>go to wikipedia>mixed reception or panned game is described as "well-received" by rabid fanboys who wrote the article
>>724703247name ten thousand games
>>724703247>open edit page>change it to what i feel like>save, exit, never open same wiki page ever again
>game has panned reception by fanbase>wikipedia lists is at "well received" because the reviewers called it 9/10
Isn't Wikipedia supposed to tell how both critics and general audiences felt about something
reliable sources, chud
>>724703652Often 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.
>>724703247It'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.
>>724703350Wiki 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.
>>724704258>Wiki editors are bigger autists than anons.Yes.
