Fallout 3: Sluggish, soulless and forgettablet ?!!!

Gamer A enjoys Too Human, since "satisfaction is subjective utility", and they were satisfied 100%, the utility of Too Human is 1 (100%).

Gamer B hates Too Human, since "satisfaction is subjective utility", and they were satisfied 0%, the utility of Too Human is 0 (0%).

1 = 0 :o

Wait, wait, next he's going to suggest a "meta reality" - where we use the "popular sentiment" as a measure of success - y'know, popularity is truth. Obviously this is the best way to do things, because if enough people believe the sun revolves around the earth, it makes it true :P Obviously anyone who disagrees with the popular sentiment is WRONG and should be punished for being a socially destablizing viewpoint.

Really, I applaud anyone advocating a return to inquistion-era thought processes. Someone enjoys a Sonic the Hedgehog game? That monster! We should put them on the rack (well... for Sonic I might agree with him... but wait that's not the point).

-

People shouldn't think for themselves. I think that was the point. Free thought is dangerous Cake! My god, imagine it, if people played games simply because they enjoyed them, and had fun doing so. If people picked their games based on their own wants, instead of "it's going to be cool because Peter Molyneux said it's the best game ever and he's Peter Molyneux!", society itself might crumble.

-

For the easily confused, this is sarcasm. Please think for yourselves. Like something because you like it, not because I told you to, or you saw a cool commercial for it.

subrosian

This whole piece is pure irony.:lol:

The fact that you won't give Fallout 3 a chance and state that it will be a 'bad' game or at best an 'OK' game, because that's what you think it will be like and state that as objective to others, regardless of the score, which you've discounted and the opinions of other commentators which you've discounted. But at the same time advocate that everyone should be open to whatever they like.Yeah no **** everyone should be open to what they like and being told constantly by people like you that Fallout 3 will only be an OK game regardless of what everyone says it pure elitism and irony of all ironies considering what you've just wrote above.

Question: So what should it be.
1) People should be open to all games, and think for themselves, and thus discount the opinion pieces of people like you, which makes all your posts irrelevant in this topic?
2) Accept opion pieces as partial fac? Like yourself.

You've just contradicted your own previous arguments and stances on Fallout 3. No doubt you'll come up with some BS that Fallout 3 doesn't adhere to past Fallout games and thus is automatically a 'bad' game.

You should step out of your inquisition thought processes ;)

*Finishes watching pirated game footage.*

Beth, what the hell have done to Harold? Seriously, WTF.

i have it already, about 28 hours in. i love the game, but i must admit i do like oblivion better. xkojimax

This post is one of the most unintelligent ever, admitting to having an illegal version of the game, way to go.

lol - wow. if you read it it is painfully obvious how highly he places the original two, likening them to the roc art movement. what a pretentious windbag!

i have just finished replaying 1&2 for about the 10th time, this time with high-res patches, and i have to say there are an insane amount of fallout fanboys that have built the first 2 games up in there head far too much. it just makes me laugh when i read this stuff now. both in SW and in amusing write-ups like that one.

i'm not knocking the first 2, i love them to death. BUT. they are NOT the brilliant things you remember them as - they are not something to be likened to fine art in any form. they are both full of minor flaws, examples of poor writing, cheeseball quests, and guess what: cookie cutter levels that are repeated througout the game - just like he brings up with 3, which could have possibly been an inside-homage to the original by bethesda. and in all seriousness how can you criticize fallout 3 random encounters as being mostly X when in the first 2 they were also mostly encounters in bland similar fields against the same mobs over and over with an odd smattering of merchant and found items?

i'm not going to pass judgement until i play it myself, but i am certain of one thing now - there are a lot of delusional fallout fanboys out there that really should play through the original 2 again to get a fresh perspective.... they weren't even AAA titles at GS people. get over it. we all have fond memories of them but they were NOT art. they were not perfect.

like i've said time and time again. take this game and examine it for what it is, not what it isn't. and be sure not to trip over yourself by using parallels to the first 2 to knock the 3rd, like this person did. memory is fallible people, please please replay the first 2 and be critical while you do it - you'll find many of the same issues in the first 2 and realize that they aren't the holy grail of gaming.

