AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Let's take a look at thismeintiel's post that's being critiqued here. > "Rare's most ambitious game" isn't a huge promise?" Defining that huge promises were made. > "Instead people are getting bored after a couple hours." Says that people are getting bored of it. Not him. So ... good, so far not lying. How can we know whether or not people are getting bored after a couple of hours? Testimonials. What platform are we using, right this very minute, that can easily be used a testimonial regarding the game's quality? The internet. > "And seeing everything the game has to offer in under 4 hours." A continuation of the premise set up by the previous sentence. Obviously influenced by other peoples opinions of the game. You guys act like he was making broad sweeping claims about the game that were so ridiculous only a player could form an opinion on them. Instead he pretty much just said what every reviewer has echoed, what every player has echoed, what every streamer has echoed. A lack of content. You can argue with him if you want to, but it seems highly suspect to make fun of someone and say they were given "ownage" because they are giving a general statement on a game that almost everyone who's played it agrees with. It really seems like you are only calling him out in this specific instance because this is a game you like, this standard is surely not something two-three users are going to apply consistently to themselves. You could say he's being a bit too snarky and I'd probably agree, but that is totally up to perception since this conversation is text based. Personally I think there's a difference though between your perceived quality of a game before playing it, and the quality you feel the game maintains after playing it, and it's totally fine for him to have a perceived notion of how good a game will probably be ... because we all have these notions in our head before we play a game. People only call them out as ridiculous as soon as they're negative. |
That and the posts that followed are a lot of texts to defend someone who was going to be negative about the game and any positive news about it no matter what.
No, you don't really need to play a game to know if you will like it or to have a general understanding of whether it's good or not. But parroting selective criticism as factual just reveals an agenda, so it makes sense for someone to call that person out. Anyone who has played the game knows you can't see everything it has to offer within four hours, yet he stated it factually. Just something anyone who has played the game would know.
People only call them out as ridiculous when they are ridiculous.
