Why Do Reviewers Get Special Previlages

I understand that this is to prevent review bombing but why aren't people more outraged by this? Feels extremely user/consumer unfriendly
Thoughts?

Attached: lol.png (597x495, 247.07K)

>abuses the system
>what why the fuck are you not letting me use the system like before this is consumer unfriendly

>thoughts

I think you're a little bitch that can't wait 36 hours to post a meaningless "review"

No-one abused the system. Also this fixes nothing, they just added a timer before people share how much they hate the game.

If retards are going to review bomb they are going to do it regardless of how much time they have to wait to post reviews
Meanwhile paid shills opinions are held in even sillier of a false higher regards
Why should the words of a few nobodies be worth more than the majority
In what world does that make sense?

tlou2 fags so btfo they had to force a 3rd party review site to change their guidelines

You are one of 10,000. Not even the people who use that shit site care about your opinion.

>reddit spacing
You'd do well to not throw around names so lightly

You don't give a fuck about a review, just how your score will affect the overall rating.

"review bombing" isn't even a thing. It's a term designed to delegitimise negative sentiment toward a sub-par product.

Unironically blow your brains out you redditnigger

>thousands of 0's minutes after the game release
>no one abused the system
fuck off retard

I agree, botw's users score is the only score that matters when you discuss that horrible game.

>why should the words of people who played the game be worth more than the angry mob that didnt play the game

THIS, gamers we need to RISE UP and show metacritic who's in charge!

This. And I think most people can recognize when "review bombing" happens and can easily parse out why its happening and go of whether they agree with why or not and try the game for themselves
I'm just sick of """paid""" reviewers opinions being held as somehow higher than others when most of the time paid shills are significantly worse at games than the average consoomer

This doesn't make sense. I don't review games, but given that the first was a 0/10 to me I know this would likely be. But that aside because it wouldn't make sense to date something on that - if a game releases with 4 DLC then it can safely be rated 0.

Because they give out 10/10

>defending paid shills
If there's an angry mob of 10K and only 2K have played the game I'd still rather parse out opinions from that mob than trust paid shills

>people who played the game
Proof of this?

>but given that the first was a 0/10 to me
okay dude

>In what world does that make sense?
In paid corporate shill world

>8.6
Seems pretty good for user reviews. You just have bad taste most likely

you're not reading 2 thousand reviews fuck off

>Reviewers get copies in advance giving them enough time to play it and write their thoughts about it
>Thousands of retards that haven't even touched the game just click a button the very moment the game is released to give it a 0
Gee, I wonder why they changed it.

tHeY aRe ReViEwErS user
Of CoUrSe ThEy PlAyEd ThE gAmE

Yeah next they'll be getting free games before their release date

More likely to parse through that then some paid shill who didn't finish the game
If 2K people give the same general sentiment that something is wrong in a piece of media there's most likely merit to it

Imagine thinking every reviewer finishes games.

They should change the first thing too. Prohibit early copies or restrict reviewers to the same 36 hour period. There is NO reason for them to have this privilege that benefits the users and not the reviewers themselves.

You dont read meta critic reviews, you look at the score.

they get sent a copy in advance and write at length about the content in the game

>Zig Forums suddenly defending reviewers
Jesus fuck how cringe

>paid shill paid shill paid shill
why is Zig Forums full of fucking schizos

>Using reviews over your own judgement to decide if you'll like a game.

Attached: get a load of this cam.jpg (254x199, 10.18K)

It's not to make a decision, it's to make shit-posting topics using the score as bait.

Why not just come out and say that reviews, ultimately, are recommendations worth listening to if you share a similar taste as the reviewer based on track record, that even a game that is 2/10 will find an audience and although there is a review bomb going on, they only detract from genuine criticism which is a shame. Basically "we don't give a fuck, give it 0/10, people will still play it".