No, I'm not advocating anything. Neither am I saying that IOI are lying or that I have to have visual proof of anything before I will believe it. I'm saying that I understand why someone would want visual proof of a dev statement regardless of how often they have repeated this statement. Just because you say something very often does not mean that it becomes a fact.
What you missed by clinging to my words regarding the ending of ME3 is that there are countless examples of features and elements from a game being removed or presented as more than they are. Even such simple statements as "there are 20 levels" can turn out to be false. Crunch times happen and sections of the game can be cut. Peter Molyneux is probably king when it comes to promising the moon during development and failing to deliver.
Of course you're not accusing IOI of lying since you don't have anything to back this up. However, your point that IOI could
be lying (or presenting misleading information) is still an assumption that's got no evidence to support it. Yes, I can see that you likely have a greater instilled distrust towards developers based on experience, but in my personal opinion you're being a bit too skeptical. Things do indeed change throughout the development process, however it's incredibly unlikely IOI would convey simple and integral facts about the game without being sure they are correct - particularly since the game will be released in the coming months. They are not in business to mislead and practice dishonest tactics.
Let's use the hypothetical example of the developers stating that "Instinct can be turned off in the game settings" in an official press release. Using probability, we can generally be more confident that if this statement were made one day prior to release it's validity would be reasonably stronger than if it were stated while the game was in development a year before. It would also be probable that if any changes occurred, particularly changes important to core elements of the game (or even any visible changes for that matter), they would be conveyed for the benefit of avoiding misinformation and possible fan backlash.
In terms of IOI stating we'll have "sandbox" levels, yes we all have various interpretations of the "perfect" sandbox level, but we can generally reach a reasonable consensus that sandbox is equal to freedom in player movement and options. I do not believe IOI's interpretation of sandbox has changed compared to the previous games. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt since I'm not going to immediately assume "all game developers cannot be trusted until we see some specific game footage that meets my individual demands even though many individual demands are different".
I can too say that fibre wire won't be in the game because we haven't "seen" it yet. If no subsequent video footage shows 47 specifically using fibre wire am I to believe this until the day of release? even if IOI have sated in interviews it'll be featured in the game? Am I to believe we won't have a Silent Assassin rating because IOI haven't shown a playthrough achieving that rating? am I to dismiss information about the developers saying that Silent Assassin is Absolution's "top honor"?
However, the principle you raise can too be applied to video "evidence". If you suggest things like a numerical fact about the game's number of missions can be untrue, what's stopping you from assuming that the video footage isn't accurate? After all, much of it is a reflection of the game in the context of a development cycle. You could
argue it's entirely possible it may turn out to be very different than the final product, can't you? And while you may suggest gameplay footage is "polished" and "more reliable", why not apply this to official interviews where IOI affirm important parts of the game? PR is seemingly checked and the information released is controlled (i.e. IOI stating they cannot comment further "at this time"), it would be entirely detrimental to release misleading information after all, wouldn't it?
Anyone can be skeptical about anything without valid reason to various degrees.
Why couldn't a person assume that? It would depend on how often a specific person has been burned by "false" information regarding a released videogame. It would be a pretty miserable way to view everything, but that doesn't mean it is a completely invalid way of approaching the release of information.
I view it as an unreasonable way of approaching information if someone has a deep bias like that - and while a person may choose
to assume developers lie unless they've been proven they're not, it's a logical fallacy nevertheless. Absence of (in this case, visual
) evidence is not evidence of absence. The only thing you can argue is that people can simply have general instinctive distrust towards the developers, but that does not make the speculation any less baseless nor misleading. I understand the sentiment of learning more about the game, but I believe we shouldn't immediately demand that all official statements made by IOI be "visually confirmed" via video simply because of speculation.
Edited by Watson, 14 April 2012 - 09:47 AM.