My Negative, Finite Review

[Ayayron]

For those who want a short statement with a numerical score: read the last paragraph.

I don't intend to write this review to convince anyone that loves Infinite to jump on the negativity train with me, but I've been noticing a lack of articulation from some of the community that has not been satisfied with the game. I merely intend to express my reasons why I was disappointed with Bioshock: Infinite overall. Forgive me if I concentrate too much on the negative aspects, but with a game such as this, the positives can be found anywhere else with minimal effort. There is no need for me to do so. I have nothing to prove. I am trying to review this product on its own merits; however, in some instances I do need to provide some comparing and contrasting with the original to further illustrate my points. As a reference and a heads up, I am not a lover of the original game in the franchise either. I thought it was solid, but not necessarily the masterpiece it is claimed to be. So overall, try to take my thoughts as what they are --just one man's attempt at explaining his feelings towards this game.

For a franchise that has roots in creating a good atmosphere combined with a marketing campaign showcasing the environment (not to mention the countless reviews gushing over it), Bioshock: Infinite was lackluster. This is not due to built up or unrealistic expectations. The first major concern is the lost opportunity to embrace the setting. In the beginning sequences of Infinite, the idea of a floating city was touched upon and showcased in several places ; soon after rescuing Elizabeth, I got the sense it was forgotten about. This could have been any city -- not necessarily a fantastical one built and living in the sky. The content of the city was very uninspired as well. Throughout the game you travel through much of the city and explore various parts of it. For the life of me I could not explain to you the environments that I saw or the places I visited mere days after playing it. The city was forgettable and generic.

This creates further problems when the gameplay has a secondary focus of encouraging you to explore and find "goodies" to assist you in your travels. If I'm going to be spending hours of extra time exploring through spare offices, trash cans, desks, and shelves to find next to nothing, It would at least be nice to be doing this in an environment that I find breathtaking and memorable. This is direct contrast to Bioshock 1, which triumphed in this regard. The item system was ultimately the same between these games with the risks, time investment, and rewards being very similar. The main difference was that I found Rapture a complete joy to explore for much of the playthrough. Bioshock 1 used shadows and lighting masterfully to craft an environment that could generate thoughts and emotions in the gamer. This game took a different approach by trying to embrace the daylight, the colors, and the overall vibrance of a city built in the past -- but failed to generate any of the interest, emotional, or intellectual appeal of its predecessor. Another lost opportunity.

Let's move on further into more of the actual make-up of the city, it's population. A short way of describing my thoughts on this topic is that the city of rapture which was beaten, broken, and depopulated felt more alive than this city full of lifeless people. When I walked into the streets of rapture, full of the destruction and debris of previous conflicts I could imagine in my head what may have happened here. I could envision the horror of what it would have been like to be on the streets, or in the room when the city started in its downfall. I could picture these streets and the buildings before the downturn and envision what life might have been for them in the past. This was a vastly underappreciated aspect of the original Bioshock. In Infinite, we have a city that is populated with people that have nothing to say, are fixed in place, and add very little insight and value to my experience. Many of these people are often complete copies of a character several feet away. The beginning directly after the baptism sequence is an embarrassment. In games of the past, it could be justified due to technical limitations. In a franchise like half life, technical limitations were mitigated by having these copied characters actually be the same person. What happens to one happens to the other, they are the same and merely are being put into the story to give you familiar faces and further emotional weight to the story. This cannot possibly be the case in this game. Another lost opportunity.

The main character is another example of lazy storytelling. The character starts out as a blank slate, with little to no back-story, previous experience in prior games, expectations, or personality. This is not inherently a bad thing, but it is in this case. Over time, some pieces of his life are scattered into the story when necessary. The downside to this is that for much of the game I have no reason to care about him. I have no reason to be surprised by his past, any actions he took, any actions he chooses to take, or much of what he has to say. I don't know him, I was given little back story, his lack of personality and lack of a past of any kind for much of the game gives me no basis to have any meaningful opinions or reactions to what happens in the story when it concerns him. Surely he becomes a bit more developed as the story moves on -- but again, how can I possibly be surprised or shocked when being in this lazy storytelling environment. Would it be a twist if I told you that I was a girl? Would it be a twist if I told you that I played this on a different platform than you guessed? No, it would not. The characters that drive the story are also very uninspired and generic ; they are often too reminiscent of the original Bioshock game with respect to the story arch and evolution of the events. One interpretation of the ending may suggest that this may be intentional, but I think it's more likely that it was sloppy and unimaginative storytelling at work more than anything.

