It's better than gate-keeping with a personal set of rules to impose on others (when I know they don't even follow those rules, going from post history), while at the same time, wearing rose tinted glasses and ignoring anything else that was just as worthy, because it didn't fit their tinted shade specs. 

Well, that's a deflection.

If someone's opinion on a game is purely based on seeing video of it, I'm generally not going to take their opinion on it very seriously in most regards (I mean they could have valid opinions on cutscenes and voice acting or w/e) and I think others are justified in being dismissive.

That is a perfectly reasonable use of "gate-keeping" based on a reasonable set of rules. If people aren't following them, then by all means, call them out when they don't. 

There's deflection in this very thread, in regards to the TLOU II's shortcomings.

I find it a bit odd how reviews and even documentaries on something, cannot count towards swaying a decision, unless someone actually opts to waste money on something, only for them to decide "they didn't like it", while completely ignoring all the information that was available to them beforehand. 

If we go by those made up rules, then I guess a good chunk of this forum can never really talk or say nowt or any ill of any PC exclusive game then (yet we've had that for years and not much has been done about it, so I'm left asking you mods as to what is going on with this duality you've not presented).

I certainly haven't deflected any criticism of TLOU2. As established, I haven't played the game so I generally don't know if any particular criticism is valid or not.

I don't know what being a mod has to do with anything. I have not moderated you, nor have I threatened to. And, I've never moderated anyone just for speaking negatively about a game they haven't played. Not speaking for other mods, but my response to you was simply in my personal capacity telling you that I found your analogy to be shitty. Which is demonstrated by the fact that you can't actually defend it in any meaningful way except to point at other people.

As explained, you can indeed make a decision based on reviews or lets plays or whatever. In deciding whether or not to buy the game, that's the best information you could get (unless you can play it for free) so you got to go with it. That's what I did. But, since I only read reviews and watched gameplay videos, I recognize that my information is limited, and won't make any statement more bold than "I didn't think I'd enjoy it based on what I saw/read". Generally, if I haven't played a game, I'm not going to comment on its overall quality. Which again, isn't a an official rule, but I think a pretty sensible way to act. 

I'm assuming you'd agree the best way to have an informed opinion on a game is to play it. Watching videos of it would be a very distant second. Reading/listening to the assessment of someone who has played the game is a really distant third. Reading the assessment of someone who has only watched the game and read accounts from players is an incredibly distant fourth. 

So... If you were reading a review from someone and at the top of the review it said "note I have not played this game but I watched the entire thing on Youtube and read some reviews", would you consider that an informed opinion? Would you care what they had to say?

Exactly here.

I have the same instance for Halo, Zelda and most FPS. From what I saw from them and type of game I don't think I'll enjoy it enough to appreciate how good they are. So I limit myself to say I don't think they are that great and that I don't like what I see, but totally respect that are dozen million players that absolutely love those games and think they are the best ever created. So if comparing to a game I love I would also think the game I love is better from a subjective standpoint, but if being objective them I would need to go for technical analysis and decide case by case. Like I would compare Halo 5 to TLOU2 and no doubt TLOU2 comes ahead technically, HZD and Zelda I would say technically HZD comes ahead but when considering gameplay elements that are considered better on Zelda it could be a tie or even go to Zelda without myself felling bad for it, now Syphon Filter that I loved versus MGS that I couldn't stand at the time (and won't ever play the original again) it is set that MGS is a much better game.

Same with me, wasn't to keen on playing it, and it started a little slow for the first couple hours but ended up liking it a lot.

No, I wasn't referring to threat of moderation, but more of you having these kind of talks with those who "spoke ill" (which is what I'm getting from you and 3 others in this thread so far) of games they haven't played on other platforms (PC included, and there's a lot on this site who don't play on PC for that matter, ergo, not having played those games that never touched consoles).

For another, yes I actually can, just saying "your shitty analogy" and "can't defend it", doesn't make it so. You and 3 others, who all just happen to love this one game, and defend it to bits, think it's "fucking shitty".

