Support NeoGAF

[-shadow-]

Well this .gif wasn't made just for fun:

Seriously though, I have no idea. People take reviews way to serious for years now. I don't understand why though. It's really odd, but there's a reason why I ignore comments these days.

 

[Sheriff_Battlesnake]

I get worked up and that's fun for discussion, but I would never spew hate. Even if I disagree it doesn't mean the other person is wrong, I just sometimes like heated discussion.

 

[SolidSnakex]

I knew people were going bring comicbook movie reviews but while that level of hate happens there it's really the only type of movies where that happens unlike in games where I see it happen all the time.

Because most movies are one off and naturally don't have a dedicated following. Once something or someone does have a dedicated following, then you start to see those fans defend that person or thing a lot more. Look at how Beyonce fans went after all those women that they thought she was talking about in Lemonade. Or the sports writers that have received death threats because they were critical of a certain team or player.

 

[Mistouze]

Because toxic masculinity/fragile masculinity is rife in the "hardcore" gamer audience.

The people going up in arms about those review don't look for critique, they look for validation.

 

[Thabass]

If playing games is their lives and the reason they wake up every day then I think there are more serious issues than low review scores going on.

Edit - Unless it's somehow related to their profession.

Oh, I definitely agree. But I also think a lot of these people that complain are just trolling for the most part.

 

[Gravy Boat]

This. If games are why you live and cause you to be that defensive and angry, get help

It's entertainment, you should never have personal attachment to something like DOOM

it's a solid throwback game to the classic fps days and seems legit

7.1 is average and perfectly reasonable. They didn't give it a 3.1

Even if they did give it a 3.1, so what? If some reviewer gave a game I enjoyed a low score, it doesn't change my enjoyment of the game. It's a stupid thing to get angry about.

 

[Juke Joint Jezebel]

The film, video games and music fandom are full of super salty peeps who take reviews waaay to personally, especially the music fandom. Jesus, some of the shit I've seen posted when an album somebody likes doesn't get a great score from somebody is crazy.

 

[Moobabe]

Oh, I definitely agree. But I also think a lot of these people that complain are just trolling for the most part.

That's the issue though - you can't tell tone in text. Also it only takes 30 seconds to write a disgusting comment to someone before you hit send and move on. There's no accountability, no repercussions and you can't tell if that person is joking, is serious or something in between.

 

[Glowsquid]

I knew people were going bring comicbook movie reviews but while that level of hate happens there it's really the only type of movies where that happens unlike in games where I see it happen all the time.

One of the controveries I linked to is Toy Story 3, which I don't think is a comic book movie. It's harder to show because Rotten Tomatoes deleted individual comments for reviews (precisely because of things like that accident), but at the time, people were honestly getting incensed and vitriolic because the movie received two negative reviews out of like 100+ positive reviews, which meant it "only" had a paltry Rotten Tomato score of 99% instead of 100%, and it ruined the chance of the Toy Story trilogy getting a perfect score!!! The horror.

In my experience, I see a lot of the same trends and sentiments for medias which have a large (or at least vocal) number of young and excitable fans. don't think it's a "gaming fandom problem" as much as it is a ~nerd culture~ problem.

 

[xChildOfHatex]

This isn't something that's seen solely in Video Game reviews. The reviewers at Pitchfork get so much hate and vitriol spewed in their direction it's kinda ridiculous and Pitchfork in turn always seem to turn the "Music Snob" dial all the way to 11 as a response. Here's a kinda ridiculous and unnecessary article criticising a kinda ridiculous, unnecessary article written on Pitchfork.

http://www.theonion.com/article/pitchfork-gives-music-68-2278

In general, any review on anything that's popular will garner its fair share of hate and vitriol. Internet provides a platform to share opinions, not just to intelligent people but also to those who haven't got a lick of sense and wouldn't understand the meaning of the words "nuance" and "subjectivity" if they were beaten over the head with a hardbound Oxford Dictionary for an hour straight.

