Goodnightmoon said:
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 have doubts aboutr his intentions, and then that people defend themself and all this conversation starts so you can say "is not important get over it" what if you get over it too? The review was suspicious so some people is gonna have their doubts, period, easy enought to understand.
There is nothing about Jim review that hurts my ego, that's such a stupid and random statement, specially when we talk about the best rated game in a decade, however 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 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.
|
Do you ever read over what you've written? You remind me a lot of Alex Jones or another one of those political pundits with the way you twist everything around to one side. It's all about you and your faction. You can't even understand anything anyone says to you without running it through your console warz filter first.
I've explained to you the way I think his review scores work, and that his scores now are consistent with what he's been doing for years. Because I say that his scores are extremely subjective in no way means that I think he's making them up completely.
By all means, express your opinion. However, I have the right to express my opinion when someone says that a reviewer is giving one game a high score because he gave another game a low score.
