@Mogan: "he wasn't just buying it to spite Gamespot"

If you read my original comment, it says "I bought the game anyway, *especially* because you rated it so poorly."

I never said I was buying JUST to spite them, in fact I never mentioned spite at all. However, any person can have multiple reasons for buying something. I wanted to support the dev (good use of money), and I like the game (good use of money). Also, given that the intent of the review was to hurt the dev's income for reasons unrelated to the game's quality, buying the game with the intent of counteracting this behaviour is a good use of my money, in my opinion.

Given how much you seem to care about my money, I'd suggest looking after your own finances a little more carefully ;)

@Gelugon_baat: Spite is a strong word. I'd been on the fence for a while and the generally favourable reviews convinced me it was worthwhile. I'd always thought the gamersgate thing was bs, but I now see that they must've had a point. Impulse buying isn't so bad, if you can afford it ;)

@tr4newreck: Still far better than 4/10

@Mogan: PCGamesN rated it 9/10, and other sites have been way more generous. From what I've played so far it's far above a 4/10, and well worth the $20 I spent on it.

This kind of review gives gamergaters legitimacy.

I bought the game anyway, especially because you rated it so poorly.

PItchford denied Borderlands 2 and said that Duke Nukem Forever was going to be good...why would anyone believe him now? Or respect him at all for that matter?

So when will Activision sue EA for making BF3 close quarters a disgraceful COD clone?