DEAR VIDEO GAME JOURNALISTS......

[forevercloud3000]

JWeinCom said:

forevercloud3000 said:
Soooo just like in every other thread, the "Vita is Doomed" brigade comes in just for the shits and giggles and stir up trouble. All you have is your jokes and riducule but no decisive argument that can't be shot down in seconds. Looking @ you JWeinCom and Naninho

Obviously you didn't really even read the article. He does not seriously blame scores on not sending out review copies, rather he was being cheeky about it. Grow up.

I read the article and it clearly and in no uncertain terms blames Declassified's scores on not sending out review copies.

"Apparently Activision didn’t bother to send out review copies of the game to your popular media outlets. You retaliated by roasting the game, giving it one of the lowest Metacritic scores in the history of video gaming."

"While CoD:BOD is by no means a stellar title and is in fact a rather mediocre game, it didn’t deserve the 20%-30% ratings that it received by the big review sites. Benchmarked against the scores of truly awful Vita games, Declassified should have easily made it into the 50%-60% range. This makes one wonder what else happened behind the scenes that we as readers did not get a glimpse of…"

"Anyway, can we now assume that when publishers don’t give you guys free perks you punish them? I was going to compare this to diva behaviour, but there’s an even better analogy: protection rackets; a tried and tested mafia tactic. Manufacturers and publishers have to ‘please you’ so nothing ‘bad’ will happen to them. Classy."

If the writer was trying to be sarcastic or funny he did a **** job.  Sounds to me like he was 100% serious. 

And how exactly am I supposed to give a decisive argument about something that is inherently subjective like review scores?  There is no proof of any sort of bias presented.  The writer arbitrarily decided "Oh I think Black Ops Declassified is a 6/10 game.  The reviewers disagreed, so it must be a systematic bias!"

I'm joking about the article, because the article is a joke.  They're complaining about comparing Vita games to their PS3 counterparts?  Seriously, WTF?  HOW DARE THEY COMPARE VITA GAMES TO THEIR NEARLY IDENTICAL COUNTERPARTS TO HELP GAMERS MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION?!  BIAS! BIAS I SAY!!!

And he's complaining that reviewers are holding Sony to the standards that Sony set?  Newsflash:  If you tell people that your system provides console quality gaming on the go, they expect console quality gaming on the go.

This article is the work of a fanboy getting worked up and having a hissyfit.  Personally, I think NSMB2 deserved higher than a 77% average.  I didn't start screaming about bias.  I just realized that reviewers had different opinions than me and I moved on.

But tell you what, present an article with some actual merit to it, and I'll give you a serious response.  Present a joke article and you'll get a joke response.

like I said earlier, it is presented as a cheeky statement. He doesn't truely think that, essentuated by the very hokey image next to it. In other words he was being facesious.