One issue that has plagued this franchise from the start is the poor pacing and the poor structure of the story. Infinite is no different. Throughout many of the first hours, it is hard to tell at what act of the story you are in. The events that the character experiences in the game are often very bland and impact-less. Events trigger you to do other events before you can do the original event, and while you are on your way to completing your secondary event you have to do a third quest to accomplish the previous. Where exactly am I in the story now? Is what I'm doing currently truly important? I don't know, let's just continue and see where the story goes. The third act problems have been addressed before with the Bioshock games, but it should also be noted that it is actually hard to even know when the end of the game is approaching. The original Bioshock had this problem more than this one, where the player thinks they are finishing up the game and yet they still find themselves playing several hours later with the same feeling. The third act in this game drags on a bit unnecessarily, and much of it is to do with the constant sidetracking that is due to the "mission" structures.

I don't necessarily want to get into the nuts and bolts behind the ending, or address any spoilers. What I think is important is that at this point, a shocking discovery near the end is becoming expected with this series. I found myself anticipating this and guessing the "twist" before it was unveiled. Honestly, it was more of a "I hope they don't go there with this" than a guess, but it turns out my fears were warranted. I won't give away the details, but what I can say is that they introduce similar "discoveries" that many movies/books/games have done in the past whenever time travel and multi-dimensional story elements are added. None of these discoveries were particularly interesting or surprising. When I look at the final story, the discoveries seem completely self serving -- what was the point? What was the story trying to say or add? Was there an overall message? The twist and the discoveries exist merely as a facade of complexity and intelligence to try to convince the player that something meaningful or insightful just happened. It did not. The story is empty and hollow. Complexity and convoluted stories should not simply be interpreted as "good" or "smart" stories. There is a difference. I'd like to address some of the story elements as well before I move on to other thoughts. I felt that another lost opportunity was the lack of utilization of the racist and historic themes of the story. This could have potentially been used as a creative parallel to current events, but this was not really addressed. The social environment of the setting was also forgotten about and under-utilized like many more things in the game. Another lost opportunity.

Now in terms of gameplay, something that I haven't directly addressed yet with my thoughts. I found the actual vigors to be quite bland. I didn't find them nearly as interesting, useful, or creative as magical abilities in other games or the abilities in the original Bioshock. The comparison with the original may be nostalgia, but either way I did not find myself using them very much or being particularly interested in them or their effects. I felt the same way about the actual weapons as well. Many of them did not have much of a role, and some of them seemed to just be repeats of one another with a different skin. I finished the game with close to 6000 silver pieces as well, not because I was some champion of scavenging, but because I never found myself needing or wanting to upgrade many of my guns or any of my vigors. Why should I bother upgrading a vigor that I find uninteresting and not very useful with a mild upgrade that costs me over 1000 silver? I'll pass. It turns out that much of the upgrading was not even remotely necessary anyway.

Like the story and significant characters in the universe, the enemies that are actively being battled throughout the duration of the game are boring and monotonous. Guys with guns. More guys with guns. Guys dressed differently with the slightly different guns. Sure they added a couple tweaks to the recipe like the patriot and the handyman, but when compared against the originality and impact of the Big Daddy, there is no comparison. The lack of diversity is also apparent in how much they had to re-use the patriot just to add some sort of variety to the battles. The patriot was, what I thought, an interesting mini boss at the time. Little did I know he would be one of the main show of force throughout the rest of the game. Simply stunning in the lack of creativity coming from the same developer that introduced the iconic characters of the original game. The actual battles play out repetitively throughout many of the hours, and the A.I. behind many of these troops add no extra interest.

