I could make a blog out of this, but I think it'd be too short to justify it. I think it is absolutely stupid that reviewers have to justify their reviews sometimes, like the review for Uncharted 3 from Eurogamer, or the review for Skyward Sword (Which I don't own a Wii, let alone a Zelda game). Why? Why should the reviewer have to justify themselves? Do you think a reviewer has to justify their review, especially to gamers who have clearly already bought the game? Do you think people need a review to make them feel better about the game they've already bought? Too many times I've read about angry gamers who lash out against review sites for not 'agreeing' with them or their opinion. I'm under the impression that reviews are there to tell you whether the game sucks or not before you purchase, but it seems some members of the gaming crowd use reviews to ensure that this game they bought is awesome... it is like they need others to agree with them. I don't mind disagreeing with a review, or other gamers, I do it all the time. What I do mind is angry letters written to the reviewer in question, to the point where they need to make another article to justify their review. Thoughts?