So this screen-shot is from the user score section of http://www.metacritic.com. I would like to quote some of what they said about one particular game when rating the game zero.

"Great setting and story, mediocre gameplay."

"Great game, good graphics good game play good story... All crippled by an out of date checkpoint save system." ( still gave it a  zero)

or

"The guys that voted 9 or something are probably coming from console, cause from a PC point of view the game is complete garbage: the model are really simple (console port), the color and caracter are super simple and animated not that well (poor console port)..."(This last user doesn't even know what a console port is but keeps talking about it.)

Not that the statement of these sort of people even matters but these opinions are from the user section of Bioshock infinite at metacritics website. It happens everywhere and to every game or product if you will but here is my argument that if you do not like the game I can totally understand you and there is no problem with that, but why don't you stay logical to your own existence?

For sure that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and from a subjective point of view everything is possible to be criticized and be given the lowest score but is that morally right? It's not my intention to say that you don't have the right to give zero out of ten to a game even if the critics say it deserves more than 9, but if there is any thing we do know is that the score zero is given to a game by a user because he/she feels responsible for balancing the user score! So are they really not worried about their own logical dignity? It must be so funny to have a brain like that if it can be called a brain. 

Justifying a game by saying that "it's a great game with great story and average game play." but still giving it a zero as the score  makes me think about the illogical idiots and whether being idiotic is worse or illogical. 

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

"Dude, Fable is like, the most realistic game I've ever played! It's so awesome! You can do anything in that game."

I was hooked. I had to get it, and I did acquire it. The rest is history, folks. It WAS an amazing game, and it was very realistic. It dealt with issues about things that other games just didn't. Of course, being a middle-schooler, I didn't quite have the intellectual grasp that I do now, but still it mattered. Are you a hero, or are you a villain? Do you rise to justice and ring Jack of Blades by his filthy little neck? Or....do you become more powerful than even he, and smite him down like an insect so that only you and you alone can rule Albion with a murderous fist? The possibilities were endless, even though I never actually played through with an evil character to the end through and through. If I did, it wasn't my most memorable playthrough, because I didn't enjoy it. Even to this day, the evil/Renegade route just isn't my style.

Fable instantly became my favorite franchise of the time. Fable: Lost Chapters just made it better than it already was, and I still have my copy with the "Platinum Hits" enblazoned across the cover. Finally, here was a game that understood my own ways of thinking. But, time passed, and things change. That's when the Xbox 360 came out, and gosh darnit, Lionhead did it again. I won't bore you with details of how I got my 360, but WOW, it was awesome. Fable 2 must have been the coolest game on the whole damn planet. It made everything about the original better, and it had a well-written story like the first one. Instant classic, again!

Years later, after I have passed on my love of Fable to my younger brother....it happens. Fable freaking 3 is here. I bought the Collector's Edition, that I still have, and took it home when it finally was released. And...drum roll please....dum dum dum dum dum....it wasn't bad! But it wasn't the same, either. I liked it a lot, but it wasn't the same. Here was a story about a Prince, someone who had everything. He was already famous, and he had all of his family/memorable peoples intact. His brother was kind of a douche, but he was ultimately misunderstood. Not only that, but it was all but too easy to play through this game without giving a hoot about changing anything about the character. The weapons didn't matter and neither did your looks. Nothing mattered. Just....take the crown, and go kill some shadow people.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FABLE THAT I USED TO KNOW?

http://tinyurl.com/7af635g

So why did I still like it? Well, for one, it was still a fully featured RPG game. The story was still compelling, and it did bring the Fable story arc to a satisfying close. The kingdom is saved after all, from the greatest threat it ever knew. The best part is, I didn't die even once. W00t. But the fact remains that they lost their singular vision for the Fable franchise. All the possibilities...with updates to the engine and the graphics, another epic story like Fable and Fable II would have been orgasmic. But they didn't do it. However, I have come to learn that Fable, as a franchise, is more about telling a Fable, and is not wholly the story of Chicken Chaser. Rather, it is the rise and fall of the kingdom of Albion, and it is the story of how one person a long long time ago set events into motion that would forever shape the fate of Albion. My favorite part about the whole franchise? Theresa, the enigmatic (and ironically blind) seer who was once your sister lives on in life eternal. She is immortal. Somehow in some way, I feel like the thing that I set out to do once as the small orphan boy from Oakvale has been completed. The evil that Jack of Blades probably set into motion has been halted indefinitely, and Albion still stands. This is why Fable still has a special place in my heart, and why I hope they make a Fable 4.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Read and Post Comments (There are currently 175 other comments) | Get the full article at GameSpot