 

[Version 3.0]

Yeah, it's very sad. On the whole, if a movie, say, gets a bad review, people will say "uh oh, maybe that movie isn't as good as I was hoping".

The negative reaction to reviews is definitely more common with game reviews. With an exclusive game - and those negative reactions are certainly more common with exclusives - I chalk it up to fanboyism. The prerequisite of owning a system can make people very unreasonable in order to retroactively affirm their choice.

Not sure what to make of non-exclusive game reviews getting that kind of reaction, though.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

Because most movies are one off and naturally don't have a dedicated following. Once something or someone does have a dedicated following, then you start to see those fans defend that person or thing a lot more. Look at how Beyonce fans went after all those women that they thought she was talking about in Lemonade. Or the sports writers that have received death threats because they were critical of a certain team or player.

Fair enough.
Sports fandom is probably the closest to the type of hate I see in games.

 

[SlickShoes]

It's not just games, try reading IMDB.com forums or any other popular enthusiast site for other mediums, they are full of hateful opinionated people.

 

[potatohead]

If playing games is their lives and the reason they wake up every day then I think there are more serious issues than low review scores going on.

Edit - Unless it's somehow related to their profession.

Which brings to question:

What qualifications do you need to be a reviewer? Is there a standard? Should there be a standard to review a game? If so, what would that be?

If there is no standard, why isn't just anyone hired then? There must be some standard. Is it only a limited ability to write somewhat coherent articles in English?

Spoiler

that said some websites have much clearer ability to write very well in English compared to others, RPS comes to mind here

What is the difference of a professional games reviewer versus anyone else then if the standard is only writing in decent English (or another language)? It's just as sad, one person is just lucky they are getting paid to barely think.

It's similar to... what qualifications does one need to be good enough to be on the Oscars panel? Be "in the clique" of the Oscars panel?

 

[Pantaghana]

"Fanboyism"

People seem to have forgotten the point of reviews, they should be used to inform consumers about a product. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sadly, some people get too emotionally invested in those products, often even before release, and then become enraged when others express a negative opinion.

It gets really is ridiculous some times, I've seen comments saying people shouldn't trust reviews and "buy games themselves to see if they're good", I don't know about you, but dropping 60$+ just to see if I like a game seems idiotic.

 

[FallingEdge]

Why?

Because of nerds on the internet and how seriously they take their kideo games. To be fair, it isn't just isolated to video games but it is pathetic, regardless.

 

[Mr-Joker]

Because Gamers have a warp sense of what is a good score.

I use to think that the image use to be a joke but there might be some truth behind it and I find it silly.

The other factor is that some gamer use reviews as ammo for fan wars and a "low score" doesn't help them.

However on the flip side you get reviewers who don't play the game properly or play games that they don't like but do so anyway.

Personally I don't give much stock to reviews and if a reviewers give a game I like a low score it doesn't really bother me.

Along with that stupid petition to remove that Washington post review from metacritic, with Troy Baker fueling such idiocy.

That petition was dumb and I am surprised that the internet where in favour of censorship.

Reminds me of the time when Zelda fans force Gamespot to bump up the score for Twilight Princess.

 

[hodgy100]

Because many people in the gaming community do not understand criticism and how it works.

 

[Toxi]

Because of manbabies that define who they are by the media they consume.

Basically.

 

[potatohead]

"Fanboyism"

People seem to have forgotten the point of reviews, they should be used to inform consumers about a product. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is standard setting though, and this is not allowed for reviews....

You're asking reviewers to actually be informative. What if they are not? What if they are misleading?

Is that a bad review? But if it is called a bad review, then we are being elitist. And we can't have that.

How many people have to feel a review is misleading before it is deemed as such?

Why have a conversation about anything anyway. Why does this forum exist? Why do we exist?

 

[Moobabe]

Which brings to question:

What qualifications do you need to be a reviewer? Is there a standard? Should there be a standard to review a game? If so, what would that be?

If there is no standard, what is the difference of a professional games reviewer versus anyone else? It's just as sad, one person is just lucky they are getting paid to barely think.

