UndeadRufus: "Marketing fluff" right now doesn't "[remove] liability" in any tangible legal sense. It's definitely damage control, but sometimes that's the nature of the PR beast. Would it have been better to pretend nothing was wrong?
Iwinski said, "On its own, [a huge, complex game in a relative loading-free environment] is a challenge, but we made it even more difficult for ourselves by wanting to make the game look epic on PCs, and then adjusting it to consoles...."
His use of the term "epic" was in clear, direct reference to the visuals, nothing else.
You're just making things up and twisting Iwinski's words into a hideous monstrosity of your own imagining.
Tracido: I'm refrencing the years of lies behind the marketing. It was nothing short of epic in that sense, the most base graphical fidelity is completely overshadowed by the missing features, content, basic physics and common open world interactions many have been enjoying since 2002, and that is why it looks horrible whether it's shiny or not, because without that polish, it's just a tech demo, which was not even slightly addressed..
I don't care what you're referencing now. You've attributed your own fabrications to Marcin Iwinski, misrepresented what he *did* say, and backtracked and moved the goalposts everytime somebody called you on it.
Also, I don't recognize whatever game you're trying to describe. Cyberpunk has problems and should've been left in the oven (the corporate dystopia in the game is beyond ironic), but calling it a "tech demo" sounds like hyperbolic butthurt to me.
