← Home ← Back to /v/

Thread 724703247

10 posts 2 images /v/
Anonymous No.724703247 [Report] >>724703297 >>724703350 >>724704028
>go to wikipedia
>mixed reception or panned game is described as "well-received" by rabid fanboys who wrote the article
Anonymous No.724703297 [Report]
>>724703247 (OP)
name ten thousand games
Anonymous No.724703350 [Report] >>724704258
>>724703247 (OP)
>open edit page
>change it to what i feel like
>save, exit, never open same wiki page ever again
Anonymous No.724703528 [Report]
>game has panned reception by fanbase
>wikipedia lists is at "well received" because the reviewers called it 9/10
Anonymous No.724703652 [Report] >>724703881
Isn't Wikipedia supposed to tell how both critics and general audiences felt about something
Anonymous No.724703729 [Report]
reliable sources, chud
Anonymous No.724703881 [Report]
>>724703652
Often times there's no reliable way to source the opinions of a fanbase no matter how universal it was, so """professional""" reviewers get the final say in the history.
Anonymous No.724704028 [Report]
>>724703247 (OP)
It's an encyclopedia. We take notable sources and regurgitate them for free use. Anyone with half a brain will know to go elsewhere for what actual players think.
Anonymous No.724704258 [Report] >>724704337
>>724703350
Wiki editors are bigger autists than anons. The people that are willing to lie about the public perception about games, especially modern ones, will be watching that page like a hawk.
Anonymous No.724704337 [Report]
>>724704258
>Wiki editors are bigger autists than anons.
Yes.