So this screen-shot is from the user score section of http://www.metacritic.com. I would like to quote some of what they said about one particular game when rating the game zero.

"Great setting and story, mediocre gameplay."

"Great game, good graphics good game play good story... All crippled by an out of date checkpoint save system." ( still gave it a  zero)

or

"The guys that voted 9 or something are probably coming from console, cause from a PC point of view the game is complete garbage: the model are really simple (console port), the color and caracter are super simple and animated not that well (poor console port)..."(This last user doesn't even know what a console port is but keeps talking about it.)

Not that the statement of these sort of people even matters but these opinions are from the user section of Bioshock infinite at metacritics website. It happens everywhere and to every game or product if you will but here is my argument that if you do not like the game I can totally understand you and there is no problem with that, but why don't you stay logical to your own existence?

For sure that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and from a subjective point of view everything is possible to be criticized and be given the lowest score but is that morally right? It's not my intention to say that you don't have the right to give zero out of ten to a game even if the critics say it deserves more than 9, but if there is any thing we do know is that the score zero is given to a game by a user because he/she feels responsible for balancing the user score! So are they really not worried about their own logical dignity? It must be so funny to have a brain like that if it can be called a brain. 

Justifying a game by saying that "it's a great game with great story and average game play." but still giving it a zero as the score  makes me think about the illogical idiots and whether being idiotic is worse or illogical.