“Geezus, why would they even make this game? Why would they tarnish the good name of Bioshock with a completely unnecessary sequel? Because it made a lot of money? Real good, 2K. Thanks for that. I’m not buying this game.”

But then a friend told me that, really, the storyline, while related to the events of Bioshock 1, is really parallel to it. “Besides,” he said, “it’s freaking Rapture. How can you not want to go back there?” He had a point. The art direction in the first game blew my mind. I’ve played through it three goddamn times already. I never get sick of it, precisely because of the art direction. So what the hell, I picked up Bioshock 2.

Now I’m in Siren’s Alley and I’m fracking hooked. The world is even more fully realized than before, the gunplay is more precise and enjoyable, and the storyline is very engrossing once you pick up enough of it so that your mind starts filling in the blanks by itself. I haven’t tried multiplayer yet. I’m not a multiplayer guy.

I would plead with Phil and Ford to keep on truckin’ with the game. It has not disappointed thus far.

re: Lepton – We’re going in circles. You’ve obviously made your decision, and you disagree with what I (or we) feel about the situation. Your refusal to accept that other people may not agree with you regarding something like this is just proving exactly what I said about the initial reaction to the reports during the podcast.

But feel free to write another few hundred words on the subject.

Giant Bomb on the day of the events reported in its podcast that there were rumors of unpaid royalties.

Joystiq Podcast (which also reported the royalties issue on the day of the events and followed-up on the story the rest of the week), 4Guys1Up, PC Gamer all at least mentioned and gave some voice to the other side of the story.

You chose not to. That’s your bias. You may not think you have decided but your discussion certainly suggests you have.

And lest you think I have decided. I don’t even care. I don’t play COD or MW and I never will. I don’t get a chubby for murder simulators like most American males. I don’t give a toss about IW or Activision or the COW/MW franchise.

What I do care about is people in the video games industry swallowing the company line. And I will note that despite most folks at Giant Bomb swallowing the company line as well, at least they made a meager attempt to present both sides and made it entertaining. You guys did neither.

Yes. With level-headed people like you around, how could I ever think people are overreacting to this whole thing?

To repeat (because, hey, it’s worked so well so far) – I have not chosen a side. I don’t know who’s telling the truth. I think choosing a side at this point is stupid.

You clearly have chosen a side. Good for you. Speaking as a game developer myself, I actually hope the side you’ve chosen is in the right. The creative people in this industry are pushed around far too much.

I’m glad my comments – no matter how misunderstood they clearly were – stirred some emotion. Thanks for listening.

But let me summarize the type of facts, more like rumors, you chose to include in that discussion. You chose to include that people can and do overreact to Activision’s business practices, and then of course poked fun at those who do so and you yourself supported the notion of people’s overreaction/hysteria around the incident.

You chose to include rumors from who knows where that IW was shopping around an IP. You chose to conclude that if, IF IW leads did so, then sure they must be fired, etc.

That’s a pretty one-sided discussion of the facts for someone who claims to have been aware of all the relevant facts, yes?

You said there was a litany of allegations ON BOTH SIDES in your first comment here, but where are those discussed? The, ah, both sides.

So let me characterize how I see your reasoning here. You were fully cognizant of all the facts, your words not mine, yet failed to bring up any that might have given voice to IW’s side of things. You then claim that there aren’t possibly enough facts to conclude anything and that there are at litany of offenses of both sides, but offer none in the discussion that would characterize IW’s view of the situation. Yet you all are certainly willing to spin into the hypothetical and assert that Activision is overly criticized, Bobby Kotick is not the devil, IW may have been shopping around an IP, and IF, IF, IF all these things are true, sure, they should be fired.

Sounds like a pretty one-sided discussion to me.

So either you were cognizant of all the available facts and chose to exclude some out of bias or you were not cognizant of all the available facts or lets just call them rumors and chose to speak about the issue only to conclude that of course Activision must be right IF we accept all the hypotheticals that you chose to present and only those you chose to present.

And I’ll be the first to say that on my relistening to that part of the podcast, I do indeed have a specific problem with your comments and remarks and not those of Ford and CJ. Also clearly, by your own admission, you’ve been getting into it with folks on forums.

So yes, knee-jerk, that knee being your own.

Then, before we offered alternative theories, Greg Ford pointed out that IF the allegations of breach of contract are true, Activision is justified in firing the IW leads.

IF is the operative word there.

That’s not making any sort of absolute statement that Activision was right or wrong. That’s a hypothetical based on the information that was currently available.

Whether any of us think this is a good or bad thing for the Call of Duty franchise really has no bearing on what we were discussing. IF the IW leads were shopping another IP around to other publishers, as has been alleged, then Activision was obligated to fire them. IF Activision trumped up these charges in order to get out of paying royalties, then the IW leads deserve to win their lawsuit. That’s EXACTLY what we were saying on the show.

Knee-jerk reaction, indeed.