That's a new one, "family friendly"? Who are what dumped on it for that?

To answer your question above: http://www.metacritic.com/g...

Take a look for yourself at the harshest critics here. Story, gameplay, and graphics are all criticisms literally mentioned in some of those descriptions.

Sorry about that. This one shouldn't get that error message: http://www.metacritic.com/g...

-"there's nothing wrong with any of the things you cited that would have been mentioned in those "reviews."

I mean...you're literally just spouting your opinion against said "reviews" when that's not even the reason people have been responding to your initial comment. It totally contradicts your unjustified assumption that people dumped on it for being "family friendly." People dumped on it b/c of perceived flaws...like any other game.

-"Graphics are what they are because of the art direction - criticism of that is just silly."

What? Of course that's valid criticism. It's on the team for aping a bland art style you'd find from a third-rate Pixar-wannabe, not the reviewers for pointing it out.

I mean...a disparity between 54 vs. 65 (critic/user) doesn't really strike me as that remarkable. It's of even less consequence to me when considering I give no credibility to metacritic user reviews. But if such an untrustworthy source as metacritic users is enough to determine a game's success to you, why wouldn't critics hold more weight in this instance too?

-"The game was dumped on for being a "kids" game by some people. that's dumping on it for being "family friendly."

1.) You're going to have to provide sources of said people dumping on it, hopefully from 'professional' game critics in order to make some case. Because the only negative ones I've personally seen went after story, game design, lackluster co-op, mechanics, unjust $60 price point, and on and on and on.

2.) Now you're moving the goalposts from your initial comment. Your first comment (which everyone responded to) presented the assumption of it being a kids game/family friendly as being the reason it was dumped on--presumably by the vast majority of those critical of it. Now we're stepping away from to argue about what 'some people' have said about it before. Are you willing to admit most critics/gamers who did dump on the game simply critiqued it like any other game, and not in some special category for being a kid game?

-"No, it's not a valid criticism. Saying the graphics are "bad" just because you (and I'm using "you" in a general sense, here) don't like the art direction is idiotic."

Why? Seriously, art style informs the way the game looks just as much as animations or textures. Sure, if it's simplistic to the point "I don't like art direction ='s bad" then fine, but that's not really the case here. It's an assessment of Knack's incredibly basic, uninspired art style which can inform how everything else looks: bland environments and all. Heck, at launch some reviewers' mentioned framerate issues when a lot of particles were on screen; in fact, particles is really the only one feature I can think of that even tough critics applauded at the time.

-"The disparity is in the positive numbers - 9 vs. 153 critic/user written reviews. And come on... you know that the number is going to mathematically even out when that 6.5 user rating score is based off of 1106 user ratings."

Well, what you wrote previously wasn't really made clear in respect to written reviews. And no...I don't rely on a user rating 'evening out' based off 1000+ user ratings b/c unreliable community averages can be sporadic on there to begin with. I've seen low-rated games net moderate scores too.

-"...if you click on that link: http://www.metacritic.com/g... the positive ratings slightly more than double the negative ones (I'm not counting the mixed reviews - just the negative vs. positive). Critics can be wrong."

So...why have the goalposts shifted in disregarding mixed reviews? Can those also not fit into being 'critical' of the game as well? And as I've already stated: you're literally using one of the most unreliable sources in order to prove critics being 'wrong' here. With the exception of angry fans blasting a game for a buggy launch, I put no trust in metacritic users. You're testing my patience with all this whittling down of inconvenient data and backpedaling.

-"Not liking the art style isn't a valid criticism of a game. It's just not. Of course it informs the way the game looks, but it doesn't determine whether the graphics are "bad."

1.) Presenting little else than "it's just not" as your counterargument holds little water. I can say "it just is" and we're on equal footing.

2.) Do you not see the contradictory nature in these two sentences back-to-back? If you acknowledge art style does inform a game's look (i.e. what's constantly brought up when discussing graphics), how can we not criticize a game for having bad graphics when it has such a bland art style? There's no better AAA-priced case study as Knack to assess that.

Why are you suddenly specifically extrapolating minor objective measurements (buggy textures, etc.) as the only valid method of assessing a game's graphics when that's rarely how critic reviews operate? Reviewers don't focus on the Bioshock series' unbuggy textures when discussing graphics; instead, they're evaluating the environmental design, characters, enemy design, etc.

-"That's a performance issue, not really a bad graphics problem."

I suppose that's more of a grey area topic, as performance can indeed be more informative of gameplay. But in relation to graphics, I like to see in a graphics context too. A consistency to see those pretty images is just as important too.

-"Which is why I focused on the number of positive vs the number of negative rather than the scores themselves."

Okay. I've taken notice of that, which I still covered within an earlier response about giving no credence to metacritic users to begin with (ratings, reviews, stats, whatever) outside of a very specific context. And why relying on them as some gotcha for more critical reviewers being 'wrong' does nothing.

-"Well, that's interesting... considering that you're using metacritic as an allegedly reliable source of information in order to prove critics are "right" in their assessment of it being a "bad" game, here... but you're dismissing 2/3 of the information..."

...because your initial response back to me never require me to do such a thing. You're either being willfully ignorant or incredibly dishonest of what set off this entire thing in the first place:

1.) You: an assertion of Knack being dumped on for being more family friendly/kids game
2.) Me: a refutation to said disingenuous claim providing a link that showed what critical reviewers were ACTUALLY dumping on the game for.

That's it. That's literally all the conversation ought to be riding on, of which it's gone so far off course you didn't even bother addressing my direct question about this a couple comments ago.

The back-and-forth regarding graphics is really doing nothing for me other than to waste time at this point--of which you've already wasted enough already.