Auto save is one of the issues that has been addressed with previous comments, but I would like to add that I agree with the sentiment about it and I was negatively affected by it twice. I had to redo some lengthy sequences multiple times due to in game problems like getting stuck between barrels without any way of escape. Auto save only is a needless feature that introduces no value and only introduces negative aspects. I don't understand anyone who tries to justify this. It also inhibits experimentation.

I don't find myself caring much about the graphical engine because I tend to prefer content and quality over any visual glamour. But with the bitter taste that was left in my mouth with the other aspects of this game, I feel the need to provide more evidence of the laziness behind this development. The game looked good, but was this a 6 year advancement since the original Bioshock? I don't think so.

Obviously, Infinite has some positive aspects to it. I am not trying to detract from the experience as a whole. This is one of the only games I ever played where I enjoyed having a "partner". I didn't resent Elizabeth, and I actively looked forward to having her back with me when we separated. This is an achievement, make no mistake about it. Removing hacking from the game when compared to the original was another good move. And overall, the final battle sequence before the end of the game was a fitting way to escalate the gameplay. It was a much better alternative to introducing a lame and trivial boss like Bioshock 1 did. Not every game needs a "final boss".

I don't think numeric scores for art have much merit, but I know how obsessed many people are with them so I will do my best. I treat scores out of 10 a little differently than most. Many reviewers have ratings similar to a 6 being "okay" and a 7 being "good" and an 8 being "great", so on and so forth. Do must of us think that the majority of games that get 8's and 9's are great? Do most of us think that the majority of titles that get released should be 8's or 9's? I don't think so. If every game is an 8 or a 9, shouldn't standards be raised? There's no shame in having a score above a 5. I see it as a spectrum; anything below a five is on the bad side of the spectrum and anything above a 5 is on the good side of the spectrum. Let me repeat that ... anything above a 5 is on the good side of the spectrum. For me, it's a matter of how good. I look at the game based on originality, quality, message, gameplay, fun, longevity, and a myriad of other factors. Based on my views above, I would rate this as being "okay" with a 6/10 score.

[Lewellyn]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από CordedUberator:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Mumboejumboh:

I don't care that he dislikes the.....

It is a review. It is going over .....

Shaddup.

[CordedUberator]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από kingoficecream:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από CordedUberator:

It is a review. It is going over .....

Shaddup.

But I like writing stuff. How dare you end my squabble! Arrghhhhh-*is frozen*

[Shadowspaz]

I definitely see Mumboejumboh's point, here, but yeah, this could pass as a review. Certainly not one you'd find on a respected site, or one that you'd base a purchase off, but as a dictionary-defined review.

The thing is, when most people see "review," they think it'll be something that offers both pros and cons (Although it could exaggerate one side or there other, which is where the bias gets off-putting- IF you disagree, that is), but ultimately offer a neutral view of something they're considering buying. And from the neutrality of that, they can develop their own opinions, and with their own tastes, decide if it's worth getting.

This review does not do that. It is not a balanced view (Yes, as stated in the OP), which also makes the negative bias very prominent (Which, for a review, is not helpful), and prevents people from developing their own opinions about it. It isn't "Here is what I felt about the game; what do you think?" It's more "Here is why it's bad, now agree with me." I'm not saying he's only looking for people to agree, but that, to someone with a neutral stance on it, after reading such a post, they won't be left with any information to disagree.

Sure- It's a review. But to people making an informed decision, this is not helpful. A helpful negative review would express the pros, as well as cons, and illustrate how the cons overshadow all else so it isn't worth getting.

It isn't that it contradicts the dictionary definition, but that it contradicts people's expectations of a review. And this is why Mumboejumboh is calling this into question. Are we good, now? lol

[Mumboejumboh]

Well, shadowspaz hit what I felt on the head...and very eloquently, too.

[Lewellyn]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Shadowspaz:

I definitely see Mumboejumboh's point, here, but yeah, this could pass as a review. Certainly not one you'd find on a respected site, or one that you'd base a purchase off, but as a dictionary-defined review......

