>>714698897
There's no "goal" because there's no argument, anon. The original post >>714696898 talked about how games journalists like these particular games, and I asked if that means that they're good or bad. So far he hasn't been able to answer.
>>714699136
>It just so happens that the vast overwhelming majority of people happen to agree with me.
And just to be clear, are you saying that this means that your opinion is wrong or that it's right?