 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Not because of politics, but: by Ice Cream Jonsey 06/02/2018, 11:07am PDT | ||||
 |
 |
|||
| I think you have a long road ahead of you if you want to tally the times that gamers were shit as opposed to the dozens of times journos were. However, whenever I think of an example of gamers being entitled pissant filth, this page comes up. In a way, it is my favorite page on the Internet.
For those that don't know, Metacritic had a top 100 list of all-time for all the platforms. Out of the Park Baseball 2007 had five reviews, all positive. All exceedingly positive, as it deserves. It's been a great game. However, because it's a simulation and only played by people who like this sort of thing and because it always debuts at $30 bucks it's not the sort of thing IGN is going to review. It had 5 positive reviews by "critics," a 96% score and was at the top (or near-top, I can't remember if Half-Life had 97 or whatever) of the list all-time for the PC. And if you've clicked on that link you can see how "gamers" responded. They HATED seeing it there. They hated seeing a well-received game sit at the top of an arbitrary list. It's the critics' score! Who gives a shit! These are the same outlets that were said to be completely corrupt! It didn't matter, bags of garbage review bombed it in an attempt to get it off the list, even though doing so was futile: it wasn't the gamer's list it was at the top of. It was the journo list. I feel that this detail gets lost. If they wanted to do something about it, they could have started in game journalism, risen through the ranks, convinced their editors to let them review a 10 year old game and finally settle that score. But they didn't do that. They just review bombed it on the user side, even though that does not, cannot and will not affect the critics' score. (Out of the Park is better than all of the AAA trash these cretins play, of course, but that's this whole other thing.) ICJ |
||||
 |
 |
|||
|
