By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

Always learnt that was is used for past tense, and in more than one instance talked about reviews (which are done on release), so you decided to assume otherwise on your on end. I know the game is not the same anymore and was talking about it on release, and yet you were also defending it on release as a great game harassed by reviewers and whatnot.

No where in our conversation were we talking about review scores. Review scores are subjective and on service based games mean little to nothing. You know that. You clearly tried to make a statement that the game wasn't good without claiming why is wasn't good. Your wording was out of context. Ill add, that a game can still be good even if reviewers give it average ratings.

Also do you have a link to prove your point on what i said in the past defending SoTs? 

I will say i enjoyed SoTs at launch and so did many others, not everyone liked it, however you can say that with any game. 

The difference between your statement and mine, is i actually played the game at launch and played the game now, you havn't (You pretend you did) and are basing your entire opinion on a game off someone else's opinion, which means it isn't your opinion.

I pointed more at once that the reviews (both critics and users) weren't good.

And on the metacritic thread about SoT you were talking about the reviewers being wrong and the game being great, and if I'm not wrong you entered some metacritic threads of PS games to defend the reviewers that gave low scores.

I haven't pretended I did at any moment, and that is different than you that pretend to have played all PS5 exclusives, which you hated by standard while not having a console or account "I played all of them at a cousin". So don't you user ruler on others.

Anyway, if now you understand I was talking about how the game was poor at launch, that being ambitious doesn't make a game good, and that would be hard for SoT to be less ambitious than their games on SNES I don't have anything else to add. As I said, I'm glad you recognized several of the games were poorly handed by MS and you want external devs to work on them, even if you can't directly recognize it.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."