Would you read a review on a game that the reviewer hasnt played? Thats exactly how some people sound in here. 

Reviews are guidelines nothing more. 

It makes perfect sense. 

It doesn't make sense.

"How do you give an opinion on something you havnt played? Please explain."

>He reads reviews

"But would you trust a review from someone who hasn't played the game"

>No?

"So you can't give an opinion on the game cause you haven't played it yet, mr. No Name Hero"

>But I read a review 

Hmmm ... 

Reviews are guidelnes nothing more. If you want to shout claims from someone else's opinion does not make it your opinion. 

I play the games before i throw cristism. Some times you will find hidden gems.

I would not take a reviewer serious if he/she hasnt played the game just like i wouldnt take a randoms opinion on a game they havnt played. Its a pretty simple concept.

Eh.... I dont recall MS making huge promises about what this game was. Its kinda exactly what I expected.

With No Man's Sky, I believe people were very much mislead. We werent even sure if it was a social experience, but the the answer was kinda yes but not really...

I think its silly to treat these two as the same. Not even the same genre really.

They did claim that the Beta was only ~10-20% of the full game.
Full game releases and its pretty clear that was a massive lie, the beta was basically the entire game.

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. 

When and where did they claim that? 

When and where did they claim that?