This forum has a problem of posters taking reviews out of context

This post inspired this thread:

[QUOTE="Respawn-d"]

[QUOTE="caseypayne69"]Gamespot is good at knocking games from perfect score with lame negatives. Quote me they will say " gran turismo 5 does lots of things but not all of them right." I'm meanets face it, rAin, night time, damage now, track editor, NASCAR. The more for gs to throw darts at.GreySeal9

For LBP a negative was " building your own lvs takes time" :lol:

You're presenting that out of context. But that seems to be par for the course around here.

In the review, it says that even the simplest objects takes a huge amount oftime to build, which makes the process overly daunting. What this reviewer means is that the creation side of the game would havebeen more accessible if simpler objects look less time to make. Simple objects taking too long to make implies that the creation suite can at times be inefficient.

Believe it or not, accessibility is part of game reviewing criteria.

This is what people constantly do on this forum. They try to make a negative for a game they like or a game that's exclusive to a system they cheerlead for sound ridiculous by presenting it in an overly simplistic sort of way. This LPB negative might sound silly if read out of its proper context (the review) but if you read the review, it's extremely hard to misunderstand the point the reviewer is making.

Another example of this is the whole "LOL! They docked Ratchet and Clank: Tools of Destruction because it had too much variety!" talking point.What the review actually said is that the game has alot of fluff that distracts from the game's main strengths. Of course one might disagree with that, but that comment clearly doesn't equate to docking the game for having too much variety.

I think it's more reasonable to think that people are taking these criticisms out of context instead of the incredibly tinfoilish thought that reviewers actually get something out of taking points away for petty reasons.

Now here's a disclaimer for both cows and lemmings:

Cows: By using two pro-Sony examples, I am not trying to imply that only cows do this. I am fully aware that lemmings, sheep and hermits do this as well. Hell, alot of people do this when their favorite movies or albums get docked points.

I just used these two examples because they are the ones that I remember most clearly. After all, the first example I encountered just minutes ago.

Lemmings: For the same reasons, please don't come in here and go "LOL! This is proof that cows are the worst!"

I can get behind this...

I noticed a 'Good' in the ODST review being "No Flood"

I had to laugh at that myself, though in this case I assume it was more of a joke. And I doubt it counted toward the 9.0 GS gave it.

but you do offer a clearer point. Suppose the problem is that people just don't read the reviews. look at the good, look at the bad. if it doesn't look fair, just rant about it?

I dont think many people read reviews here. They look at the score and then MAYBE read the cliffnotes at the top.

Of course people are going to behave that way, it makes sense that people who disagree with a review would make that obvious in this forum, even if the review was outstanding in a good way... look at the Z:TP review... I have never seen people attack a reviewer's appearence and personality so savagely over a review by so many people, people who even then hadn't played the game yet in most cases too... that wasn't as subtle as what you are pointing out though.

I noticed a 'Good' in the ODST review being "No Flood"

I had to laugh at that myself, though in this case I assume it was more of a joke. And I doubt it counted toward the 9.0 GS gave it.

but you do offer a clearer point. Suppose the problem is that people just don't read the reviews. look at the good, look at the bad. if it doesn't look fair, just rant about it?

HavocV3

Yeah, that probably is part of the problem. And then I'd equate some of it to cheerleading and the desire of some to see certain games as flawless.

And with the ODST review, did they expand on that flood thing in the review? If they didn't, then yeah, it was probably a joke as everybody seems to hate the flood.

I dont think many people read reviews here. They look at the score and then MAYBE read the cliffnotes at the top.

emorainbo

Depends on the review. I tend to trust official reviews. But sometimes, I wonder what stuff some of these reviewers are sniffing. I read a review of a PC space combat simulator that got points taken off because of all things:

1. Required a joystick

2. It has a learning curve.

I had to think for a moment and thought, "Say what now?". It's a space combat S-I-M-U-L-A-T-O-R.

I agree we have to read the full review and give it some thought.

this brings me back to the Dante's inferno review where that dip**** couldn't hold his tongue about God of War 3, seriously he openly compared it to a game that wasnt even out yet

[QUOTE="emorainbo"]

I dont think many people read reviews here. They look at the score and then MAYBE read the cliffnotes at the top.

heath005

It's perfectly fine to just look at the cliffnotes if you don't have time for the entire review. My only issue is that people only read the cliffnotes and then critisize the review as if they know what they are talking about when that simplified cliffnote gives them imcomplete knowledge of what the review actually said.