This review does not do that. It is not a balanced view (Yes, as stated in the OP), which also makes the negative bias very prominent (Which, for a review, is not helpful), and prevents people from developing their own opinions about it. It isn't "Here is what I felt about the game; what do you think?" It's more "Here is why it's bad, now agree with me." I'm not saying he's only looking for people to agree, but that, to someone with a neutral stance on it, after reading such a post, they won't be left with any information to disagree.....

1st, you are reading an exclusionary negative review, this doesn't mean that OP says that there ISN'T a positive side, this means that the review will focus on the negatives (in other words this is just going to be a list of cons, it never says otherwise). No, this doesn't indicate bias. Bias is jumping to a conclusion or supporting a side without looking at the arguments or evidence, he states there are positives but he just isn't going to include them. Just because something isn't balanced in showing both sides does not mean that it is biased.

Furthermore, when the OP says:

"I don't intend to write this review to convince anyone that loves Infinite to jump on the negativity train with me"

"I merely intend to express my reasons why I was disappointed with Bioshock: Infinite overall."\

in the first paragraph you turn this into "here is why it's bad, now agree with me." Nope, you strawmanned it.

A review is purely opinion, you take a review based on how well you think they presented their opinions, and you cross reference multiple reviews to compare the ins and outs of what people say. IE if you look and see that a lot of people say the gunplay is terrible, maybe it is FOR THEM this doesn't mean it will be the same for you. A review will never be definitive as IT IS PURELY OPINION.

[General Plastro]

Again, i support this kind of review as i am a very pessimist person.

Some of you guys have to understand that some people (like myself and the OP) qualifies things based on how much "they dont suck", as i would say. Infinite is far from being a bad game, probably one of the best from 2013 (if you count only "AAA" titles, at least).

Also, the OP went far and beyond most of the "official" reviews i have seen on "serious" review sites *ahem... IGN*

All reviews (not just for games, mind you) are biased and have a strong opinion behind them, sometimes even an agenda (reviewing is a bussiness and alot of money can be made from it, whatever you like that ideia it or not). We all know the case where a certain reviewer got fired for giving Kane & Lynch 2 a bad score.

So, my message to you guys is: never take reviews from anyone seriously unless you know the reviewer has the same mindset as you .

With all that said, i think Infinite got the 10/10 and GOTY everyone manly because every AAA titles we had for the past 4 or so years have been disapointment after disapointment (at least in the FPS genre).

"When your in a sea of s.h.i.t, a rotten wood looks heaven to you".

[Unredemption]

Oh man, oh wow. Took me 12 hours to beat, and that's with my pausing the game to go out and eat lunch with friends. I'm seriously glad I only spend 7 dollars on this.

[Mumboejumboh]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από General Plastro:

Again, i support this kind of review as i am a very pessimist person.

Some of you guys have to understand that some people (like myself and the OP) qualifies things based on how much "they dont suck", as i would say. Infinite is far from being a bad game, probably one of the best from 2013 (if you count only "AAA" titles, at least).

Also, the OP went far and beyond most of the "official" reviews i have seen on "serious" review sites *ahem... IGN*

All reviews (not just for games, mind you) are biased and have a strong opinion behind them, sometimes even an agenda (reviewing is a bussiness and alot of money can be made from it, whatever you like that ideia it or not). We all know the case where a certain reviewer got fired for giving Kane & Lynch 2 a bad score.

So, my message to you guys is: never take reviews from anyone seriously unless you know the reviewer has the same mindset as you .

With all that said, i think Infinite got the 10/10 and GOTY everyone manly because every AAA titles we had for the past 4 or so years have been disapointment after disapointment (at least in the FPS genre).

"When your in a sea of s.h.i.t, a rotten wood looks heaven to you".

Are you sure you're a pessimist and not just kind of a jerk? I mean you basically just said that the only reason Bioshock Infinite was liked is because everything else was even worse...and that's just being overly negative. It's not a flawless diamond of a gem but it's still a solid game with a good story. Not everyone's particular cup of tea but an enjoyable experience for those that like the flavor.

