For linguistic comprehension, opinions are better be expressed by preceding them with "I think" or "I believe"; just because it is coming from you, people are not going to always see what you are saying as an opinion. For example:
Also Earthbound sucks.
This gives the impression of defining fact. It answers the question of "What is Earthbound?" to most who read it and those who share the opinion that they believe the game to suck, it will be seen as equivocal to an opinion. It is all about perception.
And a counterexample:
I should also mention that I find Earthbound to be horribly retarded.
This clearly shows the pronoun "I" and makes it clear that it is coming from his perspective and identifying it as an opinion is easier.
Saying that a game is awesome is often seen as alright by those viewing it and in some cases those who claim such things are asked why or it comes up with their opinion. Negative opinions go against the grain though and really if you are going to go in that direction, reasons why would validate the opinion. Negativity has that drawback - while you can have a negative opinion, it trolls a bit.
Rather than continue the bad blood between both sides, it makes more sense to ask the people who thought the game was good why they thought the game was as such. Normally they complement something about the game with their posts, otherwise it just flows better with those who do and in that it gains acceptance to say with no reasons. In the end though, thinking critically, there is good and bad to everything.
Then again, ET for the Atari and games that are horribly designed have a drawback in that their negatives are high, there are no positives (the game running is a negative), and most people will agree that it is bad, so to say it is good and to go against the grain needs assistance.
That is just how I see it.