It's similar to... what qualifications does one need to be good enough to be on the Oscars panel? Be "in the clique" of the Oscars panel?

Well this is a different debate altogether...

The answers would be: None, no, no.

The difference between a "professional" and someone else is they get paid, that's it. However, the difference between a "good" journalist and someone else is the quality of the writing and how they form their opinions.

THAT is the most frustrating thing; people kick up a stink about the scores, but not the content of the review. If you read well structured, well reasoned argument about why Uncharted 4 isn't so good then you can engage with the opinion and position (even though people obviously won't - hence this thread). But if the review is poorly written and baseless then people are obviously within their rights to question the opinion.

 

[Andrain18]

Yep

The outcry over the 7.1 for Doom from IGN made me actively dislike the people in the DOOM OT

like, seeing people so upset and obsessed with Doom being praised not only is creepy but I feel there is something quite off about that, mentally

It's like, OK people ign giving the game a 7.1 doesn't lower your enjoyment so just chill

This also goes with the gaming communities current fad of a game being shit if it get's anything lower than a 9/10. a 7 isn't a good dame anymore i guess.

 

[M0nochromatic]

People don't like it when new information conflicts with their preconceived notions. That's the cause at least 90% of the time, the other 10% is that it's really difficult to actually write a good, comprehensive review.

It's understandable though. That IGN Godhand review always gets trotted out as a great example, but it's not unfathomable that it was just too much for that reviewer to handle. Playing and appreciating hours upon hours of content is actually a lot to ask of a reviewer, compared to every other medium. Brad Shoemaker catches shit for his gameplay performances on screen, but at the same time it's most likely that his skill level is far above your average games consumer. Hell, we give reviewers shit for not appreciating every last detail, but statistically half of the people that start a game never finish it. Go look at trophy/achievement percentages for completing just the story of any game.

It's fine to ask for more from the reviewers and the critics whose audience is enthusiasts, but we should also realize that for the casual majority, those IGN type reviews are fine.

 

[Anticol]

What? Movies are the same or even worse, go check rotten tomatoes and you'll notice it.

 

[potatohead]

Well this is a different debate altogether...

The answers would be: None, no, no.

The difference between a "professional" and someone else is they get paid, that's it. However, the difference between a "good" journalist and someone else is the quality of the writing and how they form their opinions.

THAT is the most frustrating thing; people kick up a stink about the scores, but not the content of the review. If you read well structured, well reasoned argument about why Uncharted 4 isn't so good then you can engage with the opinion and position (even though people obviously won't - hence this thread). But if the review is poorly written and baseless then people are obviously within their rights to question the opinion.

I agree that's how reviews should be judged, and I agree people are only kicking up a stink because of scores.

But can we only blame the consumers? It is the reviewers who are also participating in the system of scoring.

If there article is the most important part, why do they insist on scoring? We know the answer, and it is marketing, and getting their names pasted on advertisements and billboards for the games.

There's some authors on some websites that really write extremely well and get a point across and argue it well.

Those imo are the best kinds of previews, articles, or reviews. I agree.

This is all why I hate review scores anyway, I think they are dumb and reductionist and lazy

And this is also why we should not only blame consumers, like this thread is doing. The reviewers who score games in the first place also deserve some blame.

There are two (or more) sides to every conflict after all

 

[Slixshot]

Reviews can have a large impact on a company. Remember the Fallout New Vegas metacritic bonus debacle? If players really like a game or a series and they want it to continue, reviews are the highlighted reception of the game, impacting sales and the potential for the series to continue.

So wait, you actively dislike people for having an opinion on an opinion? Isn't your dislike for these people based on their opinion the same as their dislike based on a reviewers opinion?

Or is what you are doing even worse than what you are condemning? Considering you think anybody who challenges the opinion of a reviewer might be off "mentally."

Has it occurred to you that people may have opinions on things such as a review without them actually taking it personal? I thought the 7.1 IGN gave Doom was insulting because it was poorly written and misunderstood by the reviewer.

