DanneSandin said:
Aielyn said:
Multiple reasons. Let's start with your choice of words in a few spots. "Megatons" and "meltdowns" are a bit of an issue (as is "shitty"), but the real word that jumps out at me is "predictions".
Well, I actually fail to see how me using "megatons" and "meltdowns" would make you trust me any less... Remember; English is not my first language...
Then there's the attitude - talking about how, if certain claims come true, it'll somehow prove that you're not making it up. Never mind that more than half of your "predictions" are pretty much what everyone expects anyway, that one of your predictions is "a series that was exclusive going multiplatform", and that somehow the fact that the online service will be "BIG" is meant to somehow be convincing in any way.
If my predictions come true it should prove that I have inside information, don't you think? http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=155705&page=1 Perhaps you'll see that I'm predicting things people aren't expecting - especially the price point. Right now I'm the only dude on the internet claiming a $349 price point. I can even explain why.
But more than anything else, it's the fact that you felt that you needed to prove yourself, and so you provided vague "predictions" of what would be shown at E3. You could have gotten some piece of information that would be cryptic now, but absolutely clear once it was announced (not something vague, but something specific, like some word in a game title, or something like that), or you could have simply said that you couldn't prove the validity without breaking trust, and left it at that.
If one cannot back up the claims laid fourth, no one will believe you and ask that you back your claims up - so I tried as best I could to back up the claim that I have inside information. That is all.
Neither would be particularly convincing, but they wouldn't have made me less trusting of your claims compared with complete silence on the question of trustworthiness.
Beyond that, in combination with your actual content, it rings of third-hand claims. Lies almost always build themselves around truths that can be found easily - the rumours of Wii U game cancellations had been swirling for the last couple of weeks already. Note that I'm not actually accusing you of lying - it's not a lie if you believe it to be true, and I can entirely believe that you were told it and passed it on.
I can't answer this properly without risking my source - I think... This is second hand claims is all I can say...
Oh, and one last thing - even if you had a lot of information about what was happening regarding the PS4, I cannot see any reason to think that this would in any way prove that what you say regarding the Wii U is accurate - knowing someone connected to Sony doesn't give you information about Nintendo, for instance.
My information comes from a 3rd party developer, not Sony...
So, yeah, like I said, your edit makes me less inclined to believe you.
|
|
You're missing the point. The use of the terms "megatons" and "meltdowns" wasn't an issue due to English - you used the terms correctly in that regard. The problem is the CHOICE to use those terms. You could have said "major titles" instead of "megatons". You could have said "big surprises". Instead, you said "megatons" and "meltdowns".
If you had inside information, you wouldn't be making predictions. And none of your predictions are so far outside of the realm of likely events as to be proof of anything, while the fact that you expect only half of them being true being proof of something is an issue since if you had inside information, it would be 100% correct, not 50% correct.
If you can't provide solid proof that your information source is trustworthy, then providing vague and insubstantial claims isn't going to convince people. Solid proof can come in plenty of forms without exposing the person's identity. Kind of like how, in Groundhog Day, Bill Murray's character proves that he's not lying by mentioning things he knew were about to happen. None of them were major things, but it showed foreknowledge. But vague comments like "there'll be an old Sony franchise return from hiatus", which won't be confirmed for another 3-4 months at best, do not constitute solid proof.
And if your source was third-party, and their information was first-hand information, how could they possibly know what Sony's first-party lineup looks like, the system price (which almost certainly hasn't been set in stone yet), or about other third-party titles that weren't from that person's studio (if that person's studio was the one that is making that "meltdown" game, then it would risk their identity)?
And let's not forget the other issue - the claim that Nintendo is actively and visibly (to them) screwing over the third parties by telling them that they can't use a certain section of RAM because it's for Nintendo only. It's the only specific claim you made, and it doesn't make any sense. Even if Nintendo were locking off some of the RAM, there's no way they'd be telling third parties that it's for Nintendo titles only, after spending so much time and effort in wooing them. Meanwhile, I find it highly unlikely that, in intending to send a third party a small code fragment explaining how to use the graphics chip in a certain way, Nintendo screwed up and sent a GB-sized file instead of one measuring in the kB range. That takes a special kind of incompetence that doesn't occur in a company as secretive as Nintendo.
