Your review is a little forced in spots, Jim

[KLAMarine]

vivster said:

KLAMarine said:

I don't know about that and I generally avoid speculating on motivation. I will do with Jim's review what I do with many things: take it at face value. Jim did not enjoy the game as much as others but the reasoning he provides, at times, seems shaky to me.

Why though? The point he made is that blood moons are annoying and then provided an example of another anoying thing in a different game. It's completely different games and the annoyances have a different quality to them, yet you are comparing them as if they were completely equal. If anything, your reasoning seems shaky as you try to use objective math on a subjective feeling.

From what I understand, Jim's point was that these things, blood moon and curse box, are "shows of disrespect toward the player’s time"... As it turns out, time is PERFECTLY measurable so that's what I did. I measured. 40 out of 31,627 seconds is not terribly disrespectful, if at all, in my opinion.

thismeintiel said:
I can easily say, I have NEVER seen a fanbase be so obsessed over a review that gave a game a "good." Not great, just good. I mean, Jesus, it's almost been a month since his review was posted, yet here we still are, making threads about it. He liked the game, but didn't love it. Get over it already. This obsession is not healthy.

I'm not obsessed with the review, I'm obsessed with rhetoric and reading Jim's review made me want to shout 'OBJECTION!' at different points... Maybe I should have studied law?.. On second thought, those law books seem thick. Nevermind.