Although I do have to say, when that poster I quoted said "They docked it for levels taking a long time to make" my common sense told me that there was more to it.

Depends on the review. I tend to trust official reviews. But sometimes, I wonder what stuff some of these reviewers are sniffing. I read a review of a PC space combat simulator that got points taken off because of all things:

1. Requiring a joystick

2. It has a learning curve.

I had to think for a moment and thought, "Say what now?". It's a space combat S-I-M-U-L-A-T-O-R.

I agree we have to read the full review and give it some thought.

jun_aka_pekto

I agree that reviewers sometimes can drop the ball in a big way. I hope my OP doesn't come across as a "reviewers can do no wrong" sort of deal.

no mention of the Flood in the entire review.

no mention of the Flood in the entire review.

HavocV3

That pretty much confirms it was a joke.

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

Depends on the review. I tend to trust official reviews. But sometimes, I wonder what stuff some of these reviewers are sniffing. I read a review of a PC space combat simulator that got points taken off because of all things:

1. Requiring a joystick

2. It has a learning curve.

I had to think for a moment and thought, "Say what now?". It's a space combat S-I-M-U-L-A-T-O-R.

I agree we have to read the full review and give it some thought.

GreySeal9

I agree thatreviewers sometimes can drop the ball in a big way. I hope my OP doesn't come across as a "reviewers can do no wrong" sort of deal.

It makes sense. It's like having someone who's specialty are Pokemon-type games do a review of say, Killzone 2. That's what that review reminded me of. It doesn't happen too often though.

Most of the time, I believe official reviewers do a good job. But sometimes they stumble when under pressure like say having to meet a deadline. I've been under similar pressure before in the real world and I've stumbled a few times because of it.

For the TC, fanbois are fanbois. So long as there's more than one platform/console, they'll exist. I'm sure it's nice to think of them disappearing. But if you think about it, this place would be boring without them. So long as there are mods to keep watch over them and keep em in a short leash, they're ok.

I noticed a 'Good' in the ODST review being "No Flood"HavocV3

Honestly, that was a joke that probably shouldn't have been published. I have never liked the Flood in Halo games so it was a welcome surprise to see they were not included, but I should have included an entry about the spectacular musical score instead of making a joke about the absense of a lame enemy.

this brings me back to the Dante's inferno review where that dip**** couldn't hold his tongue about God of War 3, seriously he openly compared it to a game that wasnt even out yetnofriekinlemons

I never compared Dante's Inferno to God of War 3 because, as you said, GoW3 wasn't out yet. I did compare it to the GoW franchise though because DI was clearly a massive rip off. The sad thing is, Dante's Inferno couldn't even live up to the standards set by the original God of War, let alone its spectacular sequel.

this brings me back to the Dante's inferno review where that dip**** couldn't hold his tongue about God of War 3, seriously he openly compared it to a game that wasnt even out yet

nofriekinlemons

[QUOTE="HavocV3"]I noticed a 'Good' in the ODST review being "No Flood"TomMcShea

Honestly, that was a joke that probably shouldn't have been published. I have never liked the Flood in Halo games so it was a welcome surprise to see they were not included, but I should have included an entry about the spectacular musical score instead of making a joke about the absense of a lame enemy.

this brings me back to the Dante's inferno review where that dip**** couldn't hold his tongue about God of War 3, seriously he openly compared it to a game that wasnt even out yetnofriekinlemons

I never compared Dante's Inferno to God of War 3 because, as you said, GoW3 wasn't out yet. I did compare it to the GoW franchise though because DI was clearly a massive rip off. The sad thing is, Dante's Inferno couldn't even live up to the standards set by the original God of War, let alone its spectacular sequel.

this brings me back to the Dante's inferno review where that dip**** couldn't hold his tongue about God of War 3, seriously he openly compared it to a game that wasnt even out yet

nofriekinlemons

You may want to hold your tongue as Tom McShea, which you called "that ******", has responded and would have moderated you for personally insulting him.

Once you understand the true nature of fanboyism, you'll realize that "taking reviews out of context" is giving way too much credit.

[QUOTE="HavocV3"]I noticed a 'Good' in the ODST review being "No Flood"TomMcShea

Honestly, that was a joke that probably shouldn't have been published. I have never liked the Flood in Halo games so it was a welcome surprise to see they were not included, but I should have included an entry about the spectacular musical score instead of making a joke about the absense of a lame enemy.

