your mother said:
Gballzack said:
your mother said:
Gballzack said:
Here, since you obviously missed it...  |
I didn't miss anything. You have a look at my replies based on your very own trolling comments, and tell me where I missed anything. Look at the list of sites Metacritic uses... They're all pro-Sony. Seriously, just look at the list. 1. Just proved that not all Metacritic sites are pro-Sony, unless you think official Nintendo magazines are pro-Sony... Face it, the closest thing you're going to ever get to an objective source is the game sales. 2. Jusst proved that a game with lousy reviews (Spider-Man 3 for Wii) can sell much more than a game with excellent reviews (Ouendan for DS), so your point is debunked. How about you list all of Metacritics sources and lets see how unbiased they are then? And praise from sony owned websites doesn't matter much either I'm afraid. 3. I didn't list all the sites, but the pro-Nintendo ones should suffice to prove my point. Notice I did not list one single Sony-owned website from the Metacritic review summaries. Shame on you Davygee, shame on you, you should have known better than to try something like this. 4. If anything, it's you who has lost the plot completely. Are you going to troll argue to this again? I'm running out of decent images to link to. |
Example E: Sony Fanboy comeback: Late to the argument, the Sony Fanboy refuses to acknowledge that the debate has moved on not in his favor. To remedy this he attacks outdated comments in the thread as if to rekindle issues already passed and resolved. To follow up this malicious attack he refuses to acknowledge anything said by the oponent and simply keeps beating the same drum of outdated issues that have already met resolution in the discussion. 1. You don't get it, do you? I'm not a Sony fanboy, so you're wasting your time with that argument. 1. I never claimed all of Metacritics sites were Sony based except in the original post which was a hyperbole for making a point. If you'd bother to read on you'd see that I'd proven the majority of the sites were Sony and Graphic favored. 2. What? Your very own quote, with emphasis on the bold: Look at the list of sites Metacritic uses... They're all pro-Sony. Seriously, just look at the list. 2. Whether those games are good or bad are matters of opinion and taste. There is no fact that one was any better than the other outside of what a few people can agree upon. The best estimate that can be given on a games objective value is its sales, whether we agree with that or not, its the closest thing we have. Reviewers and their opinions are subjective and not quantifiable no matter how many numbers they use. Just because you want so badly to believe there is a measure of truth in what a game's value is doesn't mean there is one. And I can garantee you game sales are a far more accurate measure of a game's quality than any Game reviewer or their aggregate sum. 3. Again, that must mean Spider-Man 3 is a far better game than Ouendan. I'm not saying that there aren't people that actually enjoy Spider-Man 3 more than Ouendan, but your claiming game sales is an objective measure of a game's quality is just as absurd as using aggregate sums or averages of game review sites. 3. I never claimed there weren't pro-nintendo sites, just that the majority was Sony favored. 4. Again, I quote you (these are YOUR words, not mine; I'd suggest you change your posts to reflect this if you want to suddenly change your stance from "ALL" to "MAJORITY"): Look at the list of sites Metacritic uses... They're all pro-Sony. Seriously, just look at the list. 4. If you say so, your posts themselves are the greatest ammunition against your credibility and ability to adhere to the discussion at hand. 5. Pot. Kettle. Black. |
|
1. Doesn't matter if you are, the point still stands.
2. As I had said, I stated that as a hyperbole, not a literal fact. Reading on, you see I was clearly refering to the majority, not the absolute sum. If you bothered to read this entire thread you'd see every point you've brought up has already been adressed.
3. As objectively as we can discern, yes SM3 was better than Q, but that's measuring them only by the single quantifiable measure of a game's success, its sales. Does that mean something as objective as sales can equal something as abstract like the concept of quality? No. However you seem to be under the misconception that the truth is always convenient. It isn't and relying on reviewers as a substitute doesn't give you a window into a scale more accurate than something tangible like sales numbers. The closest thing we have to objective truth will always be the sales, does that mean the sales are what we consider right? not necesseraly but they are the closest thing we have. Unlike sales figures, Reviews aren't objective, they're opinions and a superficial measure of a game created after a fact, and that will never change no matter how much you agree with them. Popular opinion is still just opinion and that's all your alleged claims of SM3 vs Q are, popular opinion. What of all the times reviewers have failed us or were incorrect by popular opinion? Would my pointing out a few games aggregate scoring failed to match up with the popular opinion prove your stance wrong? No, so why you think using that logic against me will work is a joke. Of course there are going to be cases when sales aren't what we percieve to be indicative of a game's value either, but that's because using sales isn't perfect, but its still more objective than reviews as it can be held to some measure no matter how removed from what we percieve as "quality". I never claimed using sales was 100% accurate either, just that it was the best we had. My point was not that one should be used over another either, just that Reviews were not absolute and were not objective measures of gaming and that something as flawed as sales was a more objective measure. All your points rely on putting words in my mouth and taking statements out of context, if you can't fight on the given battlefield then don't pick up a gun.
4. As I had said, I stated that as a hyperbole, not a literal fact. Reading on, you see I was clearly refering to the majority, not the absolute sum. If you bothered to read this entire thread you'd see every point you've brought up has already been adressed. You really do a poor job sticking to the argument don't you. If all you have is arguing semantics in matterial to the points already adressed I see little value in your claims.
5. And vice versa, congratulations a he said / she said argument, I suppose you would alledge this something that can be objectively proven too :)
You are just a late comer to a discussion that has already ended, if you bothered to read the thread you'd clearly see all the matters you took issue with have been resolved and that there are many people who agree with me on them. If you're so confident of your argument try taking on them since their arguments and mine are one in the same. :)