Personally I find no real value in purely negative reviews...well, apart from comedic value in certain circumstances anyway. What's the point in reading the rest of the review when the guy basically says "I don't like this and this is going to be completely negative but I don't expect anyone to change their viewpoint over this"?

A review, much less a GOOD review (as in quality, not personal favorings), serves to be informative. You cover the points, how you felt about them, and then offer (or attempt to offer) a neutral stance as well. You could say that the visuals in a game were impressive from a technical standpoint but they didn't really impress you. Bam, there you've given your viewpoint while also explaining the nature of the situation at hand.

To be perfectly honest even in spite of all I've written I'm not sure WHY this 'review' exists in the first place. It's a long-winded wholly-negative post about a game that is long past a point where any review would have a negligible impact on sales. Bioshock Infinite was a success even if only from a sales standpoint and I would imagine almost all of the people who even bothered to glance at this post already owned the game. Even then, if you already owned the game you had already formed your own opinions and feelings about it and the poster THEMSELVES stated that they're not even trying to sway people that like the game to their view.

So I ask: Why?

This is either a legitimate yet entirely pointless endeavor in review making or perhaps the most bizarre form of trolling I've encountered of late. Who can even say?

[Lewellyn]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Mumboejumboh:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από General Plastro:

Again, i support this kind of review as i am a very pessimist person.

Some of you guys have to understand that some people (like myself and the OP) qualifies things based on how much "they dont suck", as i would say. Infinite is far from being a bad game, probably one of the best from 2013 (if you count only "AAA" titles, at least).

Also, the OP went far and beyond most of the "official" reviews i have seen on "serious" review sites *ahem... IGN*

All reviews (not just for games, mind you) are biased and have a strong opinion behind them, sometimes even an agenda (reviewing is a bussiness and alot of money can be made from it, whatever you like that ideia it or not). We all know the case where a certain reviewer got fired for giving Kane & Lynch 2 a bad score.

So, my message to you guys is: never take reviews from anyone seriously unless you know the reviewer has the same mindset as you .

With all that said, i think Infinite got the 10/10 and GOTY everyone manly because every AAA titles we had for the past 4 or so years have been disapointment after disapointment (at least in the FPS genre).

"When your in a sea of s.h.i.t, a rotten wood looks heaven to you".

Are you sure you're a pessimist and not just kind of a jerk? I mean you basically just said that the only reason Bioshock Infinite was liked is because everything else was even worse...and that's just being overly negative. It's not a flawless diamond of a gem but it's still a solid game with a good story. Not everyone's particular cup of tea but an enjoyable experience for those that like the flavor.

Personally I find no real value in purely negative reviews...well, apart from comedic value in certain circumstances anyway. What's the point in reading the rest of the review when the guy basically says "I don't like this and this is going to be completely negative but I don't expect anyone to change their viewpoint over this"?

A review, much less a GOOD review (as in quality, not personal favorings), serves to be informative. You cover the points, how you felt about them, and then offer (or attempt to offer) a neutral stance as well. You could say that the visuals in a game were impressive from a technical standpoint but they didn't really impress you. Bam, there you've given your viewpoint while also explaining the nature of the situation at hand.

To be perfectly honest even in spite of all I've written I'm not sure WHY this 'review' exists in the first place. It's a long-winded wholly-negative post about a game that is long past a point where any review would have a negligible impact on sales. Bioshock Infinite was a success even if only from a sales standpoint and I would imagine almost all of the people who even bothered to glance at this post already owned the game. Even then, if you already owned the game you had already formed your own opinions and feelings about it and the poster THEMSELVES stated that they're not even trying to sway people that like the game to their view.

So I ask: Why?

This is either a legitimate yet entirely pointless endeavor in review making or perhaps the most bizarre form of trolling I've encountered of late. Who can even say?

No, you conflate a passive-aggressive review with that of a "neutral (as you say, but a neutral view doesn't exist)" review that posts both goods and bads. Btw "balanced" would be the word you're looking for.

