You're saying that if the review wasn't on Metacritic then no one would make a petition to remove it from Metacritic.

That's ... probably true.

Exactly. Meaning that people take MC very seriously.

The joke is the petition. The joke is all the clicks and ad revenue they're receiving. The joke is the almighty uproar and attention they're getting. 

They're making a joke out of everyone. Most big games suffer something similar yet... People still can't learn and get sucked in. 

Well I guess Im just used to BS, so this doesnt seem like a big deal to me...

I'm sorry but this is so cheesy!

No more than reviews themselves.  Look at the way people embarrassed themselves getting furious over a Pokemon review not that long ago.

True. Which is why I think this whole Uncharted 4 anger is mostly because people dont agree with the review.

You're contradicting yourself. Of course it has an answer. It's a question. All questions have answers. It's still a rhetorical question. A rhetorical question is a question who's sole function is to push a rhetoric from an assumed answer rather than to enquire. All that matters is that I meant it rhetorically and that my inferred answer is understood for it to be a rhetorical question. I asked "Who cares," because the assumed answer in the context that I used it in was "no one should care." When anyone asks "who cares," the assumed answer is always "no one blah blah." It doesn't matter if you have your own answer for it. I didn't ask the question so you could answer it. I asked the question to push the rhetoric that no one should care about a joke review.

Not even Troy Baker. Everyone at Naughty Dog could tweet about this and it wouldn't change the sentiment.

And by the way "who are you to blah blah blah" is rhetorical too. It doesn't matter who you are. I'm not trying to learn about you as a person. I'm being rhetorical. You are not in a place where you have the insight or knowledge to spew that kind of accusation at anybody. That's the rhetoric. People changing history or whatever doesn't matter. I wasn't asking. I wasn't "attacking your bona fides." I was being rhetorical. Troy Baker didn't say or imply that he thought that gaming media made bad reviews for hits. You did. He literally doesn't matter in any of this. You're not basing your accusation on anything but the fact that two reviews don't match the popular consensus. So it's either they did it for the clicks, or the far more likely reason the reviewers just didn't like the fucking games.

Or it was just satire, in which case, who the fuck cares? (Don't answer that. It's rhetorical.) It's a joke.

And I'm not sure you get how this stuff works. You are the accuser, not me. I don't need to have anything - you do. It's not proof, so there's no "then again" here. It is a stretch, and you don't have an even remotely solid foundation from which to make an accusation of ethics like that on such weak theory. You have nothing, and that's all that matters when you're the accuser.

P.S. I follow Troy on twitter and I actually read the OP of the thread. Of course I knew about his endorsement.

In some cases, it doesn't actually matter about the reason.  I know I'm not mad about a Metacritic score.  I make fun of Metacritic all the time.  However, if there is a problem, I think it should be fixed.  That's just a matter of practicality.  Fix it now and it won't keep being a problem.  I can step over a hole in the road with little effort but if that hole gets fixed then I won't have to worry about stepping over it each and every time.

I can't help but feel a little embarrassed that there is a petition to remove a review because it drops a point off a highly regarded game. Although MC sometimes is seen as serious business...