When I see one forum from Megacritic which is "Dumbest Reviewer Ever", I noticed that one reader says that SSSB is the worst game ever just because Master Chief is not in the game.

When I start a poll named "Which one do you think is most frustrating?", of course, one person voted for "Lousy user reviews talking about SSSB". Of course, nobody likes a person who give SSSB a "0", right?

Plus, if you see some reader reviews on IGN, you noticed that about 4 readers who give it a "0". To make things even worse, they said that they don't like the theme song. (But they, actually, post it BEFORE the game is on sale.)

So, I just want to know how do you think, so please reply about this. AND NO CRITICISM PLEASE.

Why do people give games 0? You know how bad a game would have to be to get a 0? Like Ghostbusters for the NES bad.

Unless of course people get incredibly hyped up for a game then it doesn't meet their expectations, so they get really pissed and give it a 0. I could see that, even though I personally wouldn't review a game that way.

SSBB is fun for awhile, but I haven't played it in months. I think it's a great game, but it wasn't all that the hype made it out to be.

Even as someone who can be really harsh with games, I agree. A game would have to be really, really bad to get a 0. The game mechanics would have to be really glitchy and impossible to deal with, and the over all object of the game would have to contradict itself.

I think you’re right, Professor. Expectations become high as the anticipation and hype for a game continue to grow; this seems to be particularly common with sequels.

Another scenario: Sometimes when a game becomes really popular, everyone worships it, but you’ll get one guy who doesn’t like the game and gets ridiculed by a group of ravenous fanboys the moment he doesn’t sing the same unmitigated praise to the game. This might inspire someone to give a game a 0. The more you have to listen to people praise a game you don't really like, the more you will hate it.