I have never played a 10 out of 10 game. Never will.
FF7 for me is a 10/10 !
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy? Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
What I'm seeing on that list are games where the critic scores match my own sense of a fair score a LOT more closely than the user scores.
That's my general perception of Metacritic, by the way. User scores tend to be extremely skewed by the many 0/10s - which, for a decent game that should be something like 7/10 - will affect it more than the skewed 10/10 scores do.
I don't know what happened with those user scores, but I started noticing it back with Dragon Age 2 - which while it was average at best (IMO) - it certainly didn't deserve all those 0/10s.
While I would never, personally, give a game 10/10 - I have a much easier time believing it's genuine for a decent game than a 0/10.
Maybe that's just me, though.
So someone thinks the game deserves a 7/10, but seems that the game has a score of 9/10 with lots of 10/10 scores that don't justify themselves. So he gives a score of 0 /10 trying to take the average to what he considers is the right score. You can't keep people from giving 0s and 10s for unjustified reasons so other people balance them with opposite scores.
To me, giving a score that's not genuine is harmful no matter what. It means you're deliberately trying to manipulate the OVERALL score - based on your own personal opinion. That's destructive to the truth - and it's selfish.
As for which is worse, I don't really concern myself with that. But since I happen to think most publisher funded titles are competently made and, at least, average in the eyes of the (vast) majority - a 0/10 would hurt the "truth" more than a 10/10.
The only way to contribute is to be honest. If you can't manage that, you have nothing of value to contribute.
For me this whole discussion isn't about Blizzard or Overwatch. It's about so called non paid and unbiased professional gaming sites giving perfect 10/10 reviews.
Name me the games that honestly unfanboid deserve a 10/10
These sites are nothing but shills and that's what I believe is the fucking joke.
That's being optimistic, more likely and sadly they have no idea about how good games are and base their judgements on popularity of games and their developers.
And the opposite could be said for you two. More likely and even more pathetic is the people who don't play a game and complain about based on the popularity of games and their developers.
See your above comment is saying only the wonderful magnificent you knows what a good game is and anyone who disagrees is a paid or has no idea. Well obviously that isn't the case, it's rather sad people actually believe what you do.
And the opposite could be said for you two. More likely and even more pathetic is the people who don't play a game and complain about based on the popularity of games and their developers.
See your above comment is saying only the wonderful magnificent you knows what a good game is and anyone who disagrees is a paid or has no idea. Well obviously that isn't the case, it's rather sad people actually believe what you do.
Just watch some of these reviewers play games, and you would understand they have no business talking about how good games are.
Maybe it you who has no business talking about how good games are? What makes you so much more qualified then those who don't hold your same anger,bitterness and disdain for video games?
For me this whole discussion isn't about Blizzard or Overwatch. It's about so called non paid and unbiased professional gaming sites giving perfect 10/10 reviews.
Name me the games that honestly unfanboid deserve a 10/10
These sites are nothing but shills and that's what I believe is the fucking joke.
I could name you some, but would it matter? Reviews are subjective, hence the whole reason around something like metacritic. Based on metacritic, there has never been a 10/10 game, so you can feel at ease.
Also, I'll just come right out and say that the majority of sites give plenty of reasoning behind grades for games and the vast majority of sites have specific metrics on how games are graded. What I dislike is people who are constantly talking about shills with absolutely nothing to back it up. If you'd like, feel free to disprove some of these 10/10 ratings. It's probably more effort than just yelling shills, I know. Btw, I'm not defending Overwatch, specifically. Haven't played it, so I can't speak to it, but I find that reviewers are generally correct or close to it.
Maybe it you who has no business talking about how good games are? What makes you so much more qualified then those who don't hold your same anger,bitterness and disdain for video games?
Did you even do as I told and watch any of the reviewers I mention play a game?
I've seen reviews before yes...my point and question still stands.
Maybe it you who has no business talking about how good games are? What makes you so much more qualified then those who don't hold your same anger,bitterness and disdain for video games?
Did you even do as I told and watch any of the reviewers I mention play a game?
I've seen reviews before yes...my point and question still stands.
