Summary: THE GUARDIAN: Episode 90 --Introduction: Hello, This is Eldoric “The Guardian Tank” here with “The Guardian Tank PODCAST”. Your Dedicated Source For Tanking News, Techniques and Related Topics. This is episode 90. Brought to you by gaming companies that think they can abuse their customers. Remember, even Rome fell. Guest host: Twitter ADVENTURES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Scroll to bottom for feed) Internet tough guy stories (forums and facebook) --Questions Ok, I am posting a letter I got that I thought was really good and my response. I would love outside eyes on it. Also, got one spot open for next week's show. Hey Eld, I've not played mass effect since I finished the first one. I dug the game, just never had time to play 2 or 3. Your description of why you dislike the ending is the most articulate I've heard and doesn't sound like the whining I'm used to hearing. Perhaps the rest of the folks I've hear complain about it just can't explain themselves as well. Most of them just say they didn't like it because Shepherd dies etc etc. I agree with you that customers have a right to voice their concerns. However, if the concern is about the story itself and not how poorly it is presented, then changing it is a slippery slope of artistic integrity and fear of backlash from telling a story with a non-typical twist or ending. If all of our game stories fit a mold, then we'll soon find ourselves bored with them and not paying attention to them. Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for sharing your view on the topic. Keep up the good work. MY RESPONSE: Great points and I will try to address them. There is two main ones that I read which I will try to talk about: Slippery slope of artistic integrity and artist having the freedom to engage in 'risk' when making art. I going to explain things I am sure you know already, but will for the sake of clarity. The problem with slippery slope arguments is that they are not arguments or fallacies. They can only articulate a projected or theoretical trend, but cannot support that trend. Make sense? The formula A (.9) -->B (.9)-->C (.9)-->D (.9) so A-->D is .9 but it really is .65, shows this. The leading of each numerical value to the next supports a decline that can only follow from one to the next but not from two different values that dont directly proceeding or preceding one another. So, if A to B is happening that doesn't mean A to C is happening because their values are not the same, but A to C could still be occurring if A to B to C does exist. It is just A and C aren't directly the cause of each other. To put it this way (and I use this example only because it simple and works to example the concept) if gay people are allowed to get married then people will eventually be allowed to marry animals. The values (in a formulaic sense) are not equal from one situation to the next. The slippery slope argument would work just as well if it is said straight people getting married will lead to people marrying animals in terms of the argument. Second, artistic freedom or the ability for an artist to take a risk. This, I think, is easier to address then above. The concept of artistic risk cannot exist without consequence. The word risk implies some form of consequence by its very nature. If you are always safe then you are not taking a risk. If an artist wants to take a risk with their art, fine, but the consequence is rejection from the audience. Now, with commercial art or an artistic products the audience is a customer who has certain rights in a transaction because commerce was engaged in. What are those rights? The same as with any product, really. A customer can say a p
