soully...he\'s a reviewer, not a critic.
now sure how they handle things on the underbelly of the world where you are.
this isn\'t SDF giving halo 3 had review.
LIC, how can you possibly say the review is right on the money for anyone when you haven\'t played it at all?
oh, you\'re arguing just to argue.
i understand, but still find it amusing.
reminds me of watchdog.
And you\'re trying to say that most likely NO ONE agree\'s with his review - which we all know is false. Simple odds would dictate that someone, somewhere agree\'s with Aaron\'s review and even if they don\'t, he still done his job, he detailed what he liked and disliked about this game. You just want to focus on the negative things he said, because the game didn\'t get the score that the masses think it deserves.
If I remind you of Watchdog, then you must be Clowd, as you\'re simply jumping on the bandwagon that denies and tries to argue against anything that may show a negative light on the PS3, no matter how small it is, like Aaron\'s review.
LIC, how can you possibly say the review is right on the money for anyone when you haven\'t played it at all?
I know you aren\'t dumb, I would never think that, but I can\'t understand why you want to avoid simple logic. There are other people out there, somewhere who most likely do not care for this game. I don\'t need to play the game to know this .
Also I dont know why you have a problem with people in this board pointing towards the possibility that it is not well written. I also dont understand why you believe that anyone who thinks his review is not well written is necessarilly a fanboy. It is almost obvious that his review is bad written and does not represent the true quality of the game.
I tend not to read anything you read, because ninety percent of the time it is complete garbage, but this part struck me as funny. What is so "bad" about his review? As I\'ve stated time and time again, he done his job. He wrote about the game, explained the game and gave his opinion on the game after he was finished.
It\'s just like in a previous thread, someone posted all these glowing reviews of the game, but then turned around and said that 1up, Gamespot and another site didn\'t matter, because they was "biased garbage". You know what I call that? Selective. It\'s selective reviewing, selective reading and just plain selective. You\'re only reading what you want to read and anything other than that is "biased garbage" or just "written bad".
aaron was a great member of this forum, i\'m not taking that into consideration when discussing his review.
perhaps this is what offends LIC?
Wrong, yet again. Yes Aaron was a great member of this forum, but I am defending his review because I think he done his job.
You know what else is funny about this? Take a magazine like EGM that offers multiple viewpoints on reviews, quite often one reviewer won\'t care for a game as much as the other two did, does anyone care about that? No. The forum nerds and \'net geeks don\'t go on a witch hunt then , but when you take a singular review like Aaron\'s and compare it against other \'net reviews, all of a sudden there is some big difference. I just don\'t see it. If Aaron had wrote this review for EGM and there was two other viewpoint boxes next to his, his medicore score of the game would of been read and forgotten.
