Proof that reviews are meaningless

[Picko]

disolitude said:

Picko said:

disolitude said:

Picko said:

disolitude said:

Picko said:
That's not so much proof as evidence you have different preferences than a single reviewer. Who would've thought?

Considering most people on this site pase their arguments around metacritic scores, I think this is proof enough.

 

Doesn't matter how you wish to spin it, it's not proof of anything ever.

 

Well smart guy...how is not the fact that a game that was reviewed at 3.5 is more enjoyable to me than a game that was reviewed at 10 by the same publication proof that reviews are meningless?

In what way does a reviewer speak to you and your gaming tastes when reviewing a game?

Because the world doesn't revolve around you. But if it did then reviews would indeed be meaningless in this case.

Of course I am assuming that the point of this thread wasn't just to say you have a different opinion to a reviewer. If that was actually the point I would've replied simply with "Duh" and left it at that.

So what you are saying is that the review is "right" and I am the problem for having a different opinion. Thats funny...

I wasn't talking about myself but everyone out there. You may not like GTA4 or sandbox games in general...but it got a 10...sorry its the best game for you to get.

 

Firstly, there's no need for you to rewrite what I wrote, it was perfectly clear the first time. Secondly, if you must rewrite what I wrote you could at least make sure you understand it before you do, as it is you've simply indicated that you couldn't understand my post. Thirdly, your initial proof is still rubbish - I suspect that won't be changing any time soon.