it's interesting how some defend this guy and say it's only his opinion and a review is always subjective. yes it is in parts, someone can love a 70 metascore game and would give it 90 an some don't like a 90 metascore game and would give it 70 because you can still understand why it is a good game if you aren't a hater or troll.
if you watch football/soccer it's simply not possible to say manchester united is worse as the team of your little village you watch every weekend. you can personally think the games of that are better to look at for you because you are a fan of that team but you should be still able to say "yes manu's team is better" and if not, your opinion should never be used to write in a magazine to decide which are the best football teams in your country.
because that's what this guy did, saying with his score that it's the worst of all games he ever played and tested. a review is there to be a decision helper for people and with that, he is useless to write these articles. you can give a normal score and people will still understand it's nothing fro them but if you talk as if everything is bad it's hard for someone who would only read this review to understand that it would be good for him.
