So thank you, for making such a broad, uninformed statement about a person you do not know. There's just too many good games out there already I don't have enough time for as it is. I would have gladly played it if it turned out good, but I'm not wasting my time with it at all now. I thought the addition of Terry Crews' humor may save the campaign a bit, because I find him to be a funny guy, but then I'm hearing from many outlets that he is way underutilized.Īs a gamer, I have the right to be disappointed that a game didn't turn out to be what was promised. Then the destruction was noticeably nerfed. Then it suddenly changed to online competitive arenas. The idea of a fully destructible city in co-op. I was excited about this game in the beginning, almost 5 years ago with the early promises. I have my favorites, sure, but I am a fan of games period. I do not hide it in my bio, I share my info about being a gamer on all systems. I have subscribed to Gamepass a number of times on PC. TiredandRetired 1289d ago (Edited 1289d ago Glad you've been following my post history. It would be like taking a poll of all N4G users asking them what their favorite hair color is on members of the opposite sex (or the sex/gender they are attracted to) with 43% saying brunette, 32% saying blonde and 25% saying red, then proclaiming that this objectively proves that a sort of "light auburn brown" is the best hair color and anybody that disagrees is an idiot. The way some people treat aggregate scores as the final, objective say on how good a game is seems bizarre. The average score isn't any more "correct" than any of the individual scores. You can't invalidate the individual opinions that make up the average score without invalidating the average score itself. Those aggregate scores are very often comprised of scores that run the gamut from low to high. Too often I see people try to use aggregate scores as a way to shut down other people's opinions. What I'm talking about is a general principal that applies to all subjective matters. I'm not saying this to defend Crackdown 3 in particular. The individual opinions that make up that average score remain valid on their own, as well as any other individual opinions. Those subjective opinions don't suddenly crystalize into an immutable fact that everyone must bow down to and sacrifice their own opinions to. Aggregate scores are a convenient way to get an idea of what a few dozen reviewers thought of a game, nothing more. Starchild 1290d hope you aren't implying that review score averages are any more objective than the scores that comprise them. You are angry not everyone rates C3 lower than spidey and you need to vent your anger to someone because you cant cope with it. You just being an asshole for no reason, Well actually there is a reason. I think you should apoligize to Pantz for being so rude, would make you a more likeable person.
If you are not with me, you are against me, you would make a good sith. Scum like you just try and pick a fight with someone if they dont fully agree with you. the irony of your comment is amusing though, projecting your feelings onto him but then magnified. You so desperately need everyone to agree with you because you need the echoes of that your preferred platform has the best games etc etc. and you havent completed C3 yet anyway so how are you so certain? this guy just said nice review, looks like a good game and all you try to do is make a walk of shame of him for liking an opinion piece. You seem to forget that a review is still an opinion piece. It seems that you desperately need everyone to give spidey a higher score than C3, because otherwise you dont feel validated or something alike? Look at your earlier comment, only about review scores. Michiel1989 1290d Dude, you are the one clinging to reviews, not Pantz.
0 kommentar(er)
