... is not me. It's Matt from
http://www.sportsreviewers.com. Here are some quotes from the current main page of his site:
Dammit! I am so sick of reviewers at GameSpot playing sports games on the easiest difficulty setting and then crying that the game is too easy. I have played a full season of NCAA 2003 on All-American difficulty. Believe me, you cannot have a decent game with Kentucky by using the same few running plays every game. The CPU adjusts over the course of the season. The reviewer at GameSpot did not play a full season, so he would not know this.
The content of GamePro is so horrible that I have been ignoring the site for a while now in The Periscope. The reviews at GamePro are the absolute worst on the Web. Whoever owns the commercial rights to the word "review" should sue GamePro for misrepresenting the word. Even more laughable than its reviews, GamePro announced that it is going to sell action figures based upon its staffers. This is not a joke.
And so forth. While reading it, at first I was saying to myself, "ouch, that's a little harsh, isn't it?" but it's really not. Especially with IGN wanting you to fork over money for their content. It's pretty bad. Sports reviews have been bad, as a whole, for a long, long time (even I am guilty of this -- I used to have a review of one of the Triple Play games, TP 99 I think, and I played a half-season before writing my review. The Blue Jays had great pitching that year so I figured I was doing something right when I had let up virtually no doubles or triples. Well, no, it was a bug in the game. I praised the game for its "realism" but it was just shoddy programming because nobody could get doubles or triples) so it's now time for those lousy reviewers to get theirs.