I don't review games profesionally or otherwise. Any score I may give in Metacritic won't have much weight with the amount of reviewers, the same way for steam but at least with steam people can see my profile, achievements, play time, etc.
Hey and that's perfectly fine but the issue is you and a couple others are coming across as if a person professionally or just a user reviews a game especially a large studio (which steam has very little of) and their review doesn't match yours that person has no knowledge of games. When the truth is that person just has a different opinion of that game or games in general then you. Its kind of sad if sites like this need teach people the lesson that their opinion is not the only right opinion. Because that's how you are coming across.
For me this whole discussion isn't about Blizzard or Overwatch. It's about so called non paid and unbiased professional gaming sites giving perfect 10/10 reviews.
Name me the games that honestly unfanboid deserve a 10/10
These sites are nothing but shills and that's what I believe is the fucking joke.
I could name you some, but would it matter? Reviews are subjective, hence the whole reason around something like metacritic. Based on metacritic, there has never been a 10/10 game, so you can feel at ease.
Also, I'll just come right out and say that the majority of sites give plenty of reasoning behind grades for games and the vast majority of sites have specific metrics on how games are graded. What I dislike is people who are constantly talking about shills with absolutely nothing to back it up. If you'd like, feel free to disprove some of these 10/10 ratings. It's probably more effort than just yelling shills, I know. Btw, I'm not defending Overwatch, specifically. Haven't played it, so I can't speak to it, but I find that reviewers are generally correct or close to it.
Have you read these 10/10 reviews?
You don't have to be paid to be a shill.
Reviews are subjective? Sorry maybe from a fanboi but I expect some objectivity from a "Professional Reviewer"
10/10 = no objectivity
All these "Professional" reviews do is make a 10/10 mean shit. because we all know that a 10/10 game has missing features that will be patched in at a later date.
"What Overwatch is missing the most at launch is a ranked mode. One is in the works, and was briefly tested in one of the closed betas, but it wasn’t great, and is currently being reworked for a June release. That’s all well and good, but until that happens, matchmaking in Quick Play is a little screwy, relying only on MMR to make sure you’re getting matched with “correct” opponents."
For me this whole discussion isn't about Blizzard or Overwatch. It's about so called non paid and unbiased professional gaming sites giving perfect 10/10 reviews.
Name me the games that honestly unfanboid deserve a 10/10
These sites are nothing but shills and that's what I believe is the fucking joke.
While it's safe to assume some do over score certain games (for whatever reason)... Your question isn't so cut and dry.. For the most part scoring a game isn't much different than scoring anything else. You have your checks and minuses. If a game isn't throwing up many reasons to give minuses the checks remain.
Too many folks want to compare scores of games, "Overwatch is better than BG?" That's not how it's done... It's on a game by game basis and those scores represent what the game did right and what it did wrong ( or what problem it has)... IF it doesn't have technical issues, and if it doesn't have moments that cut the momentum or interfere with the "fun", it's likely going to score higher than the game that might be deeper or more to your liking. The deeper a game is the more likely problems will arise. Those problems can hurt scores.
Post edited by Distopia on
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
As a Quake player, the game is laughably easy with an extremely low skill ceiling. It's like they decided to make TF2 even easier. QWTF > TF2 > Overwatch.
As a Quake player, the game is laughably easy with an extremely low skill ceiling. It's like they decided to make TF2 even easier. QWTF > TF2 > Overwatch.
that's after the whopping FIVE critic reviews for PC
The early 100% reviews are common - it happens with almost any decent game launch. ESO had a bunch of 100% early reviews too as did many other major AAA games.
See the user reviews - at 660 - that's more realisitc IMO.
Wait til there are 100+ critic reviews, it will be more realistic, and wait til there are 10K user reviews, again it will be more realistic as well.
What is this some kind of troll thread? The metascore was based on the review of 5 people. The User Score was based on over 600 players ratings. So the 7.7 score from the actual players is more realistic and should be the only thing discussed. Now it is at 7.6 with over 1500 players. Meanwhile those critics have went to 14 and they give it a 94. Meanwhile those same critics are giving the warcraft movie a 8/100. Players play the games not the 14 critics. Their opinion means nothing when the players are disagreeing. Critics are suppose to reflect the majority of players not their own agenda. You want to see funny then goto ign.com and see what the critics are calling 10.0 games nowadays. You can't blame this score on haters because you equally have that many fanbois doing the exact opposite.
