@loafofgame: I mostly agree with your sentiment, I just wanted to clear up any confusion by saying that I do in fact know that it's your fault for not doing your research, but a large portion of gamers are essentially sheep and use scores as a be-all and end-all. By saying to a reader (at least in my mind) that it's not your fault at least puts your foot in the door and let's people know you're on their side when it comes to derailing the ruse regarding scores.

But do I think that most people are aware of how limited score usage actually is? Meh, not really. Too many times I see people regard a game's quality because of a score rather than forming their own opinion, and it's sad. The only people I ever meet who think otherwise are forum posters like you. :p

Also, confrontation's good; I suppose I just slightly misinterpreted your intentions a bit.

@loafofgame: I'm aware that it is your fault for you buying a game you don't like, but let me ask you this; when it comes to writing an article of any sort which do you think would be more appealing? Complete condescension or something a bit more lenient with a bit of empathy?

Btw thanks for letting me know that you didn't read the rest of my post, I address everything you said and more. Just a shame that apparently, GS no longer allows low-level accounts to even share external links.

Appears that GS doesn't like the idea of me sharing an external link, so if it isn't too much to ask you can find the link to the rest of the post in my sig.

I'm a fresh blogger that's been a member of Gamespot since 2009, and I've finally mustered up the courage to share one of my more recent discussion points here on the forums. :P

@dondelagato said:

Ever been watching TV and suddenly a suspenseful, action-packed/emotionally driven cinematic trailer unfolds before you, accompanied by miscellaneous words, phrases and numbers like:

“AMAZING. 5/5” – GamerPoop

“ABSOLUTELY MIND-BLOWING. 9.5/10” – PPGames

“A MUST-BUY. 98/100” – DrippyButtNetwork

Your heart starts to race. Your palms are sweaty. Your pupils dilate to the size of golf balls – and at this point you think to yourself;

“Goddamn, I NEED DIS!”

It’s your embedded desire to consume a product that, well, consumes you. You rush over to your local games store and snag the first copy you see, wide-eyed and eager to play.

On the way home you can’t stop thinking about how awesome the experience is going to be.…Then, you finally open your front door, run to your beloved gaming system, pop the disc in, and lo-and-behold…turns out YOU CAN’T STAND THE FUCKING THING!

“What is this!? I don’t like this at all! NINE-POINT-FIVEout of TEN!? This has to be a joke! How dare these gaming media outlets lie to me! ” – Your Brain

Though fear not, it isn’t your fault; you simply fell for a tactic that gets so many of us to buy things we don’t want, need, or even particularly like; and I’d be lying to you if I said I haven’t been suckered by advertising either. So if you’re like me and have experienced this situation multiple times, let me explain to you why scores don’t mean a goddamn thing when it comes to the most significant factor contributing to fanboy wars; opinions.

If I've managed to pique your interest, you can read the rest here.

@Some-Mist: Did you even read what I wrote? Not only did I say that you can call me a SF fanboy, that aspect isn't even relevant to the argument - you are the one who initiated the pointless labeling and continued to do so throughout the entire discussion we've had in this thread. Yet I'm the one who's still hung up on it? Gimme a fucking break.

That's entirely your fault. How is that relevant to the fact that Capcom still holds a great number of influential IPs with fan bases that eagerly await a sequel? Your personal disappointments don't matter when it comes down to it, myself included.

Not sure what you're trying to accomplish here - all you're doing is reinforcing my point that it's a collaborative effort to make a game. Whether it be independent or under a company name - all that are involved contribute to the quality of a title. So my point still stands.

Highly regarded. Again, did you not read what I wrote? It's a cult classic - that definition in itself means that it may not be considered cream of the crop but is held on a pedestal by a noticeably large group of people.

And, again, your quarrels with Capcom's business practices aren't relevant either. Since you're so keen on using scores (which is a bullshit way to depict a game's quality in the first place), here's some fun insight for you: despite your efforts to show a depreciation in quality because of a change of directors, Dmc 4 and DmC 2013 are rated 84 and 86 respectively on Metacritic.