Pretty sure the music was mentioned.

I reread the review to confirm if the Flood were even mentioned past the Good/Bad. somewhere on the 2nd page it was written "ODST has the best musical score of any Halo to date"

here, I copy/pasted it after I made that guess:

"The music, however, is without fault. This is the best score in a Halo game so far and perfectly complements the mood with a variety of well-constructed beats. The eerie musical score during the city levels is the most impressive, but it is often the absence of music that creates the biggest impact. The ambient noises outside of fights slowly build a nervous energy, and the music explodes when bullets start flying, which adds to the intensity."

and I liked the fact that you put the Flood in the Good category, it was worth the laugh as I could relate. If you review Reach, don't hesitate to put it down again:P

[QUOTE="nofriekinlemons"]

this brings me back to the Dante's inferno review where that dip**** couldn't hold his tongue about God of War 3, seriously he openly compared it to a game that wasnt even out yet

nintendos-mario

You may want to hold your tongue as Tom McShea, which you called "that ******", has responded and would have moderated you for personally insulting him.

Pretty sure the music was mentioned.HavocV3

Yeah, I'm just saying that I should have included the music as a Good entry instead of the joke about The Flood. The funny thing is, it's the joke that keeps coming back. After I write my review, I post it in a template so it's easier for our copy editing team to read. My template always has "No Flood" as the last Good entry, so I have to delete it and enter something relevent to the game I'm actually reviewing every time. It's the joke that just won't go away!

[QUOTE="HavocV3"]Pretty sure the music was mentioned.TomMcShea

Yeah, I'm just saying that I should have included the music as a Good entry instead of the joke about The Flood. The funny thing is, it's the joke that keeps coming back. After I write my review, I post it in a template so it's easier for our copy editing team to read. My template always has "No Flood" as the last Good entry, so I have to delete it and enter something relevent to the game I'm actually reviewing every time. It's the joke that just won't go away!

ohhhhhh, my bad.

I see now. 8)

[QUOTE="nofriekinlemons"]this brings me back to the Dante's inferno review where that dip**** couldn't hold his tongue about God of War 3, seriously he openly compared it to a game that wasnt even out yetTomMcShea

I never compared Dante's Inferno to God of War 3 because, as you said, GoW3 wasn't out yet. I did compare it to the GoW franchise though because DI was clearly a massive rip off. The sad thing is, Dante's Inferno couldn't even live up to the standards set by the original God of War, let alone its spectacular sequel.

People think they can just run their mouth off in SW about anyone just because they disagree with them, and this is one where it blows up in the doer's own face.

DI was a game that not only looks like God of War, but plays like God of War, and draws upon mythology like God of War. The whole gaming community knew this and saw it coming long before its release, and anyone who thinks otherwise is just kidding themselves. If DI had ended up being a really great game, one that is at least up to par with GOW3 there's no doubt that the same comparisons will be made between the two.

As for the topic at hand, it's pretty much a terrible one. This place wouldn't be SW if people try to downplay the negative stuff, and as TC's example quoting himself have shown, blowing things out of proportion.

It goes both ways. I really doubt that neither person has had enough(or ANY) experience with LBP to be commenting on how easy/hard is it to utilize its level editor, and it's pretty evident since both sides couldn't do much more than regurgitating the review.

It's always easier to point the finger towards the other direction, isn't it?

[QUOTE="TomMcShea"]

[QUOTE="nofriekinlemons"]this brings me back to the Dante's inferno review where that dip**** couldn't hold his tongue about God of War 3, seriously he openly compared it to a game that wasnt even out yetGxgear

I never compared Dante's Inferno to God of War 3 because, as you said, GoW3 wasn't out yet. I did compare it to the GoW franchise though because DI was clearly a massive rip off. The sad thing is, Dante's Inferno couldn't even live up to the standards set by the original God of War, let alone its spectacular sequel.

People think they can just run their mouth off in SW about anyone just because they disagree with them, and this is one where it blows up in the doer's own face.

DI was a game that not only looks like God of War, but plays like God of War, and draws upon mythology like God of War. The whole gaming community knew this and saw it coming long before its release, and anyone who thinks otherwise is just kidding themselves. If DI had ended up being a really great game, one that is at least up to par with GOW3 there's no doubt that the same comparisons will be made between the two.

As for the topic at hand, it's pretty much a terrible one. This place wouldn't be SW if people try to downplay the negative stuff, and as TC's example quoting himself have shown, blowing things out of proportion.

