouldn't care about these low scores anyways." Either of the latter options is what I'm talking about: you shouldn't let other people's opinions (whether fake or genuine) color your own on a subject matter before you've had a chance to experience that subject matter for yourself.

 

[Andy Chalk]

I would agree that anyone who dismisses (or embraces) something based solely on another's opinion is potentially missing out, but I think there has to be a distinction between the average slackjaw ranting on Amazon and a thoughtful, defensible, "professional" review. The vast majority of user reviews on Amazon, and also the App Store and the Android Marketplace, are either one star or five stars, the purest illustration possible of the flaws of such rating systems. Some people use these ranking systems to express honest, well-considered opinions, but most just want to air their rage or fanboyism, or (once a few ratings have built up) defend their position against others. It naturally encourages an all-or-nothing approach. But that shouldn't be mistaken as proper criticism, nor should legitimate criticism be dismissed as just the opinion of some asshole on the internet. There is value in it.

 

[CleverCover]

...That isn't a very positive thing. I rely on those reviews to be legitimate when buying books. If someone is review bombing the book because of an idiotic decision he made, how am I supposed to know if I'm going to like a book or not.

It's just like when an author's relative or something gives a five-star review to a book that doesn't even deserved a one-star. It messes with my careful balance.

They need to stop. It's not justified and makes them look really silly.

Although...he should have learned after that last chick messed with ME on Fox. Some people will do anything for revenge...

Luckily, someone who did read it (Thank you), said it was crap. Saying it was similar to AC actually made me interested in the book.

...OMG IS THAT WHY HE'S SUING PEOPLE. IT'S EXPENSIVE PUBLICITY?!

 

[Baresark]

Of course they are. Because the internet and fans of the game are all children. I blame the media for this. We all know that he isn't going to get anywhere. Just let it play out. But no, that is too much, knowing he will fail. The hivemind of the internet annoys me, and if I could I would cut its head from its shoulders, I would instantaneously and without hesitation. People seem to fail to understand that no matter what anyone thinks, it's what the courts decide. And it doesn't make the "horde" any more right if the courts agree with them.

As an interesting side note: This proves the point of Michael Gazzaniga's, beautifully. In a social setting, people love to jump in on things that do not involved them because it's perceived to be ok on a social level if there is a general consensus that what the person does is bad. He even admits though that it is not a positive thing that a society does. He even admits that it is in fact an ill of a society that does this.

 

[FEichinger]

I am genuinely surprised by the amount of people in this thread directly supporting this bombing and calling the author names. Disappointing.

I haven't read the book, didn't deal with the lawsuit in detail, and I could barely care less as to whether or not he's right. Even if his demands are met fully (which would mean a ban on AC3, which is unlikely, as he's quite obviously looking for compensation, nothing else), it changes hardly anything. Yes, it means we will never get to see AC3, so what? ... In all honesty, Screed has turned into an overused franchise about ... 1.5 games ago. I doubt the 3 will meet the expectations and as such a ban might even be better for Ubi.

That said, it has yet to be determined whether or not Ubisoft infringed the author's copyright or not as per the law. The fact that the internet believes it could or should be prosecutor, judge and executioner prior to any court date is not only disappointing but also disgusting. The system might not be perfect, but it is in place. Avoiding - and in fact obstructing (given that our industry's lawyers seem to be rather jumpy on wording on the internet (i.e. the Scrolls suit, where lawyers using troll-posts seemingly in favor of them was to be expected) - the system, rather than changing it, is plain wrong.

 

[Keoul]

Didn't his book come out before? Just wondering there.

Anyways, the whole thing seems dumb. He shouldn't have opened his mouth/sued and people shouldn't amazon bomb him. The whole Amazon bomb thing only reinforces the idea that gamers are a bunch of self-entitled man-children...

How does this have anything to do with self-entitlement? It's just gamers defending the developers very very aggressively. Did you really have to bring the Mass Effect fiasco into this?

 

[sifffffff]

Of course it's getting bombed. Because the gaming community is a bunch of children. The press. The gamers. The publishers. The developers. All a bunch of pathetic emotionally stunted man-children.

Every time I see shit like this it makes me question why I continue to pursue gaming as a hobby since even though I am a well adjusted adult male I will be guilty by association with assclowns.

 

[Brian Hendershot]

Didn't his book come out before? Just wondering there.

Anyways, the whole thing seems dumb. He shouldn't have opened his mouth/sued and people shouldn't amazon bomb him. The whole Amazon bomb thing only reinforces the idea that gamers are a bunch of self-entitled man-children...

How does this have anything to do with self-entitlement? It's just gamers defending the developers very very aggressively. Did you really have to bring the Mass Effect fiasco into this?

I didn't bring Mass Effect 3 into this at all. When did I say "Mass Effect"?

And it's not them defending things aggressively. It's gamers being childish, thinking they are always right. There isn't anything honorable or even correct about bombing something. It only garners the recipient negative attention and makes people assume we can only express our opinions via childish acts.

 

[Keoul]

I didn't bring Mass Effect 3 into this at all. When did I say "Mass Effect"?

And it's not them defending things aggressively. It's gamers being childish, thinking they are always right. There isn't anything honorable or even correct about bombing something. It only garners the recipient negative attention and makes people assume we can only express our opinions via childish acts.

When else have gamers ever been called entitled? and what are they "entitled" to today? to badly rate a book on amazon? there isn't any entitlement issues, sure there's them being childish but there is absolutely no entitlement issues going on here.
Besides, this seems more like a nasty prank than a big deal, was his book even that popular anyway? if anything this "childish act" just gave that book more attention and any intelligent person "you know, if they read the news article" would see that the reviews are fake and can judge for themselves if it's a good book or not"

Sorry if I sound a tad aggressive but I'm really really against the whole outlook that gamers are entitled little babies that need everything made to their perfect specifications.

 

[Insane_Foxx]

Honestly, the bombing is dumb, but the dipshit's lawsuit just reminds me of another john, but from the room movie.com as portrayed by the nostalgia critic.

for those curious, i'll save you the trouble of looking for it - http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/26252-the-tommy-wiseau-show from about the 5 minute mark