Adorable. You two...you two...you two really have something SPECIAL!
Can ask why you give so many shits about Metacritic?
Yay! Ad hominem attacks are fun AND contribute meaningfully to a conversation!
BAZINGA!
This review is ~1200 words. IGN's was something like ~1700. What number of words in between those two numbers qualifies as proper length? What magic number, in your mind, constitutes proper length? Do you think that if we asked every person commenting on this thread what made for an ideal length review, we might get.. oh 50 different answers? It's almost as if that's a question with a subjective answer... But that's really besides the point.
You seem determined to ignore and/or skip over the point that all of this is subjective, including both mine and your opinions on what constitutes a good review. That's what people refuse to admit, as if Tom is somehow breaking with some golden objective standard of reviewing. I, and many others, appreciate the way Tom reviews games even when we don't always agree with him (A notable one being D3, which I thought was pretty terrible and he loves). Nothing about what he does is weak, incomplete, or misleading. Quite the opposite. He's very upfront about how he reviews games and what his scores mean.
The problem is that the Metacritic crowd comes in every time Tom kicks their favorite virtual puppy and tries to bludgeon him with words like "weak", "incomplete", "misleading", "attention whore" and the like. And they try to bludgeon the site's readers into leaving, as if the unwashed masses showed up and suddenly revealed Tom for the video game reviewer anti-Christ that he really is.
Tom is trying to tell you that COH2 and A:CM were both 1/5 star games.
I don't get why this is so hard to understand.
He didn't like it.
Here's a parallel you can try to wrap your brain around. My wife loves mushrooms, I find them repellent. When we bar-be-que, I grill her a portobello mushroom next to my beef patty. In every case, I would give the portobello mushroom burger my wife eats a 1/5, because I strongly dislike it.
IGN's review was shit, too short and avoided almost all the game's problems....The worst I have seen for his game on the "too good" side was Destructoid who gave it a full 100.
Umm.. my point was over there. To your left some. Look down... closely. See it over there?
I think you missed it.
Hahahah
I saw your point, I just don' t agree that you can be a 100% subjective when your goal is to inform other people. Anybody has an opinion and can express it. To sum the pros and cons of something in an informative meaningful way to others it needs some objectivity. For example. I agree with Tom that SimCity is a broken game and not because of the "always online" fiasco. But I don't think that enumerating all the cons and then slap a "1" on it is any informative nor helpful. That is not what reviews should be. Even hateful movies reviewers mention the pros...(usually)
If you think the people who are informing you are doing so objectively congratulations on letting yourself get lied to.
Everyone who informs you, whether intentional or not, is doing so subjectively. They have their own biases and perspectives, their own beliefs and norms that all inform what they see and how they see it. They can't help but be subjective about it when they pass it on. Unless all you get are the exact facts with no author input, you're getting subjective information.
After that it's all a matter of degrees.
The whole thing you're missing here is that Tom didn't "enumerate all the cons and slap a 1 on it". He explained why he hated the game, and then he gave it the score that equated to "I hated it." Is he not entitled to hate a game? Does he have some reviewer standard that says he must like all games at least some minimum amount (a minimum probably equating to about a 7/10 if the rest of the industry is any guide). He's not reviewing by checklist. He's giving his impression of the game and what led him to that impression and the scoring it very clearly based on a predetermined scoring system.
I never take anybody's opinion into account, only the facts within the reviews to judge if it is worth trying or not. This game is an exception because I was part of the closed BETA so I probably have more experience with it than most reviewers did. I usually prefer to wait for the final product though.
While I understand that your 1/5 means you hated the game, it also makes me wonder why do you review game types you don't understand/like. It is like me trying bras (I'm a guy), realizing that they are uncomfortable and totally useless and rating them 0%. Yeah, the score is totally fair from my PoV but also the whole test was completely pointless.
Also if CoH is good, and CoH2 is rated the worst while being the same as CoH, does it mean that higher system reqs made all the difference? What if someone didn't play CoH? I did and the info that it is the same is truly useful, but that doesn't mean it is a worthless game.
Giving 2/5 to HotS and 1/5 to CoH2 clearly shows that you don't like (or more likely understand) the genre, as it was clearly shown your complaints about HotS. Please do yourself and everyone a favor and review only games you like/understand. Ofc it wouldn't generate a lot of traffic.
If he criticizes CoH for being the same, why would he give COD black ops 2 a 4/5 when that franchise has been rehashed to death?
I didn't say that he should have given it 4/5 and I do agree that lack of innovation in the game is disappointing.
However, there is a huge gap between 1/5 and 4/5. Is the game absolutely the same? No: new campaign, new units, new multiplayer modes and coop. Does it offer enough for its price? It depends on who you ask.
Also it is an interesting question: does having a similar game make the quality or potential enjoyment less? What if I didn't play CoH?
Even if someone did, I simply don't believe that someone who liked/loved the CoH series would absolutely hate the new game. Being somewhat disappointed, sure. Hate the guts of it (I assume 1/5 must mean that), no way, that is a lie.
You've sent more than 1 comment, cocksucker. FUCK YOU
That was true at the time of writing then someone else came up, Faggot. FUCK YOU
For the record, I was agreeing with you. I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. Tom Chick criticized this game for being familiar, he gave it a 1/5 which I'm sure it doesn't deserve that score.
Why would he criticize this game for being familiar and not doing anything new, but give COD a great score when EVERY COD is EXACTLY the same every year?! Do you see what I'm saying? He criticized this for being familiar, but was completely fine with Call of Duty rehash (insert number here)
This 'review' is no different than the person on Amazon, who gives his new Android Tablet 1 star because it's not iOS.