| ZenfoldorVGI said: I'd like to point out something ironic that we'll see here. |
And your post here is just feuling the flames fo war.... Great Job
4 ≈ One
I come back a couple of hours later and you all manage to break the thread.
Way to go.
Tag - "No trolling on my watch!"
So...
Stats has become the topic...
What the hell did just happen here?
Proud poster of the 10000th reply at the Official Smash Bros Update Thread.
tag - "I wouldn't trust gamespot, even if it was a live comparison."
Bets with Conegamer:
Pandora's Tower will have an opening week of less than 37k in Japan. (Won!)
Pandora's Tower will sell less than 100k lifetime in Japan.
Stakes: 1 week of avatar control for each one.
| BMaker11 said: WTF are you talking about? "Disguising your troll as a way to passively slip my opinion". Huh? I let you know how I felt. It's stupid to say you "owned" people before they respond just because you know THE TRUTH. It's just like when people go on forums and say "IN BEFORE (insert certain phrase)" I never said I owned people before they posted, I said the purpose of my original post was to own trolls who might otherwise feel free to show their hipocrasy. If I had said that M$ bought another flop...would that be UNtrue? No, it wouldn't, so how is this "truth" of yours "owning" me? See, that's ignorance. You should never judge a game by 1 numerical review. You're one of the very people that I posted all that for. You are probably pissed because you can't properly post your biased opinions due to my original post. That said, I could care less about you. Say what you want. Leave me out of it. And why would not give OXM credibility? Aren't their scores always in the general area of what either GameRankings or Metacritic has as a game's aggregate? They gave gears a 9, and deservedly so and close with its aggregate. They gave Naruto:ROAN an 8 which is only 2 off from its Metacritic score. They gave Too Human a 7, once again close to its aggregate. Why not give them credit? I do give OXM credibility. Obviously. You should actually read my posts. My point is that PS3 fanboys wouldn't give it credibility if the score was good, but they would give it credibility if the game was bad. "Especially when you tell the truth before they lie by omission" How does saying what a "PS3 fan" would say the truth...but then at the same time, what "PS3 fans" say is a "lie by omission"? Are you therefore lying? If so, then everything you ever say is moot. When I said "you" I was referring to myself. And please, don't be upset by my "paraphrasing" because it was totally applicable, as it's EXACTLY the same as what you said in your original post just in a different analogy...or is this a situation of me stating the truth and you getting mad and then "lying by omission"? LOL No, it's not. You see, my original post isn't the one you keep referring back to. The post you refer back to is the one where I explained why I made my original post. |
BMaker11, it's posters like you that make me hate giving opinion when they buck the system.
You have literally jumped all over me. For what, I ask you? Simply because I asserted that some Sony fanboys would claim TLR sucks if it got a low score on OXM, and claim that OXM had no credibility if it had gotten a high one.
What I said is, imo, absolutely true, and there is nothing wrong with that.
I just wish you would back the hell off and leave me alone.
The problem here is this. You're a Sony fan. You don't like me, you think I'm arrogant and pretenious. When I said that my opinion, bolded above, was the truth, you went freakin' crazy. No opinion can be the truth, but mine, bolded, is about as close to truth as an opinion can get.
Now, Sony fans were pissed, because my opinion was so on point. I mean, it was dead on, like the second post in the thread, right?
So, they attacked the hell out of me for it. Endlessly asking me questions, trying to get me to slip up, trying to flame me, all this crap, just because I gave my opinion.
You know what, the assertion:
Some Sony fanboys would claim TLR sucks if it got a low score on OXM, and claim that OXM had no credibility if it had gotten a high one.
It's right.
Is it not right?
No, it's right.
You sir, may challenge that assertion if you want, but I'd like to see a valid argument. No more of these nonsense personal attacks.
As for trolls yes, besides DMJ's spite troll, and someone who didn't read anything but the topic title, I've managed to keep this topic relatively troll free. Instead, the trolls are busy attacking me.
As for the "owning" of people. Yes, I do it quite often. I'm not bragging. I find it distasteful. Other people I could eventually own, are people who troll this thread with the exact statements I've predicted, early on.
The fact of the matter is, I say a lot of smart shit on this forum, and I say my share of dumb shit also. The problem is, the smart stuff gets flamed way more than the dumb stuff, because it hits on revelations most people would rather have stay buried.
I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.
NO NO, NO NO NO.
| Cactus said: So... Stats has become the topic... |
do I get an award for this? has it been done before?
I'm contemplating adding "Official VGchartz Thread Breaker" to my sig...it's like Combo Breaker but with a better Dental Plan
@BMaker11
Here is what I'm talking about:
I would like to point out that despite you saying that if someone used this phrase, they were immediately "owned" before you even had to reply because it' so "predictable"....why don't you stop and think that it's predictable because, you know, IT'S TRUE!
You wrote that, and it's ignorant.
The reason it is ignorant, is because we only have 1 source for the review. Better than that, the only source we do have, has only given a numerical number.
We often hesitate to judge a game off a group of averaged numerical numbers accompanied by a plethora of text.
Saying unequovically that this game suckes, without any more evidence, is ignorant.
The game probably does suck, I don't care, it's beside the point.
The point is, your reasoning was ignorant here.
Even more hipocricital would be the fact that when Fable 2 came out, it got a good review from OXM, again, before other reviews were released. Those same fans claimed that OXM was biased, and untrustworthy, and they would wait for more reviews. Now those people claim that a numerical score of 7/10 from the magazine is unequivocal proof that the game sucks.
I don't know if it's lack of understand, or difference of ideology, but I think it's ignorant to claim a game sucks because, say, it didn't get 90/100 on metacritic. Much less, because it got a 7/10 from one review source, who didn't provide any text to back up the number, yet.
Now, do you understand? Am I wrong? Please answer me.
I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.
NO NO, NO NO NO.
But didn't SE say that this JRPG was to appeal more to western gamers. right?
I thought thats why they gave MS the timed exclusive rights to the game(bigger install base in US compared to the PS3).
I was hoping it would get better score than 7/10.
The Fabio-esque character was supposed to be the one to reel in American audiences. Don't ask me why.
But now that I think about it, they haven't been pushing the game in advertising that much, have they?
Tag - "No trolling on my watch!"
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
