pokoko said:
It defines me? Sure it does ... it defines me to you inside your pretend world where everything is filtered by an association to a corporation. You define yourself by your fandom and that's just the way you think. Trust me, I'm not worried about your obsessive associations. The world isn't really ordered by a system of how much people like or dislike a videogame company--that's just your lopsided and unrealistic perspective. Your obsession is coloring the rest of the world an unrealistic shade of fanboy inside your head. Either get over it or stop dragging other people into your reindeer games. As for Sterling, I can't stand him and have no doubt that he's a sensationalist, but I have no reason to think his scores are dishonest. Just because you want to believe that doesn't mean it's true. Do you understand that? His scores have always reflected how much he enjoys a game, not what he thinks a game deserves based on an objective scale. This is a pattern that I've seen for years, going back to when I was a regular at Destructoid, where Sterling got his start. He's not worried about "deserves". Do I think that kind of system should be on Metacritic? I don't, but I'm certainly not going to lose sleep over it. Do I think his scores have any meaning relative to me? Not at all--the fact that they're entirely subjective mean they only have relevance to him or those with the exact same tastes. At the end of the day, it's just someone else's opinion about something you had no part in creating and it doesn't hurt you at all. Call his review terrible, say he's awful at his job, that's all perfectly fine if you can back it up, but you're just trying to invalidate a numbered score because it hurts your ego. You should honestly stop this. Take a step back. It's just not that important. |
Of course is not that important, is people like you that makes it important, whenever anyone says something bad about jim review someone like you come to shit about people for not accepting his score or for having doubts about his intentions, then later when someone defends himself about it someone ends up with something on the lines of "is not important get over it"or "it doesn't take away your enjoyment get over it" or "no reasons to waste so much time about someone else opinion, get over it" or any kind of similar bullshit, but what if YOU get over it too? Because the review was suspicious so some people is gonna have their doubts, period, easy enought to understand.
There is nothing about Jim score that hurts my ego, that's such a nonsense and random statement that I don't even know if I should take you seriously, his review was very suspicious and anyone with half a brain saw it, so I have all the right to express my suspicious about it without you fucking around, stop with your bullshit already and be consistent with yourself for once in your life, I'm only suggesting Jim is a calculated sensationalist which is something you have been saying for years, but your level of hypocrisy is so ridiculously big that you shit about me for saying the same thing you have been saying about him for years, its ludicrous.