For me this whole discussion isn't about Blizzard or Overwatch. It's about so called non paid and unbiased professional gaming sites giving perfect 10/10 reviews.
Name me the games that honestly unfanboid deserve a 10/10
These sites are nothing but shills and that's what I believe is the fucking joke.
I could name you some, but would it matter? Reviews are subjective, hence the whole reason around something like metacritic. Based on metacritic, there has never been a 10/10 game, so you can feel at ease.
Also, I'll just come right out and say that the majority of sites give plenty of reasoning behind grades for games and the vast majority of sites have specific metrics on how games are graded. What I dislike is people who are constantly talking about shills with absolutely nothing to back it up. If you'd like, feel free to disprove some of these 10/10 ratings. It's probably more effort than just yelling shills, I know. Btw, I'm not defending Overwatch, specifically. Haven't played it, so I can't speak to it, but I find that reviewers are generally correct or close to it.
Have you read these 10/10 reviews?
You don't have to be paid to be a shill.
Reviews are subjective? Sorry maybe from a fanboi but I expect some objectivity from a "Professional Reviewer"
10/10 = no objectivity
All these "Professional" reviews do is make a 10/10 mean shit. because we all know that a 10/10 game has missing features that will be patched in at a later date.
"What Overwatch is missing the most at launch is a ranked mode. One is in the works, and was briefly tested in one of the closed betas, but it wasn’t great, and is currently being reworked for a June release. That’s all well and good, but until that happens, matchmaking in Quick Play is a little screwy, relying only on MMR to make sure you’re getting matched with “correct” opponents."
So what is it that you're looking for exactly? You say that you want objective reviews, but then go on to demonstrate something completely subjective with the text you quoted. So now we're not measuring games based on the game that is delivered, but what we would really like to see in the game? GTA V shipped with missing features. Also, Diablo 3 shipped with features that many people didn't like. However, as soon as you rate a game based on those missing features or undesirable features you're automatically taking away from the objectivity of the review.
There are standards involved with reviews, if you believe otherwise then you're just being silly. To believe that there is some big conspiracy surrounding the reviews industry and that someone can garner favorable reviews simply by paying someone or making promises is ludicrous. With sites like metacritic, now, this type of conspiracy theory is even more strained because it would mean influencing hundreds of reviewers, financially or otherwise. Do you honestly believe that is something that is realistic or plausible?
I would encourage you to have a look at the top games on metacritic of all time . Does it seem like a lot of shills? In general, the reviewer scores are mostly aligned with user reviews. If you disagree with the majority of the metacritic top games of all time, then maybe you have different standards than I do, but for the games I have played I can't say that I disagree with any game on the list. So wouldn't that say that the process works?
In addition to that, you have to understand that the majority of review sites work on a 10 point system. Does a 10/10 game mean that a game is devoid of any sort of flaw? No, probably not. It simply means that it's outstanding in all aspects. It could be a 95/100 or a 9500/10000, but do we really need to go to that level of differentiation? If that was the case, then I could accept that 100/100 is absolutely cream of the crop and nothing is wrong with it, but describe to me what the difference is between a 95 and a 96? Describe the differentiation between any two points in that scale. When you have that scale figured out, feel free to sell it to the industry because it's something that I'm sure would be truly valuable.
While it's safe to assume some do over score certain games (for whatever reason)... Your question isn't so cut and dry.. For the most part scoring a game isn't much different than scoring anything else. You have your checks and minuses. If a game isn't throwing up many reasons to give minuses the checks remain.
Too many folks want to compare scores of games, "Overwatch is better than BG?" That's not how it's done... It's on a game by game basis and those scores represent what the game did right and what it did wrong ( or what problem it has)... IF it doesn't have technical issues, and if it doesn't have moments that cut the momentum or interfere with the "fun", it's likely going to score higher than the game that might be deeper or more to your liking. The deeper a game is the more likely problems with arise. Those problems hurt scores.
I get that Distopia, but as laserit quoted in a subsequent post....
