| blaydcor said: It seems that all of you people screaming "Coincidence!1" didn't actually read the article, which highlighted blatant similarities alongside the several WORD FOR WORD quotes (this does not happen by coincidence) AND the fact the the guy ADMITTED TO THE PLAGIARISM. Seriously, read more than the title before you post and defend the guy. |
I admit I didn't read the last quote saying he admitted to it, but I don't see the big deal to the part he copied. Both of those pieces could have been copied straight from a manual they are so generic (I know there isn't a manual, just saying it's incredibly straightforward explanation).
If the actual creative parts of the review had been copied, yes, there is a reason to be angry, but the he copied the most straightforward part that even if he had written himself it probably would have ended up sounding almost exactly the same. It's not a big deal.
If it hadn't been for this "fiasco" maybe 20 people would have read both of those reviews anyways. Would you really want to spend all your time on a review that isn't going to get read by many people or get that review finished and move on to the bigger ones that make the site more money?
Again, if he had actually copied the creative parts of the review, yes, that would be inexcusable, but those parts that are the same, who cares? There are only so many ways you can say those things. I bet if you asked 100 people to play most any simple game to the point they could review it and then ask them to explain the mechanics you would see results pretty close to the one above.
