Zekkyou said:
How are they 'assholes' for giving a lower score when half the game isn't functioning as advertised? I hope it becomes a more common practice. DC and to a lesser extent MCC's launches were unacceptable. If SSBU ends up in a similar situation, it deserves every bit of shit it gets for it (though i'm not expecting it to have any major issues). It's because we never previously criticized publishers for releasing unstable or unfinished products that it's become such a common practice; they think they can get away with it. That's something that needs to change. |
I'm not talking about people that take off for less than perfect online in general. That's justified to an extent, and online was just an example. I'm talking about the outliers that give exceptionally low scores for bullshit reasons and take off far beyond what is justified. We've already had one guy give an 80 just for a lack of story mode. He starts out comparing it to 64, which didn't have one, and it's been known for months that this one wouldn't have one, yet his main complaint is a lack of story. And this guy didn't even play the online yet, because there is no online. Now when online does come out, and the reviews flood in, there will be outliers. There always are. And even if any online issues are very minor, these assholes will use it as one of their excuses to give a bad score. Just you wait, we'll see a 60 even if the online is reportedly flawless or near flawless, because they'll always be able to say "Well I had problems!" and look like they were good reviewers that waited until the online portion was done, only to exaggerate any issues with the experience and take off for the online not being ready when the embargo lifted. Problems with online is a legit criticism, but there's always going to be the one asshole that takes off more than is justified, be it for online, story mode, or whatever bullshit they can think up.
