Thanks for that pleasant insult. I would rather you didn't take one member and use them as a representative of the whole forum.mk-1601 said:And really, the only thing a high post count on here tells me is that the author is unable or unwilling to seek out a better level of discussion elsewhere. It's like flaunting a high post count on GameFAQs or something.
Surely there is a difference between investigative research and actually communicating with the parties? Besides which who is to say what is right on the matter, at present nobody has the full facts. At the end of the day it appears the vast majority of what is said is opinion.CraigGrannell said:Oh, and this - "The Escapist staff is the first team of journalists I know of to do original research. (I certainly didn't.)" - is absolute bollocks if you're insinuating this is the first site to not base its articles on other stuff online. Eurogamer's piece involved plenty of original research. TIGSource's stuff involves more investigative research than any other coverage.
Whilst it would appear, at least from my perspective, that Mobigames have the edge in this case if only because EDGE haven't released a game for an extremely long period of time and therefore are not using their trademark (or something along those lines, to be honest I haven't read up on the case in a while). Having said that, he poster above is claiming otherwise, as is the article so I'm not sure what to believe.
At the end of the day all journalism is going to be sensationalized to a degree. I am sure many sites may wish to paint Langdell to have no case at all, and will therefore display only evidence against him, likewise some articles - like this one - may argue otherwise.
As for this article however, I think I have to agree with georgek when they stated:
georgek said:You seem to be giving props to The Escapist for trying to be objective, but that's exactly the problem. The articles demonstrate a baffling disregard for the history and context of the dispute, as anyone with fifteen minutes to spend could find out for themselves. As a result the conclusions drawn, for example that Mobigame is fighting because they think they've been treated unfairly, are so myopic and illogical they become laughable.
I believe they are correct in the sense that the article doesn't address Langell's past records or his apparent history of unsavoury business tactics. Everything else has been stated before so I'm not going to bother addressing them.