The reviewers mention matchmaking is screwy, for a completely multiplayer game that forces you to use that matchmaking to play at all. It is a detriment to the game that is literally unavoidable. That's a minus at what is one of the most key points of a multiplayer experience. And it's something Blizzard screwed up already before. They didn't seem to have learned much.
Are we really advocating reviews that claim a game is a perfect 10 when a key mechanic is admittedly screwy.... Are we really defending a perfect 10 for a company that had this same exact issue with their prior release and seemed to have done nothing to improve it at release with this product?
It would almost be like The Witcher 3 missing facial animations for Geralt entirely.... And reviewers acting as if it's an understandable oversight, even when they made the same mistake with Witcher 2 and got knocked for it then, rightfully so.
While it's safe to assume some do over score certain games (for whatever reason)... Your question isn't so cut and dry.. For the most part scoring a game isn't much different than scoring anything else. You have your checks and minuses. If a game isn't throwing up many reasons to give minuses the checks remain.
Too many folks want to compare scores of games, "Overwatch is better than BG?" That's not how it's done... It's on a game by game basis and those scores represent what the game did right and what it did wrong ( or what problem it has)... IF it doesn't have technical issues, and if it doesn't have moments that cut the momentum or interfere with the "fun", it's likely going to score higher than the game that might be deeper or more to your liking. The deeper a game is the more likely problems with arise. Those problems hurt scores.
I get that Distopia, but as laserit quoted in a subsequent post....
The reviewers mention matchmaking is screwy, for a completely multiplayer game that forces you to use that matchmaking to play at all. It is a detriment to the game that is literally unavoidable. That's a minus at what is one of the most key points of a multiplayer experience. And it's something Blizzard screwed up already before. They didn't seem to have learned much.
Are we really advocating reviews that claim a game is a perfect 10 when a key mechanic is admittedly screwy.... Are we really defending a perfect 10 for a company that had this same exact issue with their prior release and seemed to have done nothing to improve it at release with this product?
It would almost be like The Witcher 3 missing facial animations for Geralt entirely.... And reviewers acting as if it's an understandable oversight, even when they made the same mistake with Witcher 2 and got knocked for it then, rightfully so.
Respectfully, I must say read my first sentence... I was speaking mostly in general terms, I have not played Overwatch, read an overview of Overwatch, nor have I read any reviews. I know about as much as to say Overwatch is a shooter made by Blizzard heh.. It's entirely possible it is being over scored for whatever reason.
Just to play devils advocate though, a lot of times reviewers give and take points based on an override factor. Say in your example, matchmaking is problematic, -2 points... Yet some other factor overrides that by gaining a bonus point or two in it's pure awesomesauceness.
A lot of reviewers did that for Skyrim as an example, as well as explained why they did so, based on what had a greater impact on the experience as a whole.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
For me this whole discussion isn't about Blizzard or Overwatch. It's about so called non paid and unbiased professional gaming sites giving perfect 10/10 reviews.
Name me the games that honestly unfanboid deserve a 10/10
These sites are nothing but shills and that's what I believe is the fucking joke.
I could name you some, but would it matter? Reviews are subjective, hence the whole reason around something like metacritic. Based on metacritic, there has never been a 10/10 game, so you can feel at ease.
Also, I'll just come right out and say that the majority of sites give plenty of reasoning behind grades for games and the vast majority of sites have specific metrics on how games are graded. What I dislike is people who are constantly talking about shills with absolutely nothing to back it up. If you'd like, feel free to disprove some of these 10/10 ratings. It's probably more effort than just yelling shills, I know. Btw, I'm not defending Overwatch, specifically. Haven't played it, so I can't speak to it, but I find that reviewers are generally correct or close to it.
Have you read these 10/10 reviews?
You don't have to be paid to be a shill.
Reviews are subjective? Sorry maybe from a fanboi but I expect some objectivity from a "Professional Reviewer"
10/10 = no objectivity
All these "Professional" reviews do is make a 10/10 mean shit. because we all know that a 10/10 game has missing features that will be patched in at a later date.