The fact that you won't give Fallout 3 a chanceHoobinator

i'm not knocking the first 2, i love them to death. BUT. they are NOT the brilliant things you remember them as - they are not something to be likened to fine art in any form. 3picuri3

No, but Bethesda didn't make that as far as I'm aware, Black Isle Studios did. And it was a completely different game and engine.

That's still irrelevant though, I'm not playing some bug filled crapfest that only Bethesda can get away with. I was dismayed by having a main storyline ending bug after 30 hours of play, I refuse to do that again now.

SemiMaster

It is completely relevant. There were so many bugs in Fallout 2 that it wasn't even funny, and that was from the acclaimed Black Isle studio. And guess what, they "got away with it". And now a specific glitch in one game is going to appear in another because it's made by the same company? I laugh.

• "Most locations you can discover are "raider dungeons"." Great. Just great. >.> Now just to see if all of them look the same...
  
• "City ruins are copy-paste of the same and only model, here and there flavored by the same and only model of tricycle (the very poetic "Red Ryder")" This is one of the things Bethesda shouldn't have copied from the previous Fallouts. :(
• "The main quest will get you through an Hellgate London-ish nightmare in which you had to pass through kilometers of underground for hours and hours." Haven't played Hellgate London but that sounds bad. :(
  

Source

Fawlcon_Pawnch

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]The fact that you won't give Fallout 3 a chanceVandalvideo

He can buy the game, I'm not against that. What I am against if you paid attention to the whole conversation is the fact that he objectivises his opinion of the being being merely OK, or sometimes he refers to it as 'bad'. He objectifies his opinion, whilst demeaning others, at the state time hypocritically stating that we shoule all be open and buy whatever we want. He uses reference to opinion whilst stating that we should ignore commentator, effectively opinion pieces.

You can see that from his objectification of Too Human as a good game and nothing less. Don't take simple quotes out of context without the full conversation in place.

He quite clearly contradicted himself on a number of issues in this thread and also logically failed in a few arguments as well.

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]i'm not knocking the first 2, i love them to death. BUT. they are NOT the brilliant things you remember them as - they are not something to be likened to fine art in any form. Vandalvideo

sorry man, that cup won't hold water. i'm enjoying them for what they are and am fully aware of when they were released. that bears no impact on expectations for future titles. in other words, just because it's older doesn't mean stuff is there that isn't.

i remember them not being perfect at launch (back when preordering was called ordering :P) and i remember GS reviewing them as not perfect, and i remember PC gamer bringing up the same flaws I speak of.

not AAA here, not AAA at most places. AA games are not perfect.

i love them, but they were flawed. being removed in time now doesn't change a thing.

go read all the old reviews if you refuse to replay the games. ironically nearly all the criticisms this french 'blogger' (dare i call him a reviewer) outlined there to bring it down are there. it gives me laughs. big laughs.

He can buy the game, I'm not against that. What I am against if you paid attention to the whole conversation is the fact that he objectivises his opinion of the being being merely OK, or sometimes he refers to it as 'bad'. He objectifies his opinion, whilst demeaning others, at the state time hypocritically stating that we shoule all be open and buy whatever we want.Hoobinator

You can see that from his objectification of Too Human as a good game and nothing less. Don't take simple quotes out of context without the full conversation in place.

i have it already, about 28 hours in. i love the game, but i must admit i do like oblivion better. xkojimax

Then I'll probably despise Fallout 3 because I hated Oblivion.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]He can buy the game, I'm not against that. What I am against if you paid attention to the whole conversation is the fact that he objectivises his opinion of the being being merely OK, or sometimes he refers to it as 'bad'. He objectifies his opinion, whilst demeaning others, at the state time hypocritically stating that we shoule all be open and buy whatever we want.Vandalvideo

You can see that from his objectification of Too Human as a good game and nothing less. Don't take simple quotes out of context without the full conversation in place.

I have been challenging those concerns and I have also beat him down on his logical errors in this thread as well, especially on case of what utility exactly is.

I don't particularly go against his belief that that he thinks Fallout 3 will be an OK game at best. What I do go against is the typical way he states his opinion as objective fact, refers to opinion in one post and then discounts commentators, opinion pieces in later posts. Contradictory much?