It goes both ways. I really doubt that neither person has had enough(or ANY) experience with LBP to be commenting on how easy/hard is it to utilize its level editor, and it's pretty evident since both sides couldn't do much more than regurgitating the review.

It's always easier to point the finger towards the other direction, isn't it?

If I do say so myself: your reason for my threading being terrible is pretty damn weak. I mean, if that's the only thing that's wrong with it, it really can't be that bad. But I digress...

Why do I need extended experience with the level editor (even though I do own the game, I'll admit I haven't used the level editor much) to recognize that the review was taken out of context? The poster I quoted clearly simplified the reviewers point about the level editor. Anybody who has basic reading skills can see that.

Why do you care? Juggernaut140

I care because I am sick and tired of rude fanboys saying uninformed things about the GameSpot reviewers, even engaging in name-calling as one user did against Tom. He and the other reviewers do not deserve this type of abuse.

That's the least of its problems.

[QUOTE="Juggernaut140"]

Why do you care? nintendos-mario

I care because I am sick and tired of rude fanboys saying uninformed things about the GameSpot reviewers, even engaging in name-calling as one user did against Tom. He and the other reviewers do not deserve this type of abuse.

this brings me back to the Dante's inferno review where that dip**** couldn't hold his tongue about God of War 3, seriously he openly compared it to a game that wasnt even out yet

nofriekinlemons

Tom McShea explained in the Hotspot podcast dated 9/2/2010 around 27min in (which was pretty funny by the way :P). I agree with him after he explained. But tbh I didn't read the review because I didn't enjoy the demo anyway.

What I find an even bigger problem is that review scores (and not even the reviews themselves) are used as an all-powerful, undisputable truth on a game's quality. If that's not taking a review out of its context, I don't know what is.

[QUOTE="Gxgear"]

[QUOTE="TomMcShea"]

I never compared Dante's Inferno to God of War 3 because, as you said, GoW3 wasn't out yet. I did compare it to the GoW franchise though because DI was clearly a massive rip off. The sad thing is, Dante's Inferno couldn't even live up to the standards set by the original God of War, let alone its spectacular sequel.

GreySeal9

People think they can just run their mouth off in SW about anyone just because they disagree with them, and this is one where it blows up in the doer's own face.

DI was a game that not only looks like God of War, but plays like God of War, and draws upon mythology like God of War. The whole gaming community knew this and saw it coming long before its release, and anyone who thinks otherwise is just kidding themselves. If DI had ended up being a really great game, one that is at least up to par with GOW3 there's no doubt that the same comparisons will be made between the two.

As for the topic at hand, it's pretty much a terrible one. This place wouldn't be SW if people try to downplay the negative stuff, and as TC's example quoting himself have shown, blowing things out of proportion.

It goes both ways. I really doubt that neither person has had enough(or ANY) experience with LBP to be commenting on how easy/hard is it to utilize its level editor, and it's pretty evident since both sides couldn't do much more than regurgitating the review.

It's always easier to point the finger towards the other direction, isn't it?

If I do say so myself: your reason for my threading being terrible is pretty damn weak. I mean, if that's the only thing that's wrong with it, it really can't be that bad. But I digress...

Why do I need extended experience with the level editor (even though I do own the game, I'll admit I haven't used the level editor much) to recognize that the review was taken out of context? The poster I quoted clearly simplified the reviewers point about the level editor. Anybody who has basic reading skills can see that.

So both of you ended up making your own intrepetations(out of context) of what was said in a single review? That's rich. Hearsay aren't facts.

Looks like you're the one guilty of that last accusation, since I've already acknowledged that.

Trying to make forum kids acknowledge the validity of any criticism of their darling games is a colossal waste of time.Cherokee_Jack

Thank you.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Gxgear"]

People think they can just run their mouth off in SW about anyone just because they disagree with them, and this is one where it blows up in the doer's own face.

DI was a game that not only looks like God of War, but plays like God of War, and draws upon mythology like God of War. The whole gaming community knew this and saw it coming long before its release, and anyone who thinks otherwise is just kidding themselves. If DI had ended up being a really great game, one that is at least up to par with GOW3 there's no doubt that the same comparisons will be made between the two.

As for the topic at hand, it's pretty much a terrible one. This place wouldn't be SW if people try to downplay the negative stuff, and as TC's example quoting himself have shown, blowing things out of proportion.