"What Overwatch is missing the most at launch is a ranked mode. One is in the works, and was briefly tested in one of the closed betas, but it wasn’t great, and is currently being reworked for a June release. That’s all well and good, but until that happens, matchmaking in Quick Play is a little screwy, relying only on MMR to make sure you’re getting matched with “correct” opponents."
So what is it that you're looking for exactly? You say that you want objective reviews, but then go on to demonstrate something completely subjective with the text you quoted. So now we're not measuring games based on the game that is delivered, but what we would really like to see in the game? GTA V shipped with missing features. Also, Diablo 3 shipped with features that many people didn't like. However, as soon as you rate a game based on those missing features or undesirable features you're automatically taking away from the objectivity of the review.
There are standards involved with reviews, if you believe otherwise then you're just being silly. To believe that there is some big conspiracy surrounding the reviews industry and that someone can garner favorable reviews simply by paying someone or making promises is ludicrous. With sites like metacritic, now, this type of conspiracy theory is even more strained because it would mean influencing hundreds of reviewers, financially or otherwise. Do you honestly believe that is something that is realistic or plausible?
I would encourage you to have a look at the top games on metacritic of all time . Does it seem like a lot of shills? In general, the reviewer scores are mostly aligned with user reviews. If you disagree with the majority of the metacritic top games of all time, then maybe you have different standards than I do, but for the games I have played I can't say that I disagree with any game on the list. So wouldn't that say that the process works?
In addition to that, you have to understand that the majority of review sites work on a 10 point system. Does a 10/10 game mean that a game is devoid of any sort of flaw? No, probably not. It simply means that it's outstanding in all aspects. It could be a 95/100 or a 9500/10000, but do we really need to go to that level of differentiation? If that was the case, then I could accept that 100/100 is absolutely cream of the crop and nothing is wrong with it, but describe to me what the difference is between a 95 and a 96? Describe the differentiation between any two points in that scale. When you have that scale figured out, feel free to sell it to the industry because it's something that I'm sure would be truly valuable.
Comments
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy?
Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
As for which is worse, I don't really concern myself with that. But since I happen to think most publisher funded titles are competently made and, at least, average in the eyes of the (vast) majority - a 0/10 would hurt the "truth" more than a 10/10.
The only way to contribute is to be honest. If you can't manage that, you have nothing of value to contribute.
That's how I see it, anyway.
anyway we know that reviews mean nothing nowadays , bad or good ones who cares...see some actual gameplay , try it yourself , and decide
I agree so much with Zelda being a near perfect game; well, depending on which version, of course, but I adore them all equally. ^_^
See your above comment is saying only the wonderful magnificent you knows what a good game is and anyone who disagrees is a paid or has no idea. Well obviously that isn't the case, it's rather sad people actually believe what you do.
I could name you some, but would it matter? Reviews are subjective, hence the whole reason around something like metacritic. Based on metacritic, there has never been a 10/10 game, so you can feel at ease.
Also, I'll just come right out and say that the majority of sites give plenty of reasoning behind grades for games and the vast majority of sites have specific metrics on how games are graded. What I dislike is people who are constantly talking about shills with absolutely nothing to back it up. If you'd like, feel free to disprove some of these 10/10 ratings. It's probably more effort than just yelling shills, I know. Btw, I'm not defending Overwatch, specifically. Haven't played it, so I can't speak to it, but I find that reviewers are generally correct or close to it.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Especially when i see 10/10 review for a game with 100 million dollar marketing budgets.
That being said
Overwatch is very good "Quick Fix" game. For when you have bit of time you just want to have little fun.
Its not deep or complex. Nor it should be consumed for longer periods of time.
But its a game that I see myself playing in short bursts for years to come. Just like TF2
You don't have to be paid to be a shill.
Reviews are subjective? Sorry maybe from a fanboi but I expect some objectivity from a "Professional Reviewer"
10/10 = no objectivity
All these "Professional" reviews do is make a 10/10 mean shit. because we all know that a 10/10 game has missing features that will be patched in at a later date.
