Sorry but this issue is nowhere near as clear cut as this article or some of the other commenters here make it sound - a key reason why this fracas has blown up in the way that it has. Offline play has always been discussed by the developers as a desired extra but an addon all the same (even the quote in the article from the Kickstarter page clearly shows that offline play was an afterthought at best, and no offline mode has ever existed in any of the playable builds during the last year). In truth Frontier really should have gripped this nettle much earlier than they have but on the flip-side backers who had placed their hopes in a feature that was never a certainty (and logic suggested would always be problematic given E:D's long term design goals as a highly connected game world) have affectively convinced themselves that the game would be something that it really isn't. It's one hell of an impasse for sure and is far from pretty to behold (currently the official forum's are a bloody mess). The last thing any developer wants is for their audience to devour itself on the eve of their games launch.
eulogize_my_baked_goods's forum posts
OP; in essence I love what you are aiming to achieve here. The problem is - and I have been giving this quite a bit of thought recently, with one thing and another - that personal discussion and real diplomacy can only occur between individuals that decide to see eye-to-eye and leave their prejudices at the door. Governments, organisations, groups, et-al, can do this because they have representatives that speak for those that they represent, and once consensus is achieved there are structures in place that allow that agreement to be discriminated to the rest of the population.
Such an action cannot and will never happen on the internet though because at its core the internet is the mob - the nameless, anonymous mass that is the human race. Sure, the mob is constructed of individuals but that does not make it the same thing in any way, shape, or form. Innately the mob is impersonal, a mass of unfocused opinion, reactive and entirely unrepresentative. It is the mishmash of all of the individuals that align themselves with whatever stance it is currently coalescing around, but beholden to none of those same people. And thus we have the quagmire that is #gamergate.
I have seen variations on the following kind of statement quite a lot recently; "I agree with the aggrievements categorised within #gamergate but your labelling of me (specifically me) as misogynist doesn't apply because I as an individual am not like that". The problem is that this is not and will never be a discussion between individuals. We are the tide. We are all spewing our thoughts onto public forums and comments threads with multitudes of other anonymous individuals all speaking to the abstracted 'you people' while simultaneously getting upset when others don't see us, ourselves, directly. In short, there is an innate contradiction here, one that I am not sure can ever really be bridged.
I guess the point I'm making is that although the sentiment of the OP is to be commended I do not think that the landscape of having this kind of debate here on the internet - between such large faceless numbers of people - can ever hope to come to any kind of constructive conclusion. It is also why I think discussion on the internet is so subject to being pulled off course by the most extreme voices within it - they inevitably colour the tone of the conversation more than any other, and in this specific case why all who align themselves with the #gamergate flag are coloured by the misogynist/abusive label even if it does not apply to them directly.
Increasingly I am of the opinion that this whole fiasco has largely come about and is further inflamed because there is no accountability on the internet and as such you can never ever have the kind of reasoned discussion we would all hope to see. It's just not what the internet is good at. There are just too many of us all speaking at once, and simultaneously all wanting to be heard. The best we can ever hope for is finding likeminded spirits that are able to speak clearly and directly to one and other and not allow the wave of public discourse to dominate that personal interaction.
Funnily enough I ended up making the exact same choices that Alex did... at least the second time around. In my initial play-though I shot Kenny and in a daze of confusion stayed with Jane. The ending was very flat indeed (they meet a new group of people and there is the hint of gun related drama before the screen goes black) and overall I left the game feeling quite cold. In fact so much so that after closing the game down and walking away for five minutes my blood pressure shot right back up and I immediately reloaded the final scene. Fuck you Jane! It is interesting that Alex says that the ending where Kenny lives allows you to shoot him down because In truth I think if my first ending had allowed me to do that to Jane I would have done so in a heartbeat. In either case this time around I still shot Kenny (sadly that wounded bear needed to be - wanted to be - put down) but following the confrontation I told Jane that she was a crazy bitch and left on my own. The final moment of the 'alone' ending is at least a great money shot (Clem, bloodied and with baby in arms, staring down the zombie horde - Joss Whedon eat your heart out) if not quite the gut wrenching close to the season I think I had hoped for. I also agree with Alex that overall the season feels incredibly limp and missed many opportunities to get real meat out of its characters and situations, particularly after Carver leaves the picture. I'm still interested to see where a third season will go (the breadth of endings makes me think that this the last time we will play as Clementine, which I have mixed feeling about given the way this season closes out) but I really do hope that TellTale are reading the criticisms and gaining a much better handle on what works and what does not.