It goes both ways. I really doubt that neither person has had enough(or ANY) experience with LBP to be commenting on how easy/hard is it to utilize its level editor, and it's pretty evident since both sides couldn't do much more than regurgitating the review.

It's always easier to point the finger towards the other direction, isn't it?

Gxgear

If I do say so myself: your reason for my threading being terrible is pretty damn weak. I mean, if that's the only thing that's wrong with it, it really can't be that bad. But I digress...

Why do I need extended experience with the level editor (even though I do own the game, I'll admit I haven't used the level editor much) to recognize that the review was taken out of context? The poster I quoted clearly simplified the reviewers point about the level editor. Anybody who has basic reading skills can see that.

So both of you ended up making your own intrepetations(out of context) of what was said in a single review? That's rich. Hearsay aren't facts.

Looks like you're the one guilty of that last accusation, since I've already acknowledged that.

You keep saying I took the review out of context yet you never explain how I'm taking it out of context.

If you're going to say things like "that's rich" at least explain exactly what I'm taking out context.

Your accusations don't go without saying.

[QUOTE="Gxgear"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

If I do say so myself: your reason for my threading being terrible is pretty damn weak. I mean, if that's the only thing that's wrong with it, it really can't be that bad. But I digress...

Why do I need extended experience with the level editor (even though I do own the game, I'll admit I haven't used the level editor much) to recognize that the review was taken out of context? The poster I quoted clearly simplified the reviewers point about the level editor. Anybody who has basic reading skills can see that.

GreySeal9

So both of you ended up making your own intrepetations(out of context) of what was said in a single review? That's rich. Hearsay aren't facts.

Looks like you're the one guilty of that last accusation, since I've already acknowledged that.

You keep saying I took the review out of context yet you never explain how I'm taking it out of context.

If you're going to say things like "that's rich" at least explain exactly what I'm taking out context.

You're accusations don't go without saying.

. "The creation tools are comprehensive, which is why you have to go through plenty of tutorials to learn the basics. You begin by moving items around, but things become a lot trickier when you start creating characters and moving objects. For example, enemies and allies have to be given an AI routine so they know whether to follow or run away from a player when they're approached. The physics system is easy to understand, so making things is common sense, but it can still be very time-consuming to construct even the most simple movingobjects. You can create structures and glue everything together with ease, but it takes a lot more work to use motors, pistons and springs. These help to set traps, make puzzles and add vehicles, which makes for more interesting levels, but creating and testing everything is a lot of work for the creator. Given the work required to build even simple systems, it's a pretty momentous task to re-create something on the scale of the levels made by the developers.

Thankfully, the task has been made easier by the inclusion of premade objects and level templates from the main game. This makes it a lot easier to start dropping in characters, structures, and vehicles, although you'll still want to adapt them to create your own look. The other problem for budding designers is that the game has three separate planes to work on, which lets players move between fore, middle, and background when playing. This means that unless you think on all three levels when making obstacles, players can simply pop into the foreground and avoid them completely. Once you have all of your main content in place, you can add finishing touches such as respawn points, dynamic music that changes according to player proximity, and characters that offer instructions on what to do. You can also throw in point bubbles and prizes to encourage players to play your level, and of course it's a good idea to play through repeatedly to make sure that others won't get stuck."

He took the parts of the review(or rather, the lack of) that favours his side of the argument, you did the same.

There's the truth, then there's the whole truth.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Gxgear"]

So both of you ended up making your own intrepetations(out of context) of what was said in a single review? That's rich. Hearsay aren't facts.

Looks like you're the one guilty of that last accusation, since I've already acknowledged that.

Gxgear

You keep saying I took the review out of context yet you never explain how I'm taking it out of context.

If you're going to say things like "that's rich" at least explain exactly what I'm taking out context.

You're accusations don't go without saying.

. "The creation tools are comprehensive, which is why you have to go through plenty of tutorials to learn the basics. You begin by moving items around, but things become a lot trickier when you start creating characters and moving objects. For example, enemies and allies have to be given an AI routine so they know whether to follow or run away from a player when they're approached. The physics system is easy to understand, so making things is common sense, but it can still be very time-consuming to construct even the most simple movingobjects. You can create structures and glue everything together with ease, but it takes a lot more work to use motors, pistons and springs. These help to set traps, make puzzles and add vehicles, which makes for more interesting levels, but creating and testing everything is a lot of work for the creator. Given the work required to build even simple systems, it's a pretty momentous task to re-create something on the scale of the levels made by the developers.

