I haven't played the game, so I can't comment on it. But I'm pretty sure that a lot of people, like myself, are wating for a next gen update/version. I'm pretty sure it will spark conversation again.

If not, after the award season it will most likely  spark a lot of heated conversations.

I never said he was a bigot nor did I imply it.  He was the one acting like anyone who didn't like the game (or the vast majority) was a bigot or had backwards beliefs.  That is his own words.  Then he rudely dismissed me when I pointed out that many of use just found the story boring, even though I liked the gameplay.

When I pointed out that his dismissal was unwarranted and as closed minded as the bigots and backwards beliefs he keeps going on about, I never insinuated that he himself was a bigot.  If you reread the post, that is pretty clear.

Then I was met with insults and he twisted my words by implying I barely played the game when he said, "2 chapters of a 15 chapter book won't allow me to criticize the story."  This is despite the fact that I already stated I was 15 hours in before stopping, which is more than half the game.  The fact that after that much time had passed and I still found it boring and uninteresting (same with many others) was very relevant to negative word of mouth, and therefor the topic.

Then it was played off like I was saying there was no hate for horrible reasons, when I never made such a claim.  Just that they are a very vocal group of people, as many people just found the plot boring (because he claimed most people who don't like the story are a bigot or have backwards beliefs).  Read the conversation again, it is all there.

And no, I am not the one who reported him.  I am not so thin skinned.  In fact, our last posts were (somewhat as we were both still a bit sarcastic) peaceful and we went our separate ways.  But you cannot deny the hostility in those replies to me that started from a harmless claim that I found the story boring, so he made his own bed on this.

Anyway this is the last I am speaking on the matter.  I really don't care if he was banned or not.  I just wanted to clear the air a bit because you seemed a bit confused as to what just happened.

Nice movie scenario.

“Not everyone who doesn't praise this game is a, "sexist, bigot, and backward in social ideals/beliefs."  Some of us just found the game to be a fun shooter with a lackluster plot.”

Never once said everyone is like that if they don’t like the game. But you took it personally, for some reason. Which is why I later said “if the hat fits”...

The entire time you played a game which made it obvious your goal was to try to push me around in an attempt to rile me up and get me banned. Misrepresenting what I said or my intentions, and twisting my words.

Here is an example:

I said: “You have to be willfully blind to not see how much hate this game and its story got for various ignorant reasons.“

And then your reply included this: “All I said was that I found the story boring, and lost interest 15 hours into the game.  If that somehow translates to me being "willfully ignorant" because I don't agree with your blanket statement or think the plot is a masterpiece, then there is nothing more to say.“

Interesting how I never said not implied any of this. You reused words I said, but twisted them around to make them say something entirely different.

The whole time, the only “issue“ I had was that you didn’t go through the entire plot, and I told you I don’t think you’re in a position to dissect it if you haven’t experienced it to completion. Never once did I condemn you for not liking it, and never did I say everyone who dislikes it is a bigot, sexist, etc. You jumped in after taking offense at that comment which targeted no one directly. Hence, again, my “if the hat fits” comment, after you kept taking it all personal.

Which brings me to my ban. The kicker.

My ban note: “Flaming (Your first post here started things off on the wrong foot by insisting right off the bat that the person was biased and not worth talking to. And then it drifted into pretty clear flaming. You need to dial back the aggression and address arguments rather than the people making them.) ~ JWeinCom”

Funny how you were the first one to “address the person rather than the argument” during our exchange when you started one of your sentence early on with “the problem with you...”, and then kept making jabs and use similar rhetorics in most subsequent replies, yet you went through it all without so much as a slap on the wrist. 

Nice movie scenario.

“Not everyone who doesn't praise this game is a, "sexist, bigot, and backward in social ideals/beliefs."  Some of us just found the game to be a fun shooter with a lackluster plot.”

Never once said everyone is like that if they don’t like the game. But you took it personally, for some reason. Which is why I later said “if the hat fits”...

The entire time you played a game which made it obvious your goal was to try to push me around in an attempt to rile me up and get me banned. Misrepresenting what I said or my intentions, and twisting my words.

Here is an example:

I said: “You have to be willfully blind to not see how much hate this game and its story got for various ignorant reasons.“

And then your reply included this: “All I said was that I found the story boring, and lost interest 15 hours into the game.  If that somehow translates to me being "willfully ignorant" because I don't agree with your blanket statement or think the plot is a masterpiece, then there is nothing more to say.“

Interesting how I never said not implied any of this. You reused words I said, but twisted them around to make them say something entirely different.

The whole time, the only “issue“ I had was that you didn’t go through the entire plot, and I told you I don’t think you’re in a position to dissect it if you haven’t experienced it to completion. Never once did I condemn you for not liking it, and never did I say everyone who dislikes it is a bigot, sexist, etc. You jumped in after taking offense at that comment which targeted no one directly. Hence, again, my “if the hat fits” comment, after you kept taking it all personal.

Which brings me to my ban. The kicker.

My ban note: “Flaming (Your first post here started things off on the wrong foot by insisting right off the bat that the person was biased and not worth talking to. And then it drifted into pretty clear flaming. You need to dial back the aggression and address arguments rather than the people making them.) ~ JWeinCom”

Funny how you were the first one to “address the person rather than the argument” during our exchange when you started one of your sentence early on with “the problem with you...”, and then kept making jabs and use similar rhetorics in most subsequent replies, yet you went through it all without so much as a slap on the wrist. 

Can it be a sign of poor writing? Yes it can. But can also just mean people either don't understand, suppose they understand better or are just unsatisfied. Also define significant part of audience.

Which peerless warrior are we talking about? Just a supposition or are we discussing someone in particular? Because yes If I directly say in the material that a char is undefeated and overpowered it would be totally strange to see he struggling. But from several media you can see undefeated (or close to it) heroes that almost all fights are struggles, to the point that when the victory is easy you'll find it odd.

And going back to the first point, yes you can say it was poorly written, but to say it is out of character would still be wrong (well guess where things almost always occur out of character? IRL. You see so many times someone saying that they can't believe that person done that thing, that they know the person fully and the person would never do it, etc). To say unexpected, poorly explained, etc are more likely things (and sure sometimes even the little explanation is a writer decision to either let suspense or audience speculation).

Sorry, I don't visit this forum much anymore. The warrior I mentioned is a hypothetical. If I write a book and say a character, let's call him Bob, is a peerless warrior. I have Bob participate in a half dozen, one on one, duels throughout the course of the book. Bob only wins one of them. The audience, despite my intentions, is not going to share my view of the character. I, as a writer, did poor job conveying Bob's skill to the audience.

I could have written Bob in a way that, even with him losing five out of the six confrontations, he still comes across as peerless warrior. I could change the combat scenario from duels to Bob facing down multiple highly skilled opponents. This would, in defeat, show his skill. The audience would see that it took unbalanced odds to defeat him. I could add some extenuating circumstance. I could have Bob be left handed and break his left arm early on in the story. He fist battle would be a crushing defeat due to having to use his off hand. Over the course of the book, he could still lose five fights, but in each battle would get closer and closer to victory. Leading to a final confrontation with the antagonist where he defeats him in single combat with his off hand.

Often in a story it isn't what happens but how it happens. If you want things to happen in a certain way, you need to have events play out in a plausible manner. You can't have nonsensical events play out just because. You can't have a character, without reasonable explanation, act in a way contrary to how they've been presented to the reader/viewer/player thus far.