Should it have been assumed that 80% of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI7DFJDUsNY would become as important in the finished game, play as much part in it, as what at that point, ran for maybe 20% of the runtime?
What I'm specifically interested in asking though, is whether writers and reporters should have asked that question? Should reporters be asking more questions at presentations and displays as the opportunity presents itself, to keep publishers honest. Because, it looks as if Square-Enix has been feeding the press heaped servings of boloney, to discuss on their behalf. I am not seeking to lay blame for the likes of this, and FC3 that used an alike strategy, on reporters.
It's a weird cycle. They want support and trust, some of these publishers, yet they, sometimes, leave themselves appearing untrustworthy.
I was looking through really swiftly, the official videos because I intended to start the thread with a centering compare/contrast. (I didn't want to just post an out-of context "action" trailer for the contrast) But, the selection are in the majority, in the vein, tone and then content sourced from that initial trailer, basically, to-date.
Next time the publishers that have shown themselves to not be forthright show a game, why would I view it as any more likely that they would be showing me (us) any more or less than they intended me to see to want to give them money? It can be argued that is their prerogative, and I'd have no disagreement - but then, should The Press also not be mindful of face value.
Is it a good idea if they question what is presented to them, in order that this, isn't set to act as a shroud over that. Publishers relying upon the reach and power of their voices to endorse the ruse?
It feels as if the consumer is consistently at a disadvantage in the run-up to a game launch. They have no eyes or ears on the product they're looking forward to, and what is seen can well be described as stage-managed: http://venturebeat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ps4-event-bungie.jpg?w=536
In the case that too many get burned, we'll only see more wriggling as demonstrated predominately by Ubisoft, with its continual DRM shuffle act: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jPjaTo7-7k
But...That's not good for games. If you're unsure of what's on offer, then the likelihood not to buy to begin with rises. Accompanying a tendency to reduce variety, risk and cost, this may also have played a part in the changing tide for games sales.