"I DID NOT KNOW THAT!" :D

Only people who own the game should have the right to post a review about it, same as it happens on Steam. If you own the game elsewhere and wanna post your opinion about it, use the specific game forum.

This won't stop spam nor trolls, but will decrease them.

Unfortunately we can say goodbye to all that. Disney bought out Fox, so the "old" X-Men movies are over after this year, to be rebooted as part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe at some point in the future. Maybe they'll let Deadpool continue because it brings in a shitload of money, but it's still up in the air.

Now I'm curious about those reviews, kinda in the same way you get curious when you see a car accident...

I find it so weird seeing that you both think that. I loathed most of the Xmen movies under Fox's banner except Wolverine's solo movie and Days of a future past (which was basically them retconning several stupid decisions from previous movies), tho I admittedly haven't seen Apocalypse yet.

Meanwhile I liked almost all of the movies in the MCU. Heck they managed to make something decent out of a thirdstringer like the antman! I might not like every single choice they made but it was leagues better than the aimless crapbusters thrown out every few years like Spiderman 3 or Fantastic Four.

My biggest gripe with most Marvel movies is that they lack soul. The production value is through the roof and it shows, but it feels more like a product created by some marketing team than a genuine work of art and/or labor of love.

They're the movie equivalent of Call of Duty, bland enough to pass for most people but they wont really appeal to anyone.

Apocalypse sucked. As did Wolverine Origins (although this at least sucked in a very funny way) and Last Stand. But the first two movies and Logan are among the best in the genre. And while I also enjoyed Deadpools goofy stuff, I mostly like Fox's X-Men films more than MCU because they weren't afraid of taking the franchise seriously, whereas the MCU is mostly just stupid, bad jokes and forced comedy at every point. Hell, Deadpool 2 is actually a more serious and dramatic movie than most of MCU.

The first Ant-Man was passable, but the second movie was one of the worst, most unejoyable pieces of shit I've ever seen. Hell, the only two Marvel films I enjoyed after phase I wrapped up were Winter Soldier and Ragnarok (and that only because Taika Waititi is actually good with comedy and knows how to make it work). Most of the MCU after the first Avengers was really poorly written, visually uninspired, badly paced and just bad in many other ways, sometimes failing in the most basic ways.

Sorry but I can't agree with you about the Xmen taking the franchise seriously, at all. In my opinion the only thing they did that could be considered as attempting that is hiring some big names like Patrick Stewart, Halle Berry and Ian McKellen to star in it. But the plots were terrible.
They didn't mind they were creating several inconsistencies with the comics and painting themselves into a corner in such a stupid way they were forced to come up with a time-travel plot to retcon away their bad choices. (Wait now I'm not sure if that retcon was Last Stand or Days of a Future Past. Anyway)
I can rationalize that Jean Grey was possessed by the Phoenix, which is a Cosmic entiity, in a different situation than in the comic's return from a space mission. It would require a lot of tweaking to insert some space travel into the movie's plot. In both stances however Jean does an heroic sacrifice so their teammates can live. She acts the same. But I can't rationalize the "brilliant" idea that she would eventually summon Cyclops to meet her, only to disintegrate him. It's like they decided on a starting setting, an ending and they just filled in the middle with whatever came to their minds.

"Okay now we gotta get rid of this Cyclops guy because there is a part of the audience shipping Logan and Jean. Any ideas?"
"Why not just make her disintegrate him because she is possessed by this evil spirit now? "
"Sounds great. Let's go with that"

Yeah I can't comment on the antman sequel because I haven't seen it yet. Gotta admit Waititi's work was pretty good (he let out even more of Loki than previous movies and Tom Hiddleston makes most of the comedy in the movie)

It is all subjective but I can't agree with this assessment in the slightest. I think even the weakest movie in the MCU (out of those I've seen) is much better than anything other studios did with Marvel characters so far.

We're obviously not going to agree however, and that is fine. I'm enjoying looking at them from a wildly different perspective.

That's perfectly consistent with comics :D Comics do that all the time.

And MCU isn't "consistent" with the comics either. All comic book adaptations are loose amalgams of various ideas from decades of comics.

They had to get rid of him because the actor was busy shooting Superman Returns.

Definitely. Having to pay money is a great demotivator if all, someone wants to do, is trolling.
Well, the question remains the same: are any games/ is any money connected to these old alt-accounts?

Because: if not - then a preset threshold (either the # of games bought on that account, or the amount of money spent) would prevent using these years old alt-accounts to write troll reviews.

I mean - that would be the whole point of setting such a threshold - to make trolling an expensive hobby, by demanding actual financial investment from the troll first.

As it is now, everyone can just set up an alt-account (or a dozen more) and start trolling.

Touché. But bad decision on one media don't justify even worse decisions in another. As it happens, the fast pace of movies just makes stupid choices more glaring and harder to backpedal from.
You can't have several important characters like Cyclops or Xavier die and the Xavier mansion be destroyed and just think it won't hinder available storylines for the next movies. They simply thought "Hell yeah, we should totally kill a major character like Xavier to throw the rest of the heroes into a really bad spot they must spend the rest of the movie to overcome." Newsflash, if you do that comes next movie that character and everything that depends on him is gone. The thing is, they never actually thought there would be a next movie or maybe "there might be one but we'll just write it as we go along". It doesn't work like that when you're working with established long-running characters.

You might call that "not being afraid of doing something with the franchise", but I call it "being artistically shorsighted".

Somewhat, I guess. Care to point specific inconsistencies with the MCU that drag it down (rather than those merely stylistic or that actually improve on the comic lore?)

Interesting. I didn't know that.
Maybe they could have The Other Darrin'd him? It's not like Marsden's face and voice are utterly unique. Add the glasses and most of the audience wouldn't even realize it was a different man.

I always said the third movie sucked. But that only makes it bad, not the movies that preceeded it nor the ones that followed and fixed stuff.

Well, they comletely fucked up The Mandarin for one thing. Possibly the coolest Iron Man villain, and an opportunity for a great "magic vs. science" plot and instead they went for a weak twist and a generic Dr Insano villain. There's also Ultron, who they turned into a joke instead of a cold, sinister menace, and pretty much the entire backstory of the Vision is gone. And Thanos' new motivation and goal in Infinity War makes no goddamn sense whatsoever.

But generally, I don't think the changes from the comics are in an of themselves good or bad. They just are. In the MCU and in all the other comic book movies. I mean, these heroes already exist in plethora of different versions in the comics, not to mention all the other media.

Not just him. The director of the first two movies was gone, directing... you guessed it - Superman Returns. That's why X-Men 3 ended up being such a train-wreck.

hahaha, hilarious as always.

I'm no jew nor muslik. But i am circumcised because i had "extra skin" down there. :D

I think it's actually good to be circumcised, less health related problems. And girls tend to like my "wee wee" so much more because of it. :D

*sorry for/if too much information shared!

I think review bombing is ultimately harmful to free speech because I feel it falls in line on a small level with what John Stuart Mill called "the tyrrany of the majority" in his 1859 work, On Liberty. The basic premise of which, *actually takes a look at the many reviews about dongs* was that oh, huh, hmmm *keeps scrolling* um, uhhhhhh... penises, arguments made in bad faith, uhhh, Silent Hill Wiki, UHHHHH... O_O

Silent Hill wiki? GOG, are we getting a new release? </sarcasm>

(Actually, I'd love the survival horror games of my youth to be available here).