I don't know......it seems there's a clear difference between the reviews. Rol and Galaki even said they hadn't played the game(s), which kind of makes it hard to have a meaningful opinion.....much less an unbiased one. I think people are just overlooking that the tone of the the two unlocked reviews are quite different from the locked review, and they are much more clearly labeled as parodies. For instance, just look at how the reviews start:
"I want to start off this review by making it clear that I am not a fanboy. I am as unbiased as a person can possibly be."
"First, how is this unbiased? Well, I have not played either game, so, my observation is completely unbiased."
compared to:
"Disappointing in so many ways. Did not live up to it's predecessors one little bit, so un-original. Online is glitchy as fuck."
Even if these posts were exactly the same, as someone mentioned, a lot of the variation in moderation is probably just do to the difference in moderators. There are rules in place, but the mods have some discretion at their disposal in terms of how they interpret the context of the situation. Anybody who has ever been pulled over for speeding or knows someone who has been pulled over knows what I mean......police officers have discretionary power, so there is a large level of variation in how people are punished......needless to mention the variation in punishments within the court system. Truth is, objective application of the rules is pretty difficult, particularly because you can't anticipate every possible situation that will arise.