I don't disagree that Too Human can be an enjoyable for people, but again you're falling intp Subrosians mistakes. You're objectifying the opinion that Too Human was a misunderstoof game. No I don't believe it was. Nor do I or a number of other people believe it is an especially good game. You derived utility out of, good, you feel it is misunderstood, good, does it mean that everyone who thinks it is a bad game is misunderstanding the game... no, absolutely not. Satisfaction is subjective utility.

And he brings up valid concerns for his reasoning. If you disagree, challenge those concerns. Fallout 3 has problems according to a crap load of previewers and reviewers. I don't see the problem here. Vandalvideo

hows about you back things up for once Vandal? link us to the craploads - cuz i've read every fallout 3 preview / review that is out there and many contradict most of your points.

you can't ask someone to bring up valid concerns when you don't cite your own 'evidence'.

too human was garbage because of the valkyrie. i tried to love that game, but the valkyrie killed it for me. it's only fun if you play a class that doesn't die a lot, or play on an easy difficulty. it was not misunderstood.

sorry man, that cup won't hold water. i'm enjoying them for what they are and am fully aware of when they were released. that bears no impact on expectations for future titles. in other words, just because it's older doesn't mean stuff is there that isn't.3picuri3

i remember them not being perfect at launch (back when preordering was called ordering :P) and i remember GS reviewing them as not perfect, and i remember PC gamer bringing up the same flaws I speak of.

not AAA here, not AAA at most places. AA games are not perfect.

i love them, but they were flawed. being removed in time now doesn't change a thing.

hows about you back things up for once Vandal? link us to the craploads - cuz i've read every fallout 3 preview / review that is out there and many contradict most of your points.you can't ask someone to bring up valid concerns when you don't cite your own 'evidence'. 3picuri3

too human was garbage because of the valkyrie. i tried to love that game, but the valkyrie killed it for me. it's only fun if you play a class that doesn't die a lot, or play on an easy difficulty. it was not misunderstood.

don't tell me what i'm doing - i'm approaching them like an adult revisiting something he cherished. jaded doesn't enter the picture in the least. your analogy only holds up if trying to do the opposite, i.e. criticize old games for lacking something a new one has.

and i'm not replying to the rest - i apologize. we've gone over this before. you refuse to approach this head on and just deflect and ignore everything people say. i have better things to do :). like count the seconds until i get my mitts on fallout 3.

I don't disagree that Too Human can be an enjoyable for people, but again you're falling intp Subrosians mistakes. Your obkectifying the opinion that Too Human was a misunderstoof game. No I don't believe it was. Nor do I or a number of other people believe it is an especially good game. You derived utility out of, good, you feel it is misunderstood, good, does it mean that everyone who thinks it is a bad game is misunderstanding the game... no, absolutely not. Satisfaction is subjective utility. Hoobinator

don't tell me what i'm doing - i'm approaching them like an adult revisiting something he cherished. jaded doesn't enter the picture in the least. your analogy only holds up if trying to do the opposite, i.e. criticize old games for lacking something a new one has.

and i'm not replying to the rest - i apologize. we've gone over this before. you refuse to approach this head on and just deflect and ignore everything people say. i have better things to do :). like count the seconds until i get my mitts on fallout 3.

3picuri3

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]hows about you back things up for once Vandal? link us to the craploads - cuz i've read every fallout 3 preview / review that is out there and many contradict most of your points.you can't ask someone to bring up valid concerns when you don't cite your own 'evidence'. Vandalvideo

too human was garbage because of the valkyrie. i tried to love that game, but the valkyrie killed it for me. it's only fun if you play a class that doesn't die a lot, or play on an easy difficulty. it was not misunderstood.

give me links to those and i'll explain how these people are similar to the rabid fallout fanboys we have in SW. just because you review games it doesn't mean you're not a fanboy. and i still dispute these have been echoed in numerous reviews - link em and i'll believe you. doesn't mean i think it holds water though ;).

it's not audacity to complain about a broken game. there is no loading in other games when you die and respawn int he same zone - it was a bad design decision, not a loading cover up.

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]

don't tell me what i'm doing - i'm approaching them like an adult revisiting something he cherished. jaded doesn't enter the picture in the least. your analogy only holds up if trying to do the opposite, i.e. criticize old games for lacking something a new one has.

and i'm not replying to the rest - i apologize. we've gone over this before. you refuse to approach this head on and just deflect and ignore everything people say. i have better things to do :). like count the seconds until i get my mitts on fallout 3.

