I'm glad you knew what I was talking about with saying something so vague... hm....

Uh... look at you sig. It's dedicated to review scores... surely anyone would get that impression anytime they see a post of yours.

No where in this thread did I state that.

Yeah that's the one. You assumed and accused me from the get go then admit you don't even know what I'm referring to. I think an apology is in order. There is no avoidment here just your wrongful accusations that you admit to.

There are three things in my signature.  Only one of them is the review score statistics. 

You are repeatedely trying to say I accused you of saying something negative but I am unsure what you were referring too, as though hoping saying it enough times will make it so.  I presume what you are referring to is this line:

"The direct implication is that I consider eight to be a low score, and that I use such a score to fuel my 'arguments.'  What you consider these arguments to be is as yet unclear, but it appears to be yet another implication that I consider sub 90% scoring games to be of poor quality."  Clearly I make a distinction here between what I know you are saying, and the reasons behind it.

Mann already listed possible reasons behind your inspiration to bring my into this thread.  But regardless of whether it was defensiveness over my signature, an unnatural infatuation, or simply a desire to be rude, it was inappropriate and shouldn't be repeated.

As for the first line, what I was referring to was glaringly obvious (to me), so I now assume we are talking about different things.  If its relevant, please enlighten me as to what you mean.

What you consider these arguments to be is as yet unclear

That's what I'm talking about. you are saying what I was talking about was unclear... but you sure the hell were fast to start acting like you knew what I was talking about.

And yet you and mann can't comprehend the simple explanation of... you are a prime example... no it's got to be something deeper, more meaningful... I HAVE A MAN CRUSH! /rolls eyes.

The area of which your review statistics take up your sig is 4 out of 6 lines. (67%) The majority of your sig is dedicated to review scores.

You're done. This all started because you assumed I said anything lower than a 90% is bad... here let me quote your original post.

Didn't we establish that your regular misrepresentation of my opinions now required you to present quotes and links for all your claims?

I don't consider 8 to be a low score in any way, shape or form.  The best game I've played lately was Lost Odyssey, and its sitting at 78 on Metacritic.

If you cannot properly grasp my opinion on a particular issue, please refrain from referring to me in future debates. 

And no where in the box (what you quoted of me) said anything about me thinking you think 8 is a low score. If you would refer to what I was refering to you would see it didn't even have anything to do with the 8 the OP was talking about but REVIEWS IN GENERAL!

here let me quote the person I was refering to.

why do you care what someone else rated the game seriously? you guys are ridiculous about these game scores

As you can see it has no mention of 8's.

Please next time you want to comment on something check the references.

Starcraft, just STFU. I think most people will side with Pooper on this. You're just here to provoke. Back on topic, Starcraft have you played MGS4? All the way through. No, well you're not qualified to argue about a review of the game.

Well it's not like you people didn't bring him up before he even came to this thread.

It is amusing how he seems to be the personal nemesis of all the Sony fanboys though. Didn't think that was possible.

its the best game ive ever played for me also. i dont give a damn about the reviews, thier plans to halt mgs4 and ps3 will fail miserably.

eurogamer(eurotoilet) gave mgs4 an 8/10, when in comparison the same biased site gave Ms. pacman on 360 an 8/10 and they gave earth defence force 2049 on 360 a 9/10.

theres nothing on any other console that can match this, if there is can they post a video?

Side with Pooper? Are you implying that I in some way attacked the PS3?

"Most people" in here were either smart enough not to jump on Pooper's bandwagon due to his having no justification for attacking me in a thread I wasn't in or called him on just how desperate and pathetic it was.

As for the topic, it was about how a game that is generally held to be between good and great getting an eight, constituting the good rather than a ten constituting the great. If you head back to my first contribution to the thread, you'll find it perfectly on-topic and relevant.  Not even the OP had played it all the way through.  By your standard, he is not qualified to argue about the contents of this thread.

For non huge mgs fans this game might actually be an 8 and reviewers can't just grade games after what MGS fans think it should get, beacuse if they do they might aswell give every Zelda/Mario/Halo/FF etc etc game a ten beacuse that what those fans say it should get.

I have read most of the replies after waking up (skimming over the argument with SC and Pooper).

I guess I have a different opinion of what reviews are for, so I take more issue with them being low when they should not be.

I do not think a review should be to tell you how a game generally plays based on the kind of game I like. The reviewer should take into consideration the audience the game is being made for, and then guess at how well they would like the game (if they are not in that audience).

If I review a children's math game, and it easy because I quickly know all the math in it, I don't say it's crap, or doc it for its difficulty.

I mean, do you think the creator of MGS4 thought to himself "We need to figure out how to appeal to the casual Wii fan when we create this game"? No, why should you give it a review score that's lower because it doesn't.