You don't have to, at all, post something good after you criticize. You can try to use apologetics and explain why it MAY be this way (technically/aesthetically), but aesthetics is aesthetics, opinions are opinions. And lets not confuse technical criticisms (such as if a game uses a certain amount of pixels or if it has multi-core support) with that of reviewing the gameplay.

Confusing passive-aggressive critiques with neutral ones is quite common. A reviewer doesn't need to post "well the game is bad at this but i guess it can be good at this if you want it too.. i mean "IM JUST SAYING" " No. Sorry. Doesn't really help. A hard critique is always better than a wishy washy critique.

And it's ironic, but the person you're replying too actually took more the side of an optimist, maybe he didn't mean to. The "by how much they don't suck" is a relationship of how much they do good. But then he relates it to other games and says that among AAA titles that bioshock ranks high as being the least "sucky" in a certain amount of time. Idk, he's confusing.

[Bellomy]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Unredemption:

Oh man, oh wow. Took me 12 hours to beat

That's...a reasonably long length of time.

[Shadowspaz]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από kingoficecream:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Shadowspaz:

I definitely see Mumboejumboh's point, here, but yeah, this could pass as a review. Certainly not one you'd find on a respected site, or one that you'd base a purchase off, but as a dictionary-defined review......

This review does not do that. It is not a balanced view (Yes, as stated in the OP), which also makes the negative bias very prominent (Which, for a review, is not helpful), and prevents people from developing their own opinions about it. It isn't "Here is what I felt about the game; what do you think?" It's more "Here is why it's bad, now agree with me." I'm not saying he's only looking for people to agree, but that, to someone with a neutral stance on it, after reading such a post, they won't be left with any information to disagree.....

1st, you are reading an exclusionary negative review, this doesn't mean that OP says that there ISN'T a positive side, this means that the review will focus on the negatives (in other words this is just going to be a list of cons, it never says otherwise). No, this doesn't indicate bias. Bias is jumping to a conclusion or supporting a side without looking at the arguments or evidence, he states there are positives but he just isn't going to include them. Just because something isn't balanced in showing both sides does not mean that it is biased.

Furthermore, when the OP says:

"I don't intend to write this review to convince anyone that loves Infinite to jump on the negativity train with me"

"I merely intend to express my reasons why I was disappointed with Bioshock: Infinite overall."\

in the first paragraph you turn this into "here is why it's bad, now agree with me." Nope, you strawmanned it.

A review is purely opinion, you take a review based on how well you think they presented their opinions, and you cross reference multiple reviews to compare the ins and outs of what people say. IE if you look and see that a lot of people say the gunplay is terrible, maybe it is FOR THEM this doesn't mean it will be the same for you. A review will never be definitive as IT IS PURELY OPINION.

If you're going to write that much, it would be better if you didn't completely miss my point by the first sentence. xD

I know what this is. I know it's a purely negative assessment of the game. But, as I spent that whole post saying, that is not what people think (or expect) when they see the word 'review.' I know he added disclaimers. I know he didn't aim to convince anyone of anything. But these disclaimers don't change what people EXPECT from a review.

And please, don't start throwing around names of fallacies. That's the amateur way of showcasing intellect without providing a point. The sentence after my "strawman" - "I'm not saying he's only looking for people to agree, but that, to someone with a neutral stance on it, after reading such a post, they won't be left with any information to disagree." - Shows my meaning of that statement. It isn't "agree with me," as a command. It's that people with a neutral stance on the game (Such as potential buyers- The demographic that would be interested in reviews) would not be left with any reason to disagree. They will not have formed their own opinion- They will have taken his.

[Lewellyn]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Shadowspaz:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από kingoficecream:

1st, you are reading an exclusionary negative review, this doesn't mean that OP says that there ISN'T a positive side, this means that the review will focus on the negatives (in other words this is just going to be a list of cons, it never says otherwise). No, this doesn't indicate bias. Bias is jumping to a conclusion or supporting a side without looking at the arguments or evidence, he states there are positives but he just isn't going to include them. Just because something isn't balanced in showing both sides does not mean that it is biased.