Vandalvideo

it's because i don't consider them valid and you don't extend the same courtesy to those that argue the other side. sorry, debate is a 2 way street - you can't just push your own side and concede nothing.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]I don't disagree that Too Human can be an enjoyable for people, but again you're falling intp Subrosians mistakes. Your obkectifying the opinion that Too Human was a misunderstoof game. No I don't believe it was. Nor do I or a number of other people believe it is an especially good game. You derived utility out of, good, you feel it is misunderstood, good, does it mean that everyone who thinks it is a bad game is misunderstanding the game... no, absolutely not. Satisfaction is subjective utility. Vandalvideo

my lord. the irony.

you can apply what you just said nearly identically to how you treat the fallout universe and how reviewers are treating it.

people fail to remember fallout 1/2 accurately and bash 3 for things the first 2 actually HAD. tell me that isn't backwards.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]I don't disagree that Too Human can be an enjoyable for people, but again you're falling intp Subrosians mistakes. Your obkectifying the opinion that Too Human was a misunderstoof game. No I don't believe it was. Nor do I or a number of other people believe it is an especially good game. You derived utility out of, good, you feel it is misunderstood, good, does it mean that everyone who thinks it is a bad game is misunderstanding the game... no, absolutely not. Satisfaction is subjective utility. Vandalvideo

Again you're doing it also.

Some reviewers may have published some mistakes on the game, did all reviewers do this... NO. And this does not even begin to challenge my central argument that satisfaction derived from playing Too Human is completely subjective utility. The amount of satisfaction that each of these reviewers derived from Too Human is completely different as it is for every games player. You're generalising to an extent that you should not be.

There were plenty of reviews, legitimate reviews who panned Too Human and in their opinion rightfully so. It was not an especially enjoyable game in their opinion, for you to state that categorically they are all wrong is blind fanboyism, the type that you think you're fighting against. Their opinions are just as valid as yours, yet you don't see that.

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]

don't tell me what i'm doing - i'm approaching them like an adult revisiting something he cherished. jaded doesn't enter the picture in the least. your analogy only holds up if trying to do the opposite, i.e. criticize old games for lacking something a new one has.

and i'm not replying to the rest - i apologize. we've gone over this before. you refuse to approach this head on and just deflect and ignore everything people say. i have better things to do :). like count the seconds until i get my mitts on fallout 3.

Vandalvideo

3picuri3's opinions and statements are just as valid as yours.There's just as much dismissal of other peoples opinions from you as you seem to think there is of yours

The fact that you dismiss all reviews that stated Too Human is a bad game, and lumped them all together by saying some reviewers showed mistakes in their reviews is a similar dismissal tactic.

my lord. the irony.you can apply what you just said nearly identically to how you treat the fallout universe and how reviewers are treating it.people fail to remember fallout 1/2 accurately and bash 3 for things the first 2 actually HAD. tell me that isn't backwards. 3picuri3

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]my lord. the irony.you can apply what you just said nearly identically to how you treat the fallout universe and how reviewers are treating it.people fail to remember fallout 1/2 accurately and bash 3 for things the first 2 actually HAD. tell me that isn't backwards. Vandalvideo

just like this french guy attacked fallout 3 for things that were the same in 1/2. i don't see how it's different at all - they are both making misconceptions. you can't at one time expect 3 to maintain the spirit of 1/2 then attack the game based on aspects that are familiar.

Some reviewers may have published some mistakes on the game, did all reviewers do this... NO. And this does not even begin to challenge my central argument that satisfaction derived from playing Too Human is completely subjective utility. The amount of satisfaction that each of these reviewers derived from Too Human is completely different as it is for every games player. You're generalising to an extent that you should not be.Hoobinator

There were plenty of reviews, legitimate reviews who panned Too Human and in their opinion rightfully so. It was not an especially enjoyable game in their opinion, for you to state that categorically they are all wrong is blind fanboyism, the type that you think you're fighting against. Their opinions are just as valid as yours, yet you don't see that.