"What Overwatch is missing the most at launch is a ranked mode. One is in the works, and was briefly tested in one of the closed betas, but it wasn’t great, and is currently being reworked for a June release. That’s all well and good, but until that happens, matchmaking in Quick Play is a little screwy, relying only on MMR to make sure you’re getting matched with “correct” opponents."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/games/2016/05/25/overwatch-review-pc-your-new-heavyweight-champion/#793bae5250c3
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Too many folks want to compare scores of games, "Overwatch is better than BG?" That's not how it's done... It's on a game by game basis and those scores represent what the game did right and what it did wrong ( or what problem it has)... IF it doesn't have technical issues, and if it doesn't have moments that cut the momentum or interfere with the "fun", it's likely going to score higher than the game that might be deeper or more to your liking. The deeper a game is the more likely problems will arise. Those problems can hurt scores.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
How about you go look at how many players have completed Mythic raids in WoW? It's not a very high percentage why? Because it's hard to master.
There are only a few teams who compete on a Competive level in SC2 and HoTS why? Because it's hard to master.
There will only be a few teams who will compete at a Competive level in Overwatch why? Because it's hard to master.
There is a small percentage of players who can get to the highest Greater Rifts in D3 why? Because it's hard to master.
Now again you have shown and admitted your bias, bitterness and disdain for anything Blizzard has made recently so you are blind to the actual facts.
So what is it that you're looking for exactly? You say that you want objective reviews, but then go on to demonstrate something completely subjective with the text you quoted. So now we're not measuring games based on the game that is delivered, but what we would really like to see in the game? GTA V shipped with missing features. Also, Diablo 3 shipped with features that many people didn't like. However, as soon as you rate a game based on those missing features or undesirable features you're automatically taking away from the objectivity of the review.
There are standards involved with reviews, if you believe otherwise then you're just being silly. To believe that there is some big conspiracy surrounding the reviews industry and that someone can garner favorable reviews simply by paying someone or making promises is ludicrous. With sites like metacritic, now, this type of conspiracy theory is even more strained because it would mean influencing hundreds of reviewers, financially or otherwise. Do you honestly believe that is something that is realistic or plausible?
I would encourage you to have a look at the top games on metacritic of all time . Does it seem like a lot of shills? In general, the reviewer scores are mostly aligned with user reviews. If you disagree with the majority of the metacritic top games of all time, then maybe you have different standards than I do, but for the games I have played I can't say that I disagree with any game on the list. So wouldn't that say that the process works?
In addition to that, you have to understand that the majority of review sites work on a 10 point system. Does a 10/10 game mean that a game is devoid of any sort of flaw? No, probably not. It simply means that it's outstanding in all aspects. It could be a 95/100 or a 9500/10000, but do we really need to go to that level of differentiation? If that was the case, then I could accept that 100/100 is absolutely cream of the crop and nothing is wrong with it, but describe to me what the difference is between a 95 and a 96? Describe the differentiation between any two points in that scale. When you have that scale figured out, feel free to sell it to the industry because it's something that I'm sure would be truly valuable.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
The reviewers mention matchmaking is screwy, for a completely multiplayer game that forces you to use that matchmaking to play at all. It is a detriment to the game that is literally unavoidable. That's a minus at what is one of the most key points of a multiplayer experience. And it's something Blizzard screwed up already before. They didn't seem to have learned much.
Are we really advocating reviews that claim a game is a perfect 10 when a key mechanic is admittedly screwy.... Are we really defending a perfect 10 for a company that had this same exact issue with their prior release and seemed to have done nothing to improve it at release with this product?
It would almost be like The Witcher 3 missing facial animations for Geralt entirely.... And reviewers acting as if it's an understandable oversight, even when they made the same mistake with Witcher 2 and got knocked for it then, rightfully so.
So for me it isn´t a "perfect" game.
Just to play devils advocate though, a lot of times reviewers give and take points based on an override factor. Say in your example, matchmaking is problematic, -2 points... Yet some other factor overrides that by gaining a bonus point or two in it's pure awesomesauceness.
A lot of reviewers did that for Skyrim as an example, as well as explained why they did so, based on what had a greater impact on the experience as a whole.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii/critic-reviews
We all know how good and flawless the original incarnation of Diablo 3 was. It was a perfect 100 according to some of the professionals.
I'm criticizing the "Professional Reviewers" not the games.
IMHO the evidence is pretty strong for shilling
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee