New editorial about the review system and people who complain about it

[heedstone]

rocketpig said:

heedstone said:

rocketpig said:

 "If you can't spend enough time to read a review to see if the reviewer marked off points for a game element that you consider to be a plus, you should really just shut the hell up and not talk about the review. Or maybe you should read the piece and argue the validity of its points. That would be a novel concept."

 

What?  do you want me to actually do posts reviewing the whole review of a reviewer?  

I do read reviews, why else did I buy the magazine?  To look at the pretty pictures?  I bought the magazine, read the reviews and thought that they were a pile of shit.  The scores were just the icing on the cake.

 

I was referring to what you did with my article and compared it to the point of the article, period.

You're not really great at drawing allusions, are you?

Perhaps if the article contained a bit less waffle.  I was Summarizing the points you made, as much as I'd like to, I'm not going to criticize each and every bit word for word.  Let me use bullet-points to make it easier for you:

1. You say reviewers are entitled to their own opinions, if they think a game is shit, they're entitled to say so.

     -   I say I am entitled to MY opinion of reviewers, if I think they're shit, I will damn well say so.

2.  You seem to be under the illusion that pobody actually reads reviews and just look at the scores. 

     -  This is bullshit, we do read the reviews, but don't always agree with them, very much like your condecending article.

3.  You seem to think that a score does not matter

   -  REALLY??  Why do magazines bother having scores in the first place??  So it really wouldn't matter if a respected reviewer gave Halo:  2 out of 10?  REALLY?  That wouldn't grind a little???