He's directly comparing it to other F2P games and other games in its respective genre (as per the review guide, which I have brought up numerous times).
I mean does he really need to explicitly say "this game would be scored lower if I had to pay $60" for you to believe that? It's a pretty ridiculous argument for obvious reasons. In that case, every review should read, "this should be counted in the metagame on SW". It's like the people who justified robbing people online because "it was never specifically stated that robbing people online was illegal".Â
senses_fail_06
No where does it say X F2P game is better than Y F2P game because X does this and that. The comparison to LoL is about a game mechanic that doesn't exist in LoL. It just happens to be a F2P game as well. Any Moba that requires a paid entry is dead before release, so there's nothing else for them to use when a comparison is needed.
If the reasons are obvious, why can't you state them? The reviewers don't need to state anything of the sort because only you believe F2P games are held to a different standard that invalidates it from being counted. Your second statement is nothing like this discussion. Do MMOs not count because they're all going towards the F2P model now? Are FPSes and other shooters not going to count because they found a bigger and more profitable market with F2P? Well shit, half of the games at PS4's launch aren't gonna be counted because one poster thinks F2P isn't qualified for the metagame like boxed $60 games are.
One more thing which your misguided mind cannot comprehend. "We Rate Games According to the Current Standards of Their Platforms and Genres" does not mean that a 9.0 Moba game matters less than a 9.0 action-adventure game because action-adventure games have huge budgets and expectations from consumers. Both of those 9.0s speak the same volume. If you took the time to read past your selective ability, you would've found "However, relative comparisons do apply, so a game that scores poorly is a poor game by any standards, while a game that scores extremely high is an outstanding game by any standards."
And another thing, "Our editorial staff consists of discerning, value-conscious game players," does not take into consideration only cash. Cash is not the only thing that has value. Time has just as much value, if not more. If a game takes forever to get to the good chunks, then it's reflected in the review and ultimately, the score. If a game only lasts a few hours with no replayability, then it's reflected in the review. Dota 2 takes no time and no money to get to the good stuff. The only thing that takes time is refining your skill.
.
Log in to comment