It's funny, not too long ago someone on here offhandedly said that Infinite was also a terrible piece of work, after about 3 comments back and forth, he never bothered to even add to what made it bad. So I took it as someone stating something that they weren't ready to defend. I myself had not had a chance to play the game yet because as soon as I purchased a cheap copy from Gamefly, my Xbox's Disc Drive laser gave out and wouldn't read any discs. So a wrench right into that of course, which means I'll have to try it on my PS3 at some point. Back to the article though, I feel like he was trying to be way too critical and dramatic about it. I've seen other reviews that were very harsh on a game, there's a few problems with Gameplay and story, or something else, and they immediately give it a trash can rating. I almost feel like the review despite some of his good points, doesn't know what a truly terrible piece of gaming is. Sonic Free Riders or the Retribution game another poster mentioned being two good examples, but despite those problems, it's not outright broken or unplayable. You should never be giving a game that low of a rating unless it's busted beyond belief. And Bioshock Infinite does not seem like one of those games. [quote]This is an old problem, but one that even relatively new sites show no inclination to address. When Polygon launched last year and began putting out higher caliber feature stories, I had some hope that they might approach reviews differently as well. I read their review policy and saw a lot of fuss about updating reviews over time but nothing new when it came to the scale. Worse, the scale they put forward actually validated and reinforced our current low standards, only gussied up with professional language. 9’s “may not innovate or be overly ambitious but are masterfully executed.” 7’s are good but “have some big ‘buts’”. A 5 “indicates a bland, underwhelming game that’s functional but little else.” Not 5 as average, as commonplace, the middle instead of the bottom of the scale. [b](Their 2’s, 3’s, & 4’s list some silly trinity of ‘complete’ failures to justify their existence.[/b])[/quote] That whole section is silly to me, but the bolded part is the worst. I haven't seen what Polygon had in their sections of very low ratings, but if this guy wants to give a 2 or 3 to this then make the offhanded remark that whatever they're giving low ratings is just to "justify their existence", then he's just rambling at this point. [quote]I continued to play highly reviewed games that not only underwhelmed but often stunned me with their failures. There were more 3’s [b](Skyward Sword, Halo 4, New Super Mario Bros 2)[/b][i](I didn't like Halo 4 after awhile, but lol at a 3 rating for it and the others)[/i] and 4’s [b](Skyrim, Dear Esther, Tomb Raider)[/b][i](head explodes)[/i] but not so many 5’s (Arkham City, Bastion), since my feelings didn’t often fall in the middle. Even 6’s that I mostly enjoyed (Red Dead Redemption, Fire Emblem: Awakening, Journey) were nothing to get that excited about. Only 7’s (Gone Home, The Last of Us, Wii Sports Resort)[lol Wii Sports Resort rated higher than RDR or FE:A, this guy is insane] and 8’s (The Walking Dead, Kirby’s Epic Yarn, Far Cry 2)[i][Someone I know played TWD, and he said it wasn't anything to be amazed at, some parts were terrible even, unless this is the decent version of it out there and not that other one I've heard about][/i] really started to get interesting, and there were a handful of amazing 9’s (The Binding of Isaac, Kentucky Route Zero, Spelunky). While I did play two 2’s (the other was Limbo), [b]I also played two 10’s (Minecraft[/b] and Demon’s Souls).[/quote] He's just -blam!-ing picking fights at this point: [quote][b]Of this sampling, you might agree with some of the scores,[/b](Lol no I -blam!-ing don't!) but how could anyone agree with all of them? That’s precisely the point – no one could, or should. And without an explanation, why should anyone care about numbers alone anyway? If I were to write a review, it would be my task to articulate why I thought the game deserved that number. And of course readers could decide how convincing they found it. [b]But some of these scores no doubt look ridiculous to anyone familiar with most reviews. The very outlandishness of my numbers points to how ingrained our pitiful review scale remains[/b](I don't read reviews for every game I come across and I still think you're a nut at this point Tevis, even if you're an articulated and longly-complicated one at that). It speaks to how easily we submit to the tyranny of the perceived majority. It’s the same kind of thinking that leads to the many ridiculous sacrosanct positions held by the gaming community. [b]To say you consider Ocarina of Time not a great Zelda or find Half-Life 2 overrated or prefer Metroid to Super Metroid, as I do, demands an explanation.[/b] [i]I'm breaking it down a bit to address that last bolded part, this is just ridiculous. I disagree with all of those points, Ocarina of Time was a great game, a great [b]Zelda[/b] game, and even though there are people out there who would willingly die to defend that statement, I don't understand how he can do a 180 and go after Half-Life 2 next. It's outdated to me and nothing impressive for me, since I've never played it probably, but it has a huge following for some reason right?[/i] [b] It invites skepticism of not only your opinions but of your very motives. What’s your deal? You’re just trolling for clicks. And why should I listen to you anyway? You didn't design the game. You don't represent the average gamer. You’re just some vocal minority.[/b][/quote] Them's fightin words pardner. I can't do it, I can't read past part 10, it's just too much...Go on...Without me...*dies*