Thankfully, the task has been made easier by the inclusion of premade objects and level templates from the main game. This makes it a lot easier to start dropping in characters, structures, and vehicles, although you'll still want to adapt them to create your own look. The other problem for budding designers is that the game has three separate planes to work on, which lets players move between fore, middle, and background when playing. This means that unless you think on all three levels when making obstacles, players can simply pop into the foreground and avoid them completely. Once you have all of your main content in place, you can add finishing touches such as respawn points, dynamic music that changes according to player proximity, and characters that offer instructions on what to do. You can also throw in point bubbles and prizes to encourage players to play your level, and of course it's a good idea to play through repeatedly to make sure that others won't get stuck."

He took the parts of the review(or rather, the lack of) that favours his side of the argument, you did the same.

There's the truth, then there's the whole truth.

I'll admit that I neglected to put "simplest moving objects" rather "simple objects" in there but that was not intentional. It was a mistake. My point was not to imply that the creation suite was inefficient all around (which is why I said "at times") or that the reviewer said that, but rather that the review didn't just say "it takes too much time, so we're docking points." As these paragraphs indicate, the point he was trying to make was much more than that and he did hint at a bit of inefficiency. I never said he made blanket statements about the creation tools.

I wasn't trying to take any specific argument about the game because I happen to love the game. I was saying that the reviewers point was much more detailed, which it was. I'll admit that I didn't get it entirely right in my post, but you would agree he wasn't just saying, "It takes too long. -5," right?

All this DI is a massive GoW rip off talk got me interested in how they will review 3D Dot Game Heroes. I wonder if they will be consistent, we'll see. Also I'm interested how they come out with the score of the game. Other sites like IGN and GT scores graphics, story, gameplay, etc and it adds to the overall score, so I wonder how GameSpot select the number score.

[QUOTE="Juggernaut140"]

Why do you care? nintendos-mario

I care because I am sick and tired of rude fanboys saying uninformed things about the GameSpot reviewers, even engaging in name-calling as one user did against Tom. He and the other reviewers do not deserve this type of abuse.

my intention with my previous post was to show how strongly i disagree with those that compares games in order to review them,

now that i read my post i realize that my post did not get that point across and was nothing but rude, i should have never have called anyone a name such as that. and i am sorry.:(

now with that over with,

how can you call me a fanboy? and its this kinda feedback(note without the name calling) that they need

am i a fanboy for strongly disagreeing in the way someone goes about reviewing a game.

i will not withdraw my previous post but i will say that i am some what ashamed of it

I remember the reviewer of ToD was going through a crisis (he was fired a while back) and yet the fanboys were still lashing on him.GulliversTravel

I just found this thread and Im not impressed that my name is being used as an example of ignorance. I watch all reviews of games and I was in the right to suggest a problem.

I was referring to one of the highlightedpoints the reviewer uses himself. As someone who has played lbp for well over 200 hours I know building a lv can take a long time but just because it isnt streamlines and dumb down for the average casual doesn't mean it should review a lower score. LBPs creation tool controls are perfectly implemented for the DS3

The Bad

• Short story mode
• Camera struggles in multiplayer
• Building a compelling level can be time-consuming.

Building full games in real life can be time consuming aswell. I have a feeling that lbp creation tools are alot quicker then if the game asked the user to learn to code first. :roll:

Once you understand the true nature of fanboyism, you'll realize that "taking reviews out of context" is giving way too much credit.

gamecubepad

I like to sit back and read some of the insane and ignorant statements people make on fanboyism. People really do trash people to easily on this forum because they don't believe something someone is saying and offcourse lemmings, cows, sheeps, elephants, and whatever other name for people come up to categorize them

Onto the statements on members taking a review out of context. I absolutely believe that. I find it funny seeing people attack a system because of AA and AAAE or because a game is a 9 to a game thats a 8.5. Its like come on people. Its one editors point of view being spewed as some form of all being perfection. Don't even get me on comparing metacritic scores which can be wild its not even funny. Do members actually know all the people who can be on a metacritic score? Its almost pointless to look at a score like that anymore. So many no name websites and editors get averaged into that score is almost hilarious now.

I do wish people would have a little bit more discernment before making some comment trash talking on a user that does not agree. People get way to categorized these days. I still am confused where the categorizations even came from lol.

Time to rename System Wars to "Where the Haters get to Hate" lol.