Do I hate the reviewer? No. Did it affect my enjoyment of the game? No. Did I still disagree with his score? Yes and frankly it warranted criticism for a number of reasons that I am not going into, the reality is his opinion means very little so I can understand what people mean about the outcry but guess what? Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and people either agree or disagree with them and more often than not they do it vocally.

It seems rather odd for people to not grasp the concept of that and even odder for them to criticise people for "fanboying" when they are themselves just essentially trying to protect the best interests of review sites they like because why else would they be offended by people having opinions on reviews?

It's like a circle jerk of fanboyism.

#Phil0sophy

 

[potatohead]

So wait, you actively dislike people for having an opinion on an opinion? Isn't your dislike for these people based on their opinion the same as their dislike based on a reviewers opinion?

Or is what you are doing even worse than what you are condemning? Considering you think anybody who challenges the opinion of a reviewer might be off "mentally."

Has it occurred to you that people may have opinions on things such as a review without them actually taking it personal? I thought the 7.1 IGN gave Doom was insulting because it was poorly written and misunderstood by the reviewer.

Do I hate the reviewer? No. Did it affect my enjoyment of the game? No. Did I still disagree with his score? Yes and frankly it warranted criticism for a number of reasons that I am not going into, the reality is his opinion means very little so I can understand what people mean about the outcry but guess what? Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and people either agree or disagree with them and more often than not they do it vocally.

It seems rather odd for people to not grasp the concept of that and even odder for them to criticise people for "fanboying" when they are themselves just essentially trying to protect the best interests of review sites they like because why else would they be offended by people having opinions on reviews?

It's like a circle jerk of fanboyism.

Agree 100%

I think it is elitist to say that reviewers have every right to an opinion, but it is not allowed for people to have an opinion about that opinion.

It is an incredible double-standard. That is the basis of a disagreement.

I think in this new society, where people hold high value of "personal opinion" regardless of how it is formed, people are still afraid of disagreement.

And this is the crux of the issue, people fearing their opinion being judged. I think this is the problem with this thread.

That shouldn't be a fear, if one takes a sincere attitude in the way they form their opinion. This applies to any jurisdiction either, whether education or politics or religious discussions. Sincerity is the key, and allowing yourself to be judged is also important.

We used to have words like integrity, except now we only have phrases like "well that's just your opinion, man."

We think we've come far as a society in general, but we really haven't.

 

[More_Badass]

Which brings to question:

What qualifications do you need to be a reviewer? Is there a standard? Should there be a standard to review a game? If so, what would that be?

If there is no standard, why isn't just anyone hired then? There must be some standard. Is it only a limited ability to write somewhat coherent articles in English?

Spoiler

that said some websites have much clearer ability to write very well in English compared to others, RPS comes to mind here

What is the difference of a professional games reviewer versus anyone else then if the standard is only writing in decent English (or another language)? It's just as sad, one person is just lucky they are getting paid to barely think.

It's similar to... what qualifications does one need to be good enough to be on the Oscars panel? Be "in the clique" of the Oscars panel?

Usually you need to have some level of writing proficiency. Most sites ask for writing samples, mainly articles you've written before, when you apply for a job.

 

[cartographer]

People get caught up in hype cycles and begin to define themselves by whatever they are hyped about. It's a form of tribalism, and enthusiast culture has long encouraged it, especially in the console space (though there is certainly no shortage of examples outside of consoles, too).

When people spend a year or more hyping themselves up for a game and then somebody is critical of it, some end up lashing out. They've spent so long defining themselves around being hyped for a product that criticism of that product can be threatening to them. And of course, praise of that product is validation that they have defined themselves in the "right" way.

TL;DR - Insecurity.

If you "love" a game so much that you descend into ridiculous vitriol and hateful comments because someone else dislikes it, for some reason or other, the problem is the person making the comments, not the critic

100 percent.

