Bullshit. It is not unreasonable to want to wait and see. It's considered unreasonable to jump to conclusions. I've also stated the game could be crap. You are insisting you can magically tell the game is going to be bad.

And I noticed you ignored my comment, "but that's company policy, not proof a bad build leads to a bad game".

Finally, you decided what the "general feel" of that article is. If it was negative, the writer would have stated that outright, so you are twisting words to make the game look bad.

You don't have to like it. But don't you dare pretend me waiting and seeing is less reasonable than you deciding you can tell it's going to be bad. Predicting the future isn't proven. The laws of probability are.

I didn't ignore the company policy, it's just common sense to not want to show off bad things.  What do you think good could come from showing something that can only give you negative impressions?

And agian, please just answer me one question: what makes you think this game might be good?

It's a simple question.

Lordthenightknight this game is going to suck, get over yourself.

I didn't write that it was smart. I just wrote that didn't prove the final game was going to be bad.

And that is the first reason I think it's possible for the game to be good. It's not the final build.

The second reason, the fucking laws of probability. Unless it would somehow violate the laws of physics, mathematics, economics, etc. for the game to be good, the possibility for the game to be good exits.

That may not seem like much, but you're pretending unfinished builds are definite proof of the future. All that proves is that Capcom is being more eager to show the game than they should.

If the game sucks, I'll admit it, but that doesn't prove you knew that before the game came out, unless you can tell us the lotto numbers.

In case you missed it:

No. You've decided the game will be bad, so any point I would give, will be magically trumped by you not being impressed by them.

And I'm also not getting specific because we don't know the final product.

That's my basic point here, which you still haven't acknowledged. Neither of us know what the final game will be like. We only know what this build is like now.

So neither of us really have solid points about the future quality of the game, but I admit that.

This isn't about the game. It's about the arrogance of assuming something is certain and foretold, when the next part of it has yet to be shown.

Every time this thread gets bumped to make the same points that were made earlier, a section in my Forum Posts becomes red, and noname2200 becomes a little more sad...

I've acknowledged the game isn't finished but even unfinished games should so some sort of promise.  How many games do you know of that have been, what, 3 months from release that showed no promise of being good and then was actually good?

And way to not answer my simple question and come up with a lame excuse.

Anyways, I'm finished with this.  Arguing with you is the dumbest thing ever because you're like a kid who sticks his fingers in his ears and just screams.

And bumping this thread to make Noname sad.  :-p

Im staying optomistic. The title isnt all that impressive, but its not out untill mid 09, so id refrain from bitching about it. 1 month before release, then we can complain.

When did you acknowledge the game isn't finished?

The build doesn't show much promise. I'm not denying that.

But stating we don't know that the final product will be is not sticking my fingers in my ears. It's stating fact.

The game could suck. If the new build has no substantial improvement, that would mean the did nothing worthwhile in the months since Leipzig, when that build in the article was made ready.

But if it does show improvement, will that prove to you that this build in the article is not proof of the final game?