Both reviews and fans. So pretty much everyone. What was your evidence again? Oh that's right you don't have any.
...this was said in response to me pointing out that "reviews" isn't an argument. the above isn't an argument, either. wtf are you talking about?
You can literally look this up, doofus.
...i did. you're just wrong. it's not "critically acclaimed" by fans. it had/has like an 8. ffs. you're the one obsessed with ratings...
Game journalism websites became popular and replaced physical magazines during the time I'm describing, so yeah. There was no gamergate or people crying about "ethics in journalism." That came later.
WRONG. that came BEFORE. ffs, man. the example i gave was widely criticized and from 2007. i mentioned it... because it's kinda famous/infamous, and mentioned heavily a highly notable precursor to gamergate.
(dude got fired from gamespot for giving a game a deservedly bad review because the studio was an advertiser. he refused to change the review to a favorable one, as per gamespot. game "journalists" commonly gave good reviews, regardless of whether it was warranted, due to the inherent conflict of interest. hence, why ~90% of games had a good or better rating)
You've made it pretty clear you don't know the difference between opinion and fact
this, coming from the one trying to base his butthurt white knighting on popular opinion.
Because that's the difference between you and me comparing each other's assholes.
If both the critics and fans think something is good, it most likely is. Certainly means more than one random dude who can't back up his own opinion.
...the fans gave it an 8. how many times am i going to have to state that the fans did NOT give sc2 universal praise?
No, your original comment made no sense
No idea what you are talking about here.
Wait, were you the guy saying the Witcher 3 is trash? That would explain a lot.
...are you mentally disabled or something? where the fuck did THAT come from?
There's a difference between making a claim and supporting that claim. Learn it
says the one who never supported his false "universally acclaimed" claim?
and ONE of us supported his claims. hint: it was the one who mentioned multiplayer, balance, a lazy lack of unit types, awful story, and etc.
not the one rambling about universal acclaim (an 8/10!) with nothing to show for it and some crap about witcher 3 (?????) and a mere
OPINION that "the campaign was great." - with literally not one reason why you even thought it was "great."