 

[aBarreras]

i think gamers expect more from reviewers than other medium because unlike books or movies, there is player input on games, i mean, how can i trust the polygon doom review after watching them playing the game, i know the person playing the game is not the one reviewing it but still, c'mon.

i guess thats why gamers expect the reviewer to full understand the mechanics and apply them on game, because i you cant play the game properly, how can you say if it is good or not?

 

[JohnnyFootball]

A lot (not all of it) has to do with the fact that we live in a clickbait society, where often negative reviews (fairly or not) are seen not as actual opinions, but as a means to get clicks, create controversy and be edgy.

 

[hodgy100]

i think gamers expect more from reviewers than other medium because unlike books or movies, there is player input on games, i mean, how can i trust the polygon doom review after watching them playing the game, i know the person playing the game is not the one reviewing it but still, c'mon.

i guess thats why gamers expect the reviewer to full understand the mechanics and apply them on game, because i you cant play the game properly, how can you say if it is good or not?

you answered your own question, You are just choosing to be unreasonable, perhaps because you have a vested interest in Doom getting higher praise? wether that being simply as a form of validation e.g "this thing I like is considered one of the best so that means i have the best taste" wehn in reality liking / disliking doom doesn't mean anything really.

 

[Alpha Phoenix]

Its not just gamers. You should see the reaction DC fans got when The Dark Knight Rises got negative reviews on RottenTomatoes. They had to delete the comment section, there was so much vitrol. It still happens today whenever a big fanboy thing gets a bad review.

The problem is emotional investment. People get so caught up in a product, so much of their self-worth is based on that product in question. So any slight against that product is taken as a personal slight against them, and their taste, and their desires. So instead of shrugging it off and going about their lives, they have to fight back. They have to "protect" themselves, because this person didnt like this entertainment product(that I haven't even experienced myself, naturally).

Well said, Mr. Krabs.

 

[Clawww]

Why?

Because of nerds on the internet and how seriously they take their kideo games. To be fair, it isn't just isolated to video games but it is pathetic, regardless.

why have I never heard 'kideo games' before lmao

 

[aeolist]

So wait, you actively dislike people for having an opinion on an opinion? Isn't your dislike for these people based on their opinion the same as their dislike based on a reviewers opinion?

Or is what you are doing even worse than what you are condemning? Considering you think anybody who challenges the opinion of a reviewer might be off "mentally."

Has it occurred to you that people may have opinions on things such as a review without them actually taking it personal? I thought the 7.1 IGN gave Doom was insulting because it was poorly written and misunderstood by the reviewer.

Do I hate the reviewer? No. Did it affect my enjoyment of the game? No. Did I still disagree with his score? Yes and frankly it warranted criticism for a number of reasons that I am not going into, the reality is his opinion means very little so I can understand what people mean about the outcry but guess what? Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and people either agree or disagree with them and more often than not they do it vocally.

Just yesterday I said the review score was insulting and immediately had numerous people jumping down my throat assuming that I took the score personally lol, it's a videogame at the end of the day and a videogame review, I felt it was insulting to the quality of the game but it is what it is.

It seems rather odd for people to not grasp the concept of that and even odder for them to criticise people for "fanboying" when they are themselves just essentially trying to protect the best interests of review sites they like because why else would they be offended by people having opinions on reviews?

It's like a circle jerk of fanboyism.

the biggest problems usually arise when review embargos drop before a game's release and the people discussing scores haven't played it themselves. i have no issue with informed critique so long as it doesn't descend into abuse and harassment (which it does far too often) but even around here practically every high-profile review score thread is a dumpster fire. remember uncharted 3?

the best part is that given a long enough timeframe even the community has its backlash and now a lot of people agree that U3 was pretty weak. get some goddamned perspective, folks.

 

[potatohead]

Usually you need to have some level of writing proficiency. Most sites ask for writing samples, mainly articles you've written before, when you apply for a job.

I agree this is the standard. And that was my point.

If this is all that standard is, what makes that person more qualified as specifically a professional games reviewer?