Some really odd translation there:

"Lambda players will probably enjoy it." .... the only thing I could picture 'lambda' being is Half-Life.

just like this french guy attacked fallout 3 for things that were the same in 1/2. i don't see how it's different at all - they are both making misconceptions. you can't at one time expect 3 to maintain the spirit of 1/2 then attack the game based on aspects that are familiar. 3picuri3

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]hows about you back things up for once Vandal? link us to the craploads - cuz i've read every fallout 3 preview / review that is out there and many contradict most of your points.you can't ask someone to bring up valid concerns when you don't cite your own 'evidence'. Vandalvideo

Ironic that you cite Game previews of how the game is coming along, only just finished mind you, as some statement of fact. Yet at the same time dismiss all valid criticism of Too Human as the reviewers 'misunderstanding' the game.:?

I'm sure with a game like Fallout 3, there will be plenty of mistakes from review sites, and I'm sure people will use the same broad spectrum dismissal tactic as you have done. If some reviewers showed mistakes in their reviews, it must therefore mean all reviews on this game are bad and therefore all bad reviews are now dismissed as worthless.

he fact that you dismiss all reviews that stated Too Human is a bad game, and lumped them all together by saying some reviewers showed mistakes in their reviews is a similar dismissal tactic. Hoobinator

Some really odd translation there:

"Lambda players will probably enjoy it." .... the only thing I could picture 'lambda' being is Half-Life.

Ilikemyname420

I always think of the Star Wars Lambda shuttle when I hear that word. :P

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="3picuri3"]

don't tell me what i'm doing - i'm approaching them like an adult revisiting something he cherished. jaded doesn't enter the picture in the least. your analogy only holds up if trying to do the opposite, i.e. criticize old games for lacking something a new one has.

and i'm not replying to the rest - i apologize. we've gone over this before. you refuse to approach this head on and just deflect and ignore everything people say. i have better things to do :). like count the seconds until i get my mitts on fallout 3.

Hoobinator

3picuri3's opinions and statements are just as valid as yours.There's just as much dismissal of other peoples opinions from you as you seem to think there is of yours

The fact that you dismiss all reviews that stated Too Human is a bad game, and lumped them all together by saying some reviewers showed mistakes in their reviews is a similar dismissal tactic.

exactly! thankyou.

i have no problem having a back and forth with someone over a game - but it seems when you discuss fallout with vandal he is unwilling to concede even the most minor of points even if several people side against him.

there is a difference between debate and patronizing, and it seems more often than not we get the 2nd from him. it's as if our words are meaningless and his are gospel. this is why i just put in my point and leave now - more for the benefit of others than in the hopes of getting a genuine discussion going.

Ironic that you cite Game previews of how the game is coming along, only just finished mind you, as some statement of fact. Yet at the same time dismiss all valid criticism of Too Human as the reviewers 'misunderstanding' the game.:?Hoobinator

I'm sure with a game like Fallout 3, there will be plenty of mistakes from review sites, and I'm sure people will use the same broad spectrum dismissal tactic as you have done. If some reviewers showed mistakes in their reviews, it must therefore mean all reviews on this game are bad and therefore all bad reviews are now dismissed as worthless.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]Ironic that you cite Game previews of how the game is coming along, only just finished mind you, as some statement of fact. Yet at the same time dismiss all valid criticism of Too Human as the reviewers 'misunderstanding' the game.:?Vandalvideo

I'm sure with a game like Fallout 3, there will be plenty of mistakes from review sites, and I'm sure people will use the same broad spectrum dismissal tactic as you have done. If some reviewers showed mistakes in their reviews, it must therefore mean all reviews on this game are bad and therefore all bad reviews are now dismissed as worthless.

you so often confuse facts with opinion. you so often approach things like a lawyer - deflecting and denying without any substance.

prove to us that these are facts. show us how EVERY bad review for Too Human misunderstood the game. be a good lawyer and back up your claims of fact with the actual FACTS. it shouldn't take you long if you know they are present in every bad review of Too Human.

or keep making wild claims that nobody will believe - either way, i'm off to enjoy my evening. have a good one folks.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]Some reviewers may have published some mistakes on the game, did all reviewers do this... NO. And this does not even begin to challenge my central argument that satisfaction derived from playing Too Human is completely subjective utility. The amount of satisfaction that each of these reviewers derived from Too Human is completely different as it is for every games player. You're generalising to an extent that you should not be.Vandalvideo

There were plenty of reviews, legitimate reviews who panned Too Human and in their opinion rightfully so. It was not an especially enjoyable game in their opinion, for you to state that categorically they are all wrong is blind fanboyism, the type that you think you're fighting against. Their opinions are just as valid as yours, yet you don't see that.

