ninjablade said:
Luck said:
It's either one of those two reasons (only the reviewer knows the truth as he made the review):
1) Showing clips where he intentionally dies to falsely prove his stance that the game is too difficult (It could be too difficult, but why not really show why?)
2) Letting a reviewer who is either a) incapable of playing the game at a skill level achieved by 95% of the players who showed their playthrough or b) simply didn't spend nearly enough time playing the game before reviewing it (hence how much he sucks).
And for those who say ''How dare people defend this game'': for me at least, it's not about defending the game or trying to prove that it's good, the problem here is that some reviewers clearly did an extremely poor or dishonest work of reviewing this game.
|
its just not some reviewers the majority of reviews are below 7s, lots of them are 5 and below, reviwers are not digging the game and the controls, how is that being dishonest.
|
I am certainly not saying that because a reviewer gives a low score he is being dishonest. Haha, really not! I think you didn't understood my post.
I'm talking about the content of the review, not the score of the review.
The allusion to dishonesty was in relation to a reviewer inserting clips of intentional deaths to try and prove that the game was too difficult (Point 1 in my previous post). And if he is not being dishonest, then (see Point 2 in my previous post) that reviewer just did a poor work and shouldn't have reviewed the game for a major gaming news site.