Nothing, really. An interest in videogames enough to play them possibly might the the really only resounding differentiating factor among the general population.

In almost every job you need to be able to "write" competently, in many jobs related to business or many other disciplines. Are you interacting with other people, or writing agreements, maybe even writing contracts? All of those kinds of things require a strong level of writing proficiency. Do you write papers, or editorials, or news items, do secretarial work? All of these jobs can have a very high level of writing proficiency requirements.

So it's not a skill that is *specific* to the games reviewing medium.

So it is almost like saying basically: well they really aren't specifically qualified for this particular job more than most other people anyway. It's just a job for that person, and not for other people.

As you can probably tell, I'm not that big on certain "qualification standards" that are in many ways, in the real world, practically useless beyond name-bearing standards. Especially when it comes to writing a review. Beyond undergraduate level "writing ability", not even that sometimes, there isn't really *that much* to the review writing process that I've read anywhere.

And it highlights the fact that a review is really just one person's opinion. One that other people should be allowed to have an opinion on too.

Again we're talking about an entertainment industry also (gaming media is almost as much entertainment as the games themselves, if you really think about it). Qualifications do not need to necessarily take front seat in this kind of industry where personality can fill many gaps too.

 

[Dance Inferno]

I feel you OP. There's something about gamer culture that has people conflating their self worth with public perception of the games they like. That combined with the anonymity of the internet and the generally younger demographic of gamers can lead to some truly shocking and repulsive behavior.

Over the past several months I've basically been trying to spend less time in gaming "communities." I used to get all my news, reviews, and impressions from forums, but I've realized that there can often be this groupthink around certain issues and, if you're not careful, you can get sucked into it too. The latest example for me was Blizzard deciding to change Tracer's pose in Overwatch and everyone going batshit crazy. Did it really impact these people's lives in any real way that Blizzard decided to change a pose in their video game? Not in the slightest, and yet there were thousands of people online ready to tear apart anyone who dared defend Blizzard's creative freedom.

I'm trying this thing now where I spend less time on gaming forums (yes, including GAF) and try to spend more time on sites like IGN, Polygon, Giant Bomb, GameSpot, etc. Sure, I may not always agree with their opinions, but at least they don't act like giant manchildren in the face of controversial issues or low review scores.

 

[aBarreras]

you answered your own question, You are just choosing to be unreasonable, perhaps because you have a vested interest in Doom getting higher praise? wether that being simply as a form of validation e.g "this thing I like is considered one of the best so that means i have the best taste" wehn in reality liking / disliking doom doesn't mean anything really.

???????????????????? what?

to clarify, i dont care about doom or its reviews, but polygon as news page that dedicates to gaming, should have at least competent players working for them

 

[Thabass]

That's the issue though - you can't tell tone in text. Also it only takes 30 seconds to write a disgusting comment to someone before you hit send and move on. There's no accountability, no repercussions and you can't tell if that person is joking, is serious or something in between.

True. I guess I want to believe most people are trolling in that sense. I really can't wrap my head around people who suggest that scores matter. I mean, it's a metric that certain can help the consumer with a purchase, but shouldn't be used to say which game is better. That was always an opinion of the player.

 

[Fushichou187]

It's not exclusive to games, but generally it involves a certain subset of manbabies who get really emotionally invested in media franchises and have agendas dedicated to either attacking or defending said franchises.

Yup. And it's not limited to men, nor video games. Any thing you can project a sense of belonging onto through brand loyalty is fair game for this kind of behavior. Go on Twitter and try to say something critical of Beyonce, Bieber, Taylor Swift, the Golden State Warriors, FC Barca, etc... and expect the hivemind to come knocking.

 

[Madds]

I rolled my eyes when I first read about the reaction to the Washington Post Uncharted 4 review. And I said all the same things the rest of you are saying. "Its just a game", "everyone is entitled to their opinion", etc. But then I read the review. It's really bad. The writing is bad. The author complains about nitpicks, doesn't defend any of his claims, and honestly comes across as someone that hates video games. If you do a little digging on the author, his bread and butter is just always taking the unpopular opinion. He even used to have a column called "Contrarian Corner". He's basically the journalistic equivalent of the Monty Python argument sketch. I still think that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the outrage toward his 4/10 might be valid. He literally comes across as a person that is just saying the opposite of everyone to be a dick.

