But the number is only meaningful in the context of the larger review. That's the problem with Metacritic in general. It aggregates the number without any regard for the content of the review. I can think of games that I would write good reviews for and give pretty high marks to that were buggy as hell because the game underneath the bugs was that good. Those kind of games will never get a good review from IGN or Gamespot, because their measure of "quality" places a ton of emphasis on polish. LIkewise I can think of plenty of games that get great reviews from IGN or Gamespot that I would give low marks, because for me polish isn't that big a factor.
Tom doesn't claim the game is broken. He explains pretty thoroughly why he gives it 1/5. The text of the review matters. You can't separate the number from the review. For the reasons he explained in the text the game merits a 1/5 ("I hated it."). Who are you to tell him that he's not allowed to hate the game, especially when he spent hundreds of words telling you exactly why he hated it.
This is my favorite. The point of this review isn't that CoH is worth 20/100, it's that Tom hated the game. Are you saying that every single person who hates this game has something wrong with their brain? Are you that opposed to differing viewpoints?
He can hate it all he wants but such extremist opinion aren't helpful to anybody. What is the goal of this blog? Inform people of just express himself. If it is just expressing himself then he shouldn't influence metacritic score good or bad. And by the way, as a review, it is quite lackluster, a lot of good additions aren't mentioned at all as well as quite a few missing features. For someone writing such short reviews he passes way too much time on the same points....
Throwing "extremist" into your response doesn't magically validate what you're saying. This site, Qt3, has a review policy. 1/5 stars means the reviewer hated the game. Just that, nothing more. The text of the review is then supposed to support that rating.
In this case Tom explains why he hated the game thoroughly.
You seem to be trying really hard to miss the point that this is all subjective. Those "lot of good additions" you mention weren't enough to stop Tom from hating the game. For others those same additions may make it the best game ever. Regardless, reviewing any entertainment is an ENTIRELY subject exercise. Trying to complain that someone doesn't conform to some imagined standard is a waste a breath.
Well some people check reviews for more than that. And some of those people like the way Tom reviews games and the factors he considers, even if they don't always agree with him.
You're opinion doesn't get to dominate everyone else. That's the beauty of the internet. Go back to IGN or Gamespot and your safe 7-9 "always get the validation of your opinions" world.
After reading too many better thought-out an better written (the conclusions to your arguments actually make sense) responses to this review like yours, I have went from a vague feeling of anger to one of pure violation. Tom MUST be doing this on purpose at this point. He strikes me as a good writer who knows that he can get away with publishing a proof-read first draft and playing the game for only a few hours, and still get clicks. Maybe if we were to look back at the earlier reviews on this site, we'd see much more developed arguments and more evidence that he'd actually played the game enough to write a helpful and informed review. I suspect that at one point, he may have realized that the site didn't make enough money for him to spend so much time writing reviews on it, and he had two choices: He could write less reviews to keep a standard of quality but lose revenue through page views, or he could slap together most of his reviews in 10 to 30 minutes and keep the page views.
Well I'm officially done with this site - I'm not going to read bad reviews any more. I'll just stick to www.giantbomb.com (go to that shit, its good stuff).
You like to answer things that makes no sense do you? I just said I don't like most of the games with stellar review but you reply to me to go back to IGN for safe 7-9 reviews for validation of my opinion.....Dude seriously reading comprehension isn't your strong suit you are only blablating at this point....
You admittedly ended up here through Metacritic. And then repeatedly throughout this discussion you're complaining that the review score is "dishonest" and "doesn't represent the quality of the game at all" and "he likes to hate things, not inform people" and that everyone "should look somewhere else for advice".
All subjective crap because you don't like that this review score differs from the review scores you want to read about. Based on this site's scoring policy and Tom's review, the score makes perfect sense. That it doesn't make you happy is the fault of metacritic and an industry review system that scores the vast majority of games between 7 and 9 on a 10 point scale.
Just because you don't like the review and the score doesn't make it dishonest or hating. It makes it opinion. You know... a review.
Yes it is exactly what I meant, His system works differently and is better than the one from the industry for sure. This why his score shouldn't be on metacritic, even if his system is better it doesn't fit with the rest and gives an exaggerated low score...I find most reviews about CoH2 way too forgiving, while I really like it I am a CoH vet and they fucked up a lot of things with the UI and matchmaking....no real ranking system....But it doesn't mean that the opposite (too low) is better.
His score isn't "too low" though. It's exactly in keeping with his review and this site's scoring system. That's the point. The problem here is Metacritic, not Qt3. It's the idea that scores can be looked at absent the review text that accompanies them and have some meaning. If one reviewer only enjoys highly polished games because bugs enrage him and another is highly forgiving of bugs for games with new and entertaining mechanics they are going to produce two very different reviews of the same game with two very different scores. That's how it should be. But the scores themselves are inherently meaningless without the text explaining why the game was rated so well or poorly.
The idea that we can somehow make the review scores have inherent value without the text is the whole problem with Metacritic. That very idea is what leads to the 7-9 phenomena and the nerd-rage when someone comes along and posts a review and score outside what the masses are used to seeing.
It's a great game, but while the score is off the comments aren't very dissimilar from those in most reviews. In summary, there's pretty much unanimous agreement on the following two key points (on which I'd agree):
a) It plays very much like Company of Heroes. b) It's not quite as good as Company of Heroes
The key problem with the commanders isn't that they no longer have a tree, or even particularly with the lack of options, it's merely the clumsiness of the command point system as enacted here, and its impact on game pacing. 5 CPs and you've unlocked everything - it makes what should be a game that gives you time to explore and enjoy its detail and tactical finesse a very quick rush to superabilities to blow everything up, as command abilities that dominate the game emerge too early; it feels a lot more like Dawn of War II than CoH in that regard. As someone who hasn't been able to play DoW II since discovering the more sophisticated CoH, this is a definite step back - DoW II is a good game, but it's a pale shadow of Company of Heroes.
Much better would have been to unlock things sequentially - keep the automatic unlocks and the five abilities, but unlock them in sequence as in the first game, so that 1 CP unlocks the first 1CP ability instead of all 1 CP abilities, etc/
A principal rule for writers, and especially those who want to describe their own sensations, is not to believe that their doing so indicates they possess a special disposition of nature in this respect. Others can perhaps do it just as well as you can. Only they do not make a business of it, because it seems to them silly to publicize such things
First of all, GREGG will you hop off Toms Dick? God dam... Your blowing up the comment section trying to explain to anyone who disagrees with his review. Who the fuck cares. Just read the review and shut up. Everyone. If you dont like it then shut up if you like it then shut up. Talk about the game itself not the review. Good day.
Wow, I just read the full review and have to admit that this is a very very bad review of the game. You should remove it or you will greatly damage your reputation... just saying
I don't think that such a short text and so few points mentioned good or bad can make a good review, He just talk about what he hates, and I hate those things too, but there are several others things he didn't mention that are bad as well and quite a few improvements from the original too...Maybe the idea of what he is doing as reviewer is good but the execution is weak, incomplete and misleading....
