@sbaltys: False, Gamespot as an organization to me has weight and significance and I was making a point that this guy does not. I went ahead and bought the game and am enjoying it like the rest. If this guys opinion mattered to me, would I have bought the game based on his score? I always make a point of commenting on reviews across multiple websites and this is no different. I also felt compelled to point out the inconsistencies with other reviewers of other "respectable" outlets.

This reviewer has a tendency to give games a wayyy lower score than some of the other respectable journalists. I know thats sort of a shallow way to look at things but some of these other journalists have been reviewing games for like 25 years so their opinion actually has weight... Basically I'm saying this dudes opinion doesn't mean shit to me.

@ltjohnnyrico: so if you play Rust single player and have none of the issues with the community you would totally rate this experience different right? So what is the reviewer just never played multiplayer?? Or better yet he just only played on a server with his friends. His review and experience would be WILDLY different so thats the point I'm trying to make here folks lol. Thats why you can't factor the community into your actual score. Nobody will convince me otherwise lol

@saturatedbutter: Ok sure but if you read my comment closely you would see that I said the community should totally still be mentioned as its an integral part to any multiplayer game. However, I said it shouldn't be reflected in the score that is so not fair to the developers. If we go along with your logic and rate games based on their communities then games like CoD or LoL would get super low scores across the board right? well those games DON'T have bad reviews so most reviewers don't take the community into consideration when forming an actual score but do mention it in the body of their review. Its a fine line to walk but I believe keeping it out of the score is important while still giving a good description on how the community behaves.

I really don't think the community should be factored in any way in to a review. Most games allow you to avoid a toxic community so you can totally control who you interact with in games. Like I still enjoy CoD and LoL but would I dock them points bc of their absolutely shitty communities?... nah, the developers can't predict how their communities will pan out so that factor should be taken out of the equation. I'm not saying don't mention the community at all but it shouldn't factor in to the final score which it clearly did here.

@Bread_or_Decide: someone is still bitter 14 years later lol. Wow its been that long geeze..... Tamoor is indeed correct how this show was a cultural phenomenon! I remember discussing crazy events the next day at school and scouring forums to see what the popular fan theories were. It was a show that loved asking questions and its answer to those questions were more questions. For some like me... they loved it. For others who expected it all to be neatly wrapped up with a bow on it... they were disappointed. I would argue that the ride was worth it even if the payoff wasn't there. Just the fact that each episode focused on a different character and showed their backstory (or future) to me seemed sort of groundbreaking. It was always cool seeing a major character like Jack show up in little to no capacity in a story focused on someone different. That shows the strength of that ensemble and I would argue that was one of the better ensemble casts a show has um assembled... Cheers Tamoor I really enjoy your content!

Hey I get it, its a 30 something guy not wanting to be trolled by a bunch of kids in a game that has very little "rules". The fact that he takes it almost personally and reflects this in his score is unprofessional to say the least. My question (having not played the game) is isn't there a solo mode (ala Ark) that lets you get your feet wet with all the mechanics and whatnot? Also, typically a game that has such an avid following is usually doing SOMETHING right, which in this games case is making you feel helpless and vulnerable while working your way up the food chain it seems. The reviewer really didn't say this game did anything right besides the way it looked... I haven't played this game but based on videos i've watched and the sheer hardcore community surrounding it I would say this game warrants at least a 5/10 but for some its prolly a 10 but a 3 is just disrespectful to the creators straight up. A 3 in my mind is like a broken game that has zero replay value. This game seems to be the opposite of that.

Part of the job of these Vid game sites it to select the best reviewer for a game. What I mean when saying that is pick the reviewer who will represent the community most. From what I am seeing (from other outlets) is that this is a solid (not perfect) game but certainly deserving of over a 6 out of 10. I'd imagine most people who are fans of remedys work will rate this game over a 6 so this review is not indicative of what people really think. Its what one man thinks and honestly, after watching the podcasts and other features, Peter Brown is like the last guy i'd pick to review this game based on the types of games he says he likes and plays. He usually raves about RPGs and readily admits thats he's not the biggest FPS or 3rd person shooter fan on the podcasts. I dunno I could be way off base here but it just seems a bit unfair to the game itself and all the hard work the people at remedy put in to this product. Also, not saying that Peter Brown hates FPS and 3rd person shooters but I'm saying those aren't his go to genres. You need a reviewer who is an avid FPS or 3rd person shooter enthusiast. Not so that they will give the game an unnecessarily overinflated score, so they can compare it to other modern FPS/ 3rd person shooters that they deem "solid".