 

[Ottobit]

you haven't realized yet how the majority of the gaming community loves to whine, complain, and hate on things for... well, ridiculous reasons, really?

i can think of 3 recent events that occurred that garnered ridiculously stupid amounts of hate for relatively no reason.

 

[bananafactory]

Because of manbabies that define who they are by the media they consume.

And we are done here

 

[hodgy100]

???????????????????? what?

to clarify, i dont care about doom or its reviews, but polygon as news page that dedicates to gaming, should have at least competent players working for them

But the person that played the game has no weighting on their review so why does it matter, its unrelated.

It was bad game play footage, thats all we can say from that clip.

 

[SomedayTheFire]

Gamers are fucking babies.

 

[Pro from Dover]

You see, publishers and developers owe me more than what I paid for.
Sure, I hand out 50-60 bucks to get the game and shove it up my butt, but they always fail to consider my time and love invested.

fake edit:
Sincerely, folks

 

[hodgy100]

I am of the personal opinion that reviews should not be score based, I think we need to move away from that model and a lot of these arguments would be avoided.

I also think that each review should be done by a panel of individuals rather than one so you can get a varied opinion.

looking at multiple reviews achieves exactly this

 

[AmuroChan]

It's more about the review score than it it about the actual review. If you remove the score and make people read the review, the level of hate and vitriol would decrease exponentially.

 

[More_Badass]

True. I guess I want to believe most people are trolling in that sense. I really can't wrap my head around people who suggest that scores matter. I mean, it's a metric that certain can help the consumer with a purchase, but shouldn't be used to say which game is better. That was always an opinion of the player.

One thing that always irks me is when people make comments in the vein of "this game scored a X, yet the review gave that game an X or Y or Z or whatever, how can that game be as good/better?", while completely ignoring genre or author

 

[potatohead]

I agree completely, this is the most sensible and mature post I have seen on the matter.

We seem to have gone backwards in so many ways, sincerity and empathy are extremely lacking these days, I may not have liked the reviewers opinion and I may not like other peoples opinions but I respect them enough to not resort to personal insults over having them.

What's funny is the judgement thrown towards people disliking the opinion of reviewers, it seems to be nothing but personal insults the very same thing they are claiming to dislike themselves.

Here is a great idea, let's all just agree that everyone has opinions and discussion of those opinions are valid as long as they are done in a mature and sincere way?

One could wish.

But that would mean people would have to stop being offended when people disagree with them, or be afraid to stand their ground and justify their position.

People would actually have to make sincere and thoughtful arguments to defend their position against people who do in fact disagree with them.

This is our modern society. Everyone is told they are the best, they have every right to their own opinion, but our society does not talk about the form of how those opinions are created.

And this is not about policing "how" people make opinions. But asking people to be thoughtful and sincere is too high a standard in modern society. Maybe it is because people are too comfortable, and have too many things. Who knows.

We do not talk about integrity or sincerity or thoughtfulness. We just say "everyone has an opinion." And if you have a different one, keep it to yourself. Don't talk about it. Avoid conflicts entirely.

And of course this leads to situations we have now in all sorts of disciplines. People don't try to cooperate when idealogically opposed any more than happened probably a hundred or a thousand years ago.

If you think differently, go sit with different people, think like they do, and don't discuss anything, because you might hurt people's feelings by thinking too much, or even worse, asking other people to think.

What greater satisfaction could there be to justify your position and have your opponent in an argument agree that at least your position is well justified and thoughtfully created? That is even better than someone agreeing with you on the face of things.

But that requires sincerity on the part of both parties involved, which is rare and difficult to find these days. Chivalry died with the Titanic, as they say.