So I was looking around at old games to review, and remembered Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. Mostly high player scores as expected, but there was one with only 3.5. Hmmm. I tend to read low reviews first though - fans tend to gloss over flaws which these low score giving people may point out. Keyword being "may". Most of the time it's just some stupid retard who doesn't have a clue what the hell he's talking about. Opinion != review. Yes, reviews CONTAIN your opinions, but they should also talk about THE GODDAMN GAME. The fcking section says "Post your REVIEWS here", not "Post your opinions here". Now, a mix of good and bad reviews is generally a good sign that people are trying to evaluate the game properly instead of all high scores which can be a sign of fanboyism. But one or two low scores in a sea of high ones? It's like asking me, an FPS-disliker, to review an FPS games. But even then at least *I* know how to be objective. I see no problem with giving credit where credit is due. Not like most asswipes who simply give low scores because they didn't like the game. You give low scores if the game is BAD, not because you didn't like it. Morons. Anyway, this guy actually did give some decent reasons. The game IS hyped, and it IS easy, several of the secrets ARE nonsensical and can't be puzzled out, and some of the interface COULD have been done better. But that doesn't detract from the overall smoothness of the game. It's like if something had not-so-bleeding-edge graphics. I'd dock a point or two, but not give it something below 7, which is considered merely "good". The guy gave HALF of that. It's clear he's one of those asswipes who doesn't know the difference between "broken" (the tagline he chose, btw) and "not quite what I was expecting".