It's easy to find numbers that support your viewpoint because there's always gonna be a group saying a game's amazing and another group saying it's abysmal - and a using a number takes away the effort of actually articulating an opinion, so what does your precious 86% really mean? Anything and nothing, you don't know the exact reasons why that number is there - it could be anything as fickle from music selection to the casting.

I'm surprised you can't see illogical conventions when it's so obvious...but then again, this is the Gamespot forums...

And if you ask me that's bunk because it's never just one person that accredits to the overall merit of a game (besides a select few indie titles) - there's always one big name but there's also always a number of individuals that contribute to the final product. It's a collective effort, therefore, Capcom is the reason why x game was good, not one particular person.

When did I say that? I mentioned it because it's certainly a cult classic, nothing as gargantuan like Megaman or SF but recognizable nonetheless.

No, I'm not. You're hung up on few select words; you don't know me or what games I play on a regular basis. The only IPs from Capcom I've ever spent money on are SF and 2 DmC games (so if anything you could call me a Street Fighter fanboy). But of course you wouldn't know that, nor would you ask, instead you'd rather just dismiss someone as a fanboy of x company as opposed to focusing on the actual meat of the argument because, hey, that's always easier right?

When did say that all the IPs I listed are "big"? Jeez man, you're going on and on about not being so presumptuous yet here you are doing exactly that while also putting words in my mouth. And how is the departing of certain names relevant? They're all games that were made under the name Capcom, thus making them Capcom IPs - there's no getting around that.

I said demographic, not the genre as a whole - that's a completely different sentiment.

Hence why I'm referencing SFIV and not SFII - I mean seriously at what point did I root my argument in events that happened 20+ years ago? My mention of Capcom being one of the main reasons for the genre's existence was only a short reminder of what kind of company we're talking about here - my main point is that Capcom is still producing quality titles that people love with SF being one of my personal favorite franchises, hence why I mentioned it in particular. That isn't even the end of it - look at the list of IPs in the OP; they're all either critically acclaimed or highly regarded in their endeavors, also including DMC, Lost Planet, Marvel vs Capcom, Strider, and I'm sure I'm missing a few others.

Lol and you're not? You're basing your assumption of me being fanboy solely on having a contrary opinion towards a rather ludicrous claim - that which being Capcom doesn't need to be around anymore. I'd argue differently given the amount of quality titles they've put out just last generation. (and I repeat: last generation. Not 20 years ago.)

And regarding your question - no, I don't believe that, but my comment is in regards to the consumer base - when you have a market where consumers are so fickle how do you expect everyone to just crossover to a new IP when SF has been around for so long? Brand loyalty is and always has been a killer of businesses and Capcom possibly making a new IP to replace SF is highly unlikely to be successful. It also goes the other way round - what will happen to SF once Capcom is no longer behind it? Who will step forward and even hope to create a new product that will cater to a demographic (again, not the entire genre) that's been avidly supporting Capcom's efforts put into SF?

I'm not even going to bother quoting your last post because you've conveniently ignored the fact that I said I knew the chances of my assumption being wrong, but I wanted to see what kind of reaction I'd get. Because one thing is for certain; the hostility given off is rooted in some issue with Capcom's business practices. That isn't my concern, my concern is their games. Which many, many people still love and think are good. If that isn't enough reason to conclude that Capcom is relevant to the industry then I don't know what is.

Yet I'm not the one who's overly hostile simply because my opinion was challenged. ;)

People need to stop throwing this term around whenever they please - you're a either a fanboy or you're not, and if simply stating that Capcom holds more weight in gaming than some might think is enough to deem me so, that is absolutely ridiculous.

Though the end of Street Fighter will be more than just the loss of a game in the fighting genre, it'd be sad, sad day indeed. All-round the competitive scene was dwindling until SFIV came out in '08 and brought back some energy, serving as a catalyst for big events like EVO to grow to what it is today - last year had 1.7 million live stream viewers, a record breaker. Undermining that is a crime in my book; even if you aren't a fan of SF in particular you gotta acknowledge what it's done for the genre. Hell, SF is one of the main reasons why the genre even exists. Does it truly make me a fanboy for simply acknowledging this? I think not.

If you haven't played South Park: TSOT I'd recommend it, but only if you're a fan of the show or if you're willing to power through the insipid humor; the gameplay aspects are well worth it.