🚀 go-pugleaf

SpammersDie wrote:
> "CoinSpin" <coin^spam^spin@comcast.net> wrote in message 
> news:LKqdnaD9Z7r2QlvVnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com...
>   
>> Darin Johnson wrote:
>>     
>>> On Sep 9, 11:56 am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Most of the reviewers haven't ran into anything yet.  They are posting
>>>> their reviews *before* trying the game.  That rules out most of your
>>>> explanations.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> But I want my reviews before I buy a game.  If the only
>>> people doing reviews are professional gaming magazines and
>>> web sites, then you can't trust the reviews.  That's why I
>>> don't buy games until months or years after they come out :-)
>>>
>>>       
>> I think I kinda get Tim's point, though...  Amazon is supposed to have 
>> consumer reviews of a product by actual purchasers of the product, so how 
>> can the consumers rate it before it's even available for sale?
>>     
>
> I only care about that when it affects the accuracy of the reviews, and 
> accuracy doesn't seem to be in dispute here.
>   

Doesn't it?  I mean, I understand giving a bad review because of DRM, 
but they are giving the lowest possible review scores for the DRM issue 
ONLY, without having played a single solitary second of the game.  So it 
could have incredible, awesome, radically fun game play...  And have 
this DRM issue...  But if you just look at the Amazon score of 1 star, 
without delving deeper into why it's only got 1 star, you'd get a false 
impression that the entire game sucks ass.

So, yes, I'd say accuracy of the reviews should be questioned.  I stick 
by my earlier comment, letting someone rate a game they have NEVER EVEN 
PLAYED is just ridiculous.  But I'm torn, because I applaud the 
reviewers for attempting to make a stand against the  DRM through this 
review process...  Bah, it's making me schizophrenic!

CoinSpin