Broad generalisations for the loss.

And since I know you're into Law, like a judge I will ask for one thing only. Bring me evidence from each of the major review sites that they showed mistakes in their reviews. From all major reviews please, since all are being dismissed wholesale.

And bring me evidence that the game sites that took time to play the game (how you know how much time they put in is beyond me), chose to give this above average reviews. Also provide evidence for how much time they put into the game, since that is a statement much of your argument rests on.

Provide the previous aforementioned evidence, all articles from Gamerankings, evidence to back up your wholesale generalisation must be provded from all the attainable reviews.

Good reviews with by SW standards be seen as 7/10 or above, and bad reviews as below this.

prove to us that these are facts. show us how EVERY bad review for Too Human misunderstood the game.3picuri3

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]Ironic that you cite Game previews of how the game is coming along, only just finished mind you, as some statement of fact. Yet at the same time dismiss all valid criticism of Too Human as the reviewers 'misunderstanding' the game.:?Vandalvideo

I'm sure with a game like Fallout 3, there will be plenty of mistakes from review sites, and I'm sure people will use the same broad spectrum dismissal tactic as you have done. If some reviewers showed mistakes in their reviews, it must therefore mean all reviews on this game are bad and therefore all bad reviews are now dismissed as worthless.

Bring me evidence, see my previous post, no point in posting it again. Funny how you say conjecture, yet provide no evidence to the contrary to back up your own claims.

Evidence, please.

Broad generalisations for the loss.

And since I know you're into Law, like a judge I will ask for one thing only. Bring me evidence from each of the major review sites that they showed mistakes in their reviews. From all major reviews please, since all are being dismissed wholesale.

And bring me evidence that the game sites that took time to play the game (how you know how much time they put in is beyond me), chose to give this above average reviews. Also provide evidence for how much time they put into the game, since that is a statement much of your argument rests on.

Provide the previous aforementioned evidence, all articles from Gamerankings, evidence to back up your wholesale generalisation must be provded from all the attainable reviews.

Good reviews with by SW standards be seen as 7/10 or above, and bad reviews as below this.

Hoobinator

exactly. this is how you have to deal with his facts. make him present his evidence in a well articulate list for us all to see how EVERY reviewer misunderstood Too Human, and how he is the only one that sees it for what it really is :roll:

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]he fact that you dismiss all reviews that stated Too Human is a bad game, and lumped them all together by saying some reviewers showed mistakes in their reviews is a similar dismissal tactic. Vandalvideo

It's not a fact, because people are quite clearly disagreeing and you're not bringing up wholesale evidence to back up your wholesale generalisations. If all 'bad' reviews were mistaken, then please take the time out, like a good lawyer, and bring me the relevant evidence from each and every review that scored the game below a 7.

And since I know you're into Law, like a judge I will ask for one thing only. Bring me evidence from each of the major review sites that they showed mistakes in their reviews. From all major reviews please, since all are being dismissed wholesale.Hoobinator

And bring me evidence that the game sites that took time to play the game (how you know how much time they put in is beyond me), chose to give this above average reviews. Also provide evidence for how much time they put into the game, since that is a statement much of your argument rests on

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]prove to us that these are facts. show us how EVERY bad review for Too Human misunderstood the game.Vandalvideo

time for less words and phrases like 'patently false' 'conjecture' and 'perogative' (act. spelling = prerogative) and time for facts. we're not going to dance circles with you anymore. if you want to have a one-sided debate we want you to FULLY articulate it and back it up with REAL facts instead of pawning assumptions as FACT.

you said ALL BAD REVIEWS.

get cracking.

It's not a fact, because people are quite clearly disagreeing and you're not bringing up wholesale evidence to back up your wholesale generalisations. If all 'bad' reviews were mistaken, then please take the time out, like a good lawyer, and bring me the relevant evidence from each and every review that scored the game below a 7.Hoobinator