Look at me! I am playing badly reviewed games and having fun!

[bmmb1]

BMaker11 said:

1. Ok, let's let one of the millions who enjoyed Carnival Games to review that game. They think it's great, right? So it gets a 9/10......if you think that game is of the same caliber as (and I'll go after one of Nintendo's gems) Ocarina of Time, you're wrong. Sure, all reviews are subjective, based on what people "like" but then again, no matter how bad a game is, SOMEONE in the world must like it, otherwise it would have never sold. Should reviewers then have to cater their reviews to those gamers and boost the scores of said bad game?

2. I doubt they sit through a half hour only. I'm sure you just made that up. Otherwise, reviewers should just review demoes

1. Here's where we obviously differ - if I wanted a review of Carnival Games (or Carnival Games 2), I would rather get it from someone who enjoys (or has the capacity to enjoy) this type of game. A review of GOW3 by someone who hates button mashing is useless to me, same as a review of a mini game compilation is useless to me if it's by someone who hates mini games.

2. Half an hour was not an actual claim, I was kind of in a hurry so I forgot to add some whatchamacallits that would make it clear I am half joking, but only half. I meant what Maxwell wrote, "I see some reviews that after playing the game you KNOW they at least didn't play even half way through before making the review" AND "Many sources do pretty awful reviews simply because they review the game based on an incomplete build, this happens a lot in fact". For example, a review of The Conduit that does not even mention that it has online multiplayer, when that was the main point of the game? (imagine a review of MW or MW2 that does not acknowledge the existence of the online and does not take it into account, for good or for bad).