Information is only as limited as what you decide to look for and how long for. There are plenty of LP's on Youtube and other sites, giving you literal start to end, full cheevos, full walkthroughs to give you every nook and cranny of story to watch. Again, you chose to look for a few, and thus your information is limited in scope, no ifs or buts, it is limited in scope due to your choices.

I haven't participated in American voting, yet I'm able and right to comment on how shitty it's turnout was, or the riots that followed afterwards, and I'm not even from the US. People on here freely shit on PC's games because it's all "MMO's and RTS", without having played many a game on there, let alone those two types of genres, and yet they freely are able to toss out whatever ill informed comment they make.

No, I do not agree, because I'm actually able to find information I want and when I choose to. Just because you didn't, doesn't change my opinion, and from our previous interaction, I can tell you and me are going to disagree a lot, so I'm just going to leave it at that. 

 People on here freely shit on PC's games because it's all "MMO's and RTS", without having played many a game on there, let alone those two types of genres, and yet they freely are able to toss out whatever ill informed comment they make.

So then you agree that comments made by people who haven't experience something are ill informed. Great! Feel free to explain to them why their opinion is not valuable as I'm doing now. But, that means your opinion is also ill informed.

Your analogy is shitty because it's shitty. As explained you are comparing a situation, death, where we cannot possibly experience it to judge for ourselves, to a game, where we can easily experience it. I explained this, but apparently, you didn't get it because you made pretty much the same shitty analogy again. Turnout is a statistic and something I literally cannot experience. The best, and literally only way, we can evaluate something like turnout, is by looking up the statistics. The fact that I voted in the election in no way makes me more informed about the overall turnout. 

That's why this is a shitty analogy(ies). Sometimes we have to make decisions on something without reasonably being able to experience it, but if it's feasible and we want to be taken seriously, we should actually experience the thing. Suppose for $30 dollars one could try out death for five hours, see what its like, and return to life. If someone who hadn't taken the death demo was trying to tell me what death was like, I wouldn't care about their opinion. 

I'm sorry I assumed you would agree to the rational statement that playing a game is the best way to have an informed opinion on it. I assumed you would take the rational position, and not advocate for one that is completely absurd. And it is absolutely absurd. It is impossible to transmit an experience completely and perfectly. Something has to be lost at each level. You could potential argue that seeing a game is "good enough" which would be questionable, but arguing that seeing a game being played is as good as playing it is batshit.

And that's probably why you're getting the response you're getting from other mods. I haven't discussed it with them, but it's possible they find your position to be so absurd that they're probing to see if you're serious or trolling. We do that sometimes. Whatever the motivation though, they and I are giving actual responses, and giving you a chance to respond. So, try giving a good reasoned argument instead of just complaining that everyone who expects one is just biased or a big ol' meanie.

It is quite telling that you cut off my post at the question, because it exposes how irrational your position is. The obvious answer is no, you would not accept a review from someone who has not played a game. You would not consider theirs to be a properly informed opinion, and by the same token, nobody should consider yours to be. 

You don't have to respond (speaking for myself here, other mods may feel that if you're going to continue insisting people take you seriously you need some sort of justification) but feel free to prove me wrong by saying you would accept a review from someone who has not played a game but has watched very thorough walkthroughs. Because if you wouldn't, then you are acknowledging that videos are not a substitute for playing. And if you would, I guess we'll get a good chuckle.

I have played about 60h of TLOU2 to plat it, and read some reviews and participated in some discussions about the game. Are you seriously trying to say you put more hours researching for this game without playing? Even though you have no interest in playing it? Confess you just searched for negative opinions and pig back on them without really knowing if they are true issues or just the opinion of others you decided to carry over?

My problem on starting it I don't think had to do with the games that launched close to it, I think it was more like "never heard of it and most jrpg I played didn't impacted me besides FF" I think it was like that at that moment. Then I was at a moment of low backlog and tried it and liked. Can't remember for sure but I think it was this. I probably bought it for like 10USD in a travel on the basis of "metacritic isn't to low and price is very good, may as well try it".