@j17neo

And yet they both got erroneous scores.

I could have sworn there were like, 10 comments attached to this one yesterday.

@j17neo

My review of the game: It's not a game.

@j17neo

"I mean there's not much that you can point out about the game that's bad because there's no gameplay. It's just a story"

Which is kind of the point isn't it. It's not a game.

@mussumsoftware

I'm suggesting that his, and your, definition of "respect" is confused.

Why should I compromise my own beliefs by referring to Petit as a "she" when it's not at all what I think? Just to make you and him feel better? What about my feelings? How is your definition of "respect" at all "respectful" to my point of view?

And my wording would have been "disorder". "Illness" implies physical distress. Petit's case is obviously a mental.

@noah364

Objective analysis comes before personal opinion.

@blulight89 @M3o5nster

More "maybe" than "maybe not" though.

I'm not sure how diversity is supposed to make everyone overlook bias.

@Printul_Noptii

No.

@j17neo

So everyone has to agree with the idea that people are not their genders?

Seems rather intolerant to refer to a disagreement as "disrespectful".

@blulight89 @Pariah_001

Opinion comes AFTER objective analysis. If a community of reviewers operates under one banner, they're asserting that they set a benchmark of fairness and objectivity.

I know--not think--KNOW that someone like Kasavin or Vanord would have severely penalized this game and its obvious issues AS a game before even mentioning whether or not they agreed with its message.

But since it's Petit, both us and the review end up getting ideologued.