Furthermore, when the OP says:

"I don't intend to write this review to convince anyone that loves Infinite to jump on the negativity train with me"

"I merely intend to express my reasons why I was disappointed with Bioshock: Infinite overall."\

in the first paragraph you turn this into "here is why it's bad, now agree with me." Nope, you strawmanned it.

A review is purely opinion, you take a review based on how well you think they presented their opinions, and you cross reference multiple reviews to compare the ins and outs of what people say. IE if you look and see that a lot of people say the gunplay is terrible, maybe it is FOR THEM this doesn't mean it will be the same for you. A review will never be definitive as IT IS PURELY OPINION.

If you're going to write that much, it would be better if you didn't completely miss my point by the first sentence. xD

I know what this is. I know it's a purely negative assessment of the game. But, as I spent that whole post saying, that is not what people think (or expect) when they see the word 'review.' I know he added disclaimers. I know he didn't aim to convince anyone of anything. But these disclaimers don't change what people EXPECT from a review.

And please, don't start throwing around names of fallacies. That's the amateur way of showcasing intellect without providing a point. The sentence after my "strawman" - "I'm not saying he's only looking for people to agree, but that, to someone with a neutral stance on it, after reading such a post, they won't be left with any information to disagree." - Shows my meaning of that statement. It isn't "agree with me," as a command. It's that people with a neutral stance on the game (Such as potential buyers- The demographic that would be interested in reviews) would not be left with any reason to disagree. They will not have formed their own opinion- They will have taken his.

No, you definitely strawmanned it. That isn't what he said, you threw words into his mouth and ignored the ENTIRE PURPOSE OF DISCLAIMERS. He added disclaimers for a reason, and if people want to be retarded and base their sole opinion on one review, especially one that says will only be covering what he didn't like, that's their fault, not his.

[Shadowspaz]

I never said that's what he said.

But the disclaimers still contradict what people expect of a review, see? They click on this seeing "review," and what they get is a "I'm not going to be listing any of the pros, just the cons, so don't let this influence your opinion at all." Disclaimers or not, people expect balanced reviews from reviews, which this is not. They expect a review that AT LEAST tries to influence their opinion, which this EXPLICITLY says it isn't doing.

This review contradicts what people expect when they come to this thread- That's all. Disclaimers won't change that unless you put them in the title.

This is why Mumboejumboh brought the title of "Negative Finite Review" into question, and I agree. 'Review' gives the wrong idea.

[Lewellyn]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Shadowspaz:

I never said that's what he said.

But the disclaimers still contradict what people expect of a review, see? They click on this seeing "review," and what they get is a "I'm not going to be listing any of the pros, just the cons, so don't let this influence your opinion at all." Disclaimers or not, people expect balanced reviews from reviews, which this is not. They expect a review that AT LEAST tries to influence their opinion, which this EXPLICITLY says it isn't doing.

This review contradicts what people expect when they come to this thread- That's all. Disclaimers won't change that unless you put them in the title.

You rehashed someone's words into your opinion of what they said (created a strawman). Then you attacked the strawman, not his actual post. Saying "this is what he actually means to accomplish" is a strawman.

"They expect a review that AT LEAST tries to influence their opinion, which this EXPLICITLY says it isn't doing." How do you know that is what they expect? And no, it says in the OP that the review is just his opinion (which is what a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ review is.. do i really have to post the dictionary definition again?).

[Shadowspaz]

Do I need to explain that I'm not talking about a dictionary definition again?

I did not rehash his words into my own opinion- I took what he ACTUALLY said and extrapolated that to the effect they would have. Not even saying "this is what he means to accomplish", but saying "This is the effect it can have on people to have a one-sided review."

If you know NOTHING about a game, and you only read one review, that highlights every little thing the game does wrong, then you will have a negative image of the game- That's all there is to this. Why does this need to be a big deal? Why are you clinging to the "strawman" so hard?