For me the core of the TellTale's TWD is not how to survive in a world gone to hell, but rather about the battle to retain your humanity when everything around you is doing its best to strip it away. With season 1 Lee's struggles (and every decision you made as him) were always placed within the context of doing the right thing for Clementine. She was the physical manifestation of your humanity. With season 2 Clem has no external representation of this idea and in many regards the premise of the season is the fight for her own soul. The potential paths have been laid out within the characters she has met along the way. Sarah; representative of what Clem would have been had she never met Lee. Luke; good hearted but ultimately handicapped by his own morality. Kenny; strong but driven by his blackened past, and every decision he makes having a direct connection to that history. Then you have Jane, who is also strong and resourceful, but singular and self-sufficient to a fault. She would (will?) prioritise her own well being by leaving the group behind and go it alone should the situation present itself. And at the far extreme, Carver. His humanity is all but lost at this point, believing that the only way to survive this world is to impose control over others by brute force. The conversation between him and Clem in the office makes it clear that his path is one equally valid for her, should she allow that side of her personality to come to the fore. As such my personal decision for Clem to have her stay and watch Kenny destroy Carver was one of pure reaction - to shut that door hard. However, in many respects I regret that decision because of what it means for her in the long run. Clementine is now one step away from becoming the thing she (I) hated in Carver, and her strength has the potential now to actually be her undoing. For me the success of season 2 will stand on how well this balancing act is handled. I already know that the group and Clementine's roll within it will fail and that her world will be (metaphorically and physically) ripped apart - that's just the way things are headed. All I want is for the game to place this before me in a way that I feel ownership over, in the same way that Lee's final decisions felt truly meaningful.
This is a real shame, but at the same time not all that surprising given the current MMO landscape. The WoD universe is a fascinating prospect for an MMO but I'm glad the developers have taken this action if the game was not shaping up to deliver on that promise. I can't help but wonder if they looked at the likes of the new Everquest game, developments like the user created content in the Neverwinter MMO (far from perfect but a valiant stab in the right direction) and even the likes of Day Z and decided that their design (lets not forget, one that was initiated a long time ago now when a completely different style of online game dominated) just wasn't going to cut it. On those terms better to put one in the chest, one in the head, and chalk it up to experience than release a game that would very likely die on its arse.
Oh wow, that's a blast from the past!. I was a big fan of Boiling Point even though it is quite possibly the most consistently broken game I have ever played. As such I held a small flame for The Precursors for a fair few years. A real shame Deep Shadow's ambitions massively outstripped their abilities. It's a sage warning though - a great trailer/demo does not guarantee... well... anything, really!
The inference in the OP seems to be that you can't comment on something unless it directly effects you. I think that ultimately this is a rather blinkered world view. Does that mean that as a white, middle class man I can't comment on my dislike of racist, sexist or any other attitude I dislike/disagree with? It may well be that your opinion ends up being more relevant through association but that does not invalidate mine. It also doesn't mean I'm 'white knighting' or trying to 'protect' other people - I'm just voicing what I feel. In essence this is all that Patrick was doing - commenting on something he found distasteful, even though it does not effect him as directly as you - and within this context I see no problem with his words in the slightest.
Note that within the cringe-worthy context of Joel's terrible script (which he himself was obviously gritting his teeth through for the entire show) and the general knuckle dragging tone of the last nights VGX I think PK's words were pretty much on the lighter side of what they could have been. Calling him out in a thread like this seems... weak.
So the big question then is, how much of this demo was projected game/gameplay, and how much of what we are seeing currently is actually just aspirational. In short, I want to believe that the scope of this game is as suggested by the trailer but am equally open to finding out that things are a little more 'critical path' as long as the game is good.