Mr_No said:
Teeqoz said:
It's odd, because there already was a review from The Washington Post giving it 4/4 or 100.
|
You see?!? puts on tinfoil hat
That's what I've been saying the other day! They want to choose the scores they want to put in to maintain the status quo! They paid the trolling reviewer to make a bad review, so they could choose the most horrible one of the two.
Seriously though, this is really, really weird. If there was already a first review from the Washington Post, why would MC choose the worst review? And by worse I mean less professional and satiric. Only sense I can make of it is that they didn't know about WP already did a review and took the second one as the legit one, or it was on purpose. To keep the score low? Clickbait? Who knows.
|
It's already been said, but call click bait for what it is.
No, all reviews don't have to fall generally in line with one another, but when you do a little exercise that involves comparing the reviewed score for a universally acclaimed game against other games that received the same score (I believe the WP troll review was 40%), suddenly there is no defense for such a review.
Show anyone a 40% reviewed game and say with a straight face that it's the same quality as something like U4.
