@morganfell
-"Your agreement with the article still amounts to an opinion that lacks verifiable evidence."
No, the noted financial growth (doubling in 2 years) originally stated still counts as verifiable evidence to supplement the article's stance.
-"This isn’t a case of “We don’t know what we don’t know.” That of which we are unaware is on full display and has been stated countless times."
Pr...
-"I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing because I know that it is one of those things that lies beyond how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop."
This feels so strange to me. This is the equivalent of laying back in a comfy chair with a nice glass of Old Crow to flex your infinite wisdom that "we don't know what we don't know." That's just a simple tautology.
I appreciate the specificity you're getting at...
Unfortunately, that does seem to be the case.
Just to put this relatively simple principle into context: you'd literally need to be able to view Epic's financial statements between the reality we're both inhabiting and an alternate one. Since no one's capable of viewing that alternate reality, you're erecting an impossible standard for anyone to prove these types of claims. So, again, what renders such a rudimentary metric like a company's financial growth moot in this argument?
EDIT: Just to ...
You mean aside from its financial growth?
I'm in a similar spot as you. I'd love a physical release for this.
Sorry for the late response, but I think it's worthwhile now that I recalled this one. You're just using a red herring. Bringing up some fudged sales numbers (that've tipped too low AND too high for all consoles over the course of its history) doesn't really mean much for a guy who joined the writing staff for reviews & opinion articles in 2018.
You're building this manufactured dilemma of how bad sales numbers (from different writers) somehow pois...
But that's something this blog & a previous ones have touched on: a submitter doesn't just get to mark 'fixed' on Lame reports without due cause, or they'll likely face submission restrictions. Considering how this clarifies roles & responsibilities, it's reasonable to think some change may come from it.
@Knushwood
I do freelance writing for VGChartz & a couple other sites. Christopher & co. does know about it, and I have to follow a few special rules b/c of it.
[To keep this focused on the review, I'd like to leave it at that.]
@RgR
When considering the user reviews of said site have no validation as to who has or hasn't even driven the car? I'm tempted to treat them with ambivalence. Just look at Masterchief_thegoat's TLOU2 comparison. Hundreds/Thousands of users decided to review-bomb it.
You're misapplying an otherwise fine point for this argument. I'm not saying you can't feel which way the wind's blowing in general sentiment for a game; you&#...
-"You go to check their reviews and see that they gave Sponge Bob a 6."
Claiming the review is ridiculous then comparing its score to a $30 remaster is peak N4G commenting.
You're just restating your first comment with a different veneer. The point still stands: your whole comment consists of challenging what this reviewer has argued with "GoT's metacritic user rating disagrees." You're building the point up based on a fallacy than an actual counter-argument.
1.) Appeal to majority is a fallacious argument.
2.) Appeal to metacritic user majority is stupid in a special way.
I don't see how that logic follows with such a particular example. Your hypothetical attempt to fail MAY have been disregarded if it was just a 'Lame' or 'Other' one, but it still has a chilling effect to make other users reconsider their approval. All the while, said submission is hanging around in pending for someone like Christopher to weigh whether the report stands or not.
It sounds like you're digging for a con in an otherwise solid middle-gr...
It's worth pointing out Qt3 operates on the old Netflix-esque 'Love It/Hate It' metric.
N4G is really stringent on actually giving site bans. The typical reason usually comes down to plagiarism, but those posing comp. security issues or other special reasons could receive one too.
This ruling effectively eliminates gamingbolt's current trajectory. Just outright banning them without prior warning is outright unfair.
-Potential new boost in revenue enables him acquire more resources
-Perhaps he was able to acquire dev kits from other companies
-Has to wrestle what little popularity he's got against whatever indies may be on Game Pass during the Holidays
There are a plethora of potential reasons for this shift which aren't "damning" in the slightest.
Ouch!
Same. I'm singing it in my head now.
I told you $300 would get your foot in the door, but you just had to lowball them.