I'm quite sure that an "intelligent individual" such as yourself can discern what is meant and what kind of speech you sometimes deliver and what kind of reaction you hope to get.

I didn't say that. I just said that fanboys give OXM reviews credibility when it benefits them, but then throws them away when it doesn't.

Am I wrong?

Did you misunderstand?

Or did I have a point?

If I did have a point, why am I having to defend myself against every Sony fanboy on the forum?

Oh yeah, because I was exactly right, and I spoiled their fun.

No one has actually came out and said I was wrong.

Fair enough, but in this particular case, I have told a very valid opinion, even if it isn't necessarily the truth:

Fanboys give OXM reviews credibility when it benefits them, but then throws them away when it doesn't.

The honest reason that such fallacy pisses me off is because I like OXM. However, when the first Fable 2 review came out, everyone on this thread posted how shitty and biased OXM was, and how it didn't matter. Now I knew they would flock to the magazine like it was their favorite review source when it actually contained bad news, which it did.

That's about as close to the truth as an opinion gets. :P

Fair enough then.

The fact that you do however pose your own opinion as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is highly annoying, especially since you cover it with a "I'm invincible in my opinion"-aura.

There's nothing wrong with a little "let's ramble the cage to get a discussion going", but you're overdoing it (on multiple occasions).

In a sense, it could be considered baiting. A bit more modesty would suit everyone, including yourself. And THAT is something I expect from an intelligent individual.

Good catch sir!

You are correct. I unfairly generalized the PS3 fanbase. I actually meant "most fanboys," but what was said, was said, and I apologize.

To clear things up, I really don't believe TLR will be that great. It's just that it is completely unfair to judge a game off a single numerical score only. Especially one where we can't even read the text. Any game. Especially when the source is a place that said judges usually hate on.

It's my nature to point that out, and I'm glad I did.

7/10 is nice score for turn based rpg those days unfortunatly.

Just look at scores Oblivion and F3 and Mass Effect were getting.

You're just pissed because you think I'm arrogant.

I believe that fanboys would use this review source as toilet paper had they given the game a 10/10. They would have said "lets wait for IGN" just like they did with Fable 2. I believe that instead, when a game scores low, they would give the magazine credibility.

After I made that point, a poster told me "Oh well, if the game was a 7/10 from OXM, then it must be REALLY bad because OXM was biased."

I then made a second point, which was that OXM isn't necessarily biased towards Microsoft. The point used examples from a wikipedia posting. However, that point is rife with at least 2 undeniable facts.

The truth is, I like OXM, however, I will point out hipocrasy when I see it. I'm not saying anything positive or negative about TLR, instead, I'm predicting fanboy behaviour. It's obviously angered a lot of fanboys.

So, now that you understand, you can stop referring to me in a passive-agressive manner. If you wanna "show me up" you can start by posting valid arguments, instead of frusterated insults.

Aww I was going to get this one!

The TGS demo for TLR suffered from framerate issues, screen tearing and all that other technical issues all those other UE3 games suffer from.  It's nothing that wasn't in LO but I would imagine it is still pretty distracting.