Yuku free message boards

To attempt a serious answer, I guess it's that whenever there is a game that someone dislikes, they explain their dislike by falling back on the reason that it's old. Like, I don't like Bonk's Adventure, so I'm supposed to think that's because it's old. Of course, my interpretation is that the game was never that good.



And since an 8/10 is the most commonly awarded score, many games get a high score that shouldn't have. That's true of the present at least as much as it is true of the past. But most "professionals" have no ability to step outside of themselves and see that they are overrating games even as we speak, but sometimes even a "professional" game reviewer can have enough of a modicum of perspective to see that an older game was overrated. Of course, they then misinterpret that, but what can you do?

i've been challenged in game plots before in that they've made me think about things in ways i wouldn't have normally. the biggest one that comes to mind is final fantasy 7. the whole fucking w/ genetics plotline was something i never thought about, really.

Why did this guy even say that? Obviously Final Fantasy 7 is one of the best-selling games of all time, so it's not like it's something we would have just forgotten about. Therefore, if you're gonna mention FF7, you shouldn't mention it just to toss it out there ('cause it already is out there), but should elaborate a little on what you mean. And "fucking with genetics" isn't even a sentence. So, what made him think differently? He wasn't aware of genetics at all? Has he, like, ever read the news? There also had been stories about man playing god before, like Frankenstein or Jurassic Park.



I remember that one time Facility Pro was talking to someone about Metal Gear Solid's story, and the other guy said that it had a challenging story. His argument seemed to boil down to that, before Metal Gear Solid, he never realized that the government could lie about things. Uh, hello??

Do these people even exist in reality? I guess if you're uninformed enough, learning even the most trivial things will seem profound.

"Seat of your pants" is a standard expression. Of course, it is a cliche' and a dead metaphor.

One way to tell if a metaphor is dead is if it is an idiom. Sometimes people use cliches' like that while plainly not knowing what they originally meant. Orwell gave the example of "tow the line".

Some people write "should of". When pronounced aloud, it is indistinguishable from "should've", but you should know that the meaning is "should have".

If you're worried that videogames get all the fun of having horribly written reviews devoted to them, you can check out this AICN review of Cloverfield:

this movie is like a pussy that eats YOU out.

NOTE: I'm sure that IGN movie reviews are also a source of terrible review writing, but I can't bring myself to read them. I know that they gave Alien vs Predator 2 three-and-a-half stars. I'm sure that's reasonable!