View Single Post

Default 

June 19th, 2012, 14:56
Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
Some players are upset because the extent of the varying does not match their expectations, but the ASA applies common sense when it said: "we considered that most consumers would realise there would be a finite number of possible outcomes within the game"
There is a world of space between 'infinite' and 'three'. This is where I had hoped some of the common sense you point to would have been used. No one was asking for infinity, but three was a little out of sync with the expectations that the vendor created.

The ASA could perhaps have looked at that gap between 'real' ending variation under common sense (ie almost none besides cosmetic A,B,C) - and promises to potential consumers (that there would be "no A,B,C"). Without common sense, it has no right to judge Marks and Spencer's adverts that may be offensive to all of six women. It should simply set a % of flesh in pre-determined areas that is allowed to be shown and leave computers to determine compliance. However I would prefer the ASA to exercise judgment and common sense. IMO they didn't seem to try in this case. More than one ending? Check. Infinity impossible? Check. CASE DISMISSED!
Gaxkang is offline

Gaxkang

Sentinel

#48

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 307