And here I would refer you to all of the previous text, in which I never once said I believe everything he says. The CLOSEST thing I said to anything along those lines is that based on his seemingly sound reasoning and presentation, that I would trust his impressions about the games he played. Taken in the appropriate…

Occam's razor only applies to the simplest logical conclusion (which is stated as the one with the fewest assumptions), which you've provided zero unbiased scientific evidence or logic for (i.e. you're assuming the hell out of things beyond just whether or not he is lying, like the notion I'm blindly believing of…

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-11-21-reggie-it-only-takes-one-game-sale-to-make-a-wii-u-profitable

"Maybe? that's your argument?"

"but at least I have statistics on my side"

Absolutely LOVE the end of the article... "Oh well!" Truer words were never spoken... lets face it, these aren't the games you've picked up and slaved hundreds of hours in to make half of your desired progress (ty Pokemon and Skyrim) These are the games we all know and love, beaten numerous times, and now can have…

"I'm not assuming his liar (I believe he is, but that's irrelevant to my point here)"

"when the only mention he makes of it is that it wasn't his idea, but Qt3's"

"I'm making my argument based directly on what he said"

Emphasis on the "I" portion again. Given the "About" page, Tom is the lead contact, hence he would be one of the deciders, but ultimately a collaborator (based on the use of "we" and "us" again).

It is called "collaboration." He and whoever he works with to rate things on the site likely agreed to use 5 stars. At this point you sound like you're just being asinine and grasping at straws. He didn't HAVE to provide any sort of explanation for how he rates things, but he is sticking with his reviews, scores, and…

"If he values his ideals so much then why doesn't he just publish reviews without a numbered score to ensure metacritic doesn't list him?"

Well put. I am against censorship in general (barring extreme reasons e.g. excessively vulgar/vile/misogynistic or glorifying extreme cases of immoral behavior), but this particular reasoning feels kind of weak to me.

To summarize, there are a couple of matters on the table here

"then proceeded to call someone who interpreted what he said differently a sociopath"

Not at all. I've accepted his interpretation and explanation of his opinion based on how his review felt and his FAQ.

"whereas you are choosing to interpret what he's saying in the way that best supports your argument"

Lol. You're the only one saying his scale calls Halo 4 awful. He never said it was awful. He said it was a well worn groove that promised more than it delivered, and instead of giving more of the same Halo, it actually delivers less of the same. Here is the definition of subjective for your reference since you seem to…

*sigh* It looks like the problem here is reading comprehension. I never assumed any of his metrics. He states them pretty clearly.

"that's your interpretation of a 1-5 scale. My interpretation of a 1-5 scale is that 1 is dog shit, 3 is average, and 5 is great."