Hey, chill.Silva said:Whether or not I "should've" known something is not for you to decide, oh Holy Judge of All That Must Be Judged.StevieWonderMk2 said:Wait, lemme double check these.Silva said:I've criticised Steam, by daring to mention in a thread around here once that it didn't allow you to play games offline (which, at one time, was true) but about a hundred people jumped on me at once to point out Offline Mode and tell me that I was stupid not to know about it.
It was really hypocritical, because it is the DEFINITION of stupidity to expect others to have all the same knowledge as what you do of a system. Polite corrections, meanwhile, would have been welcome - had there been any.
I also seriously dislike the Assassin's Creed series, despite owning the first game. The glitches that made my PS3 crash constantly, the pointless flag system that failed to lengthen the already very short game, the far too easy fighting system which was solved just by pressing two buttons over and over again... and the horrible repetitiveness of every mission, and that's to say nothing of sub-missions.
And before anyone says anything, yes, I hear that the sequel has fixed almost all of those things, but that doesn't make me want to buy it. The fact that Ubisoft robbed me of my good funds with that absolutely average, overrated piece of crap that was the first game, has totally turned me off to giving them any money for any game in the future, no matter how critically acclaimed.
You criticise a system for not having a specific feature that it actually has. Then you complain when people rip into you for your inaccurate criticism? Yeah, I'll agree that they should be polite and shouldn't automatically assume you know the same things that they do, but in this situation you really SHOULD have known that.
Second: You criticise a game series on it's flawed first game. You refuse to play the second one because you believe it will still have those exact flaws, despite every gaming critic praising it for REMOVING said flaws? So you won't play the good second game because you wasted money on the first. Pro-tip: That money is still wasted, whether you buy the second game or not.
That money ISN'T still wasted because there are other things that are perfectly good that I'm open to. Try real logic instead of pretending taking down one good option takes them all down. The point is that I'm trying to make a point to Ubisoft by not giving them one hundred good dollars for something after they gave me something that was poorly done, which they'd managed to sell through good PR.
I'm not missing out because I can spend that money on good games from more consistent series, or else on other things that are entirely my business and not yours.