 |
Quote: |
 |
|
|
 |
Originally Posted by KBomber |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strange that you can acknowledge the comments made relative to my association with 2k Sports and then say in the same breath that they weren't "shots" -- but that's your perogative, I'll guess. I'm going to continue to look at it this way, I haven't made a comparison to a 2k product here and have argued in the context of comparing MVP 2006 to its linear predecessor, MVP 2005, and other games within the EA portfolio. How that is impacted in the first place by an unpaid association with 2k Sports is well beyond me
Here is the core of my original statement regarding this review:
If you can find for me where I say that the review is biased towards EA, I'll give you a dollar (all funds CDN...)
I'm going to stick with my comment, that if MVP 2005 exceeds MVP 2006, how are we making this statement:
Basically logic isn't well served here. I've highlighted that. You guys have made the association that the opinion is "fraudulent". I'm talking about the logic. Clay's review suggests a game that is far and away better than MVP 2005. I'm saying, that based on his own comments related to the depth of the dynasty mode, the regression in graphics and sound, as well as my assertion of a regression in the character of the overall game, that to make such conclusions is patently impossible and illogical
One poster said that all of this amounts to me saying I disagree with the review. They are probably accurate. Let me say it here plainly and then maybe we can just move on
I disagree with the review and I expect a little more from this site
Have fun...........
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Are you serious? If you are going to quote your original post, please quote the entire thing. Here is the line you left out:
"Isn't it time we expected more from the "industry leader" in virtual sports gaming? Quit apologizing for EA and start challenging them to offer more"
"Quit apologizing for EA." Now in my statement, I said do some reasearch before you say anyone is biased OR an apologist. Its clear that you are calling Clay an apologist from that quote above and its also clear that your only basis for that statement is this review. My point remains the same. Do some research before you throw out defamatory statements like that.