Critics don't get personal. You're completely missing my point here.
I agree completely. I LOVE CoH 1, I have some 400-500 hours on it, and I'm still considered a somewhat newbie. This game is complete trash, on top of Tom Chick's review, It's amazingly similar to the Warhammer 40,000k RTS games. In a bad way - there's almost no importance to units on the battlefield, the game is way too fast, and there's so much shit thrown at the mini map it's simply frustrating to try and control the gameplay.
Boze to je ale curak tenhle recenzet.
Once again, just like with Civ5, Tom is the only reviewer that gave it the review it deserved.
And if you think it's meaningless, pretty much every other game that's won the award would like to have a word with you.
Seriously, there's something wrong with the fact that you're on hand to defend every abysmal review this guy writes.
When you are older (or smarter), you will realize that industry insiders love to give themselves awards. It happens in politics, and it happens in videogames. It's not objective, it's totally useless and there's no point in citing it in any serious argument. At least in film they get the awards AFTER producing the goddamn product, so there is some semblance of purpose to the proceedings.
But anyway, if your best argument while playing COH 2 is "this must be fun, it won lots of awards," then more power to you. It's an unbalanced shitshow of a game right now.
Sorry dude, but what planet did you hop off from?
Publishers advertise on magazines and sites, that's how 'reviewers' make a living.
That's how a game and its 'review' come into being.
I never heard of any rule that says it has to be an ad or a banner, did you?
Wouldn't make any difference anyway.
fuck you
Not as sad as what companies do to fluff review scores.
This is the only objective and honest review for the game I could find. I'm now a permanent resident of this site because it seems to be a beacon of hope in an industry chalked full of corporate apologists and stooges. This is one of the only reviews I find accurate and I beta tested CoH2 for over 40 hours. Tom Chick hit the nail on the head with this review. I can't understand why anyone would be so upset with one man's opinion when you have an ocean of biased opinions that might better fit your personal agenda.
Another day, another game rated extremely low. This website is a total fucking joke
People love giving themselves awards, it's true. Other people, not so much. How nice of you to cite politics, and not note that you rarely find politicians giving each other little bonuses... unless they're on the same side.
That aside, what's YOUR best argument? Not just for this game- have you played it? I wonder- but for virtually EVERY title that Tom fails to be impressed by. I'm seeing a surprising lack of your own identity, as if agreeing with him all the time will somehow make you more important.
I suppose it works a bit, as you certainly garner more attention as his steadfast cosigner than you likely otherwise would. Personally, though, I just can't see the appeal of riding the coattails of someone so incompetent at their "job."
I disagree with Tom plenty of times. His reviews of the pinball games and Marvel Heroes are absurd, to give two recent examples. I also criticized his Airland Battle review for ignoring obvious AI deficiencies.
Making stuff up isn't a good tactic in an argument.
Honest review! I am happy people actually has the balls to tell the thruth!
People (most of them) like the game, because it is a crap arcade and they can actually play it with no brains...
I understand your point, I just disagree with it; the real issue here is the score. Tom has made clear time after time he uses the whole scale and bases his score on his experience with the game (subjective). This is hardly the first time this approach has garnered a harsh reaction, and you are hardly the first to attempt to "call him out" for his score...
The text of this review with a 70 and no one would have a problem with it, because a 70 is what you give games you "don't like." A 20/100!? Is this worse than Mad Dog McCree!?
No, it's just that Tom uses his own criteria; you may not agree with it, and you certainly don't have to, but he's made his position clear. He's given games HE LIKED a 3 star review, hurting personal friends of his in meta critic rankings, because he sticks to his metric rather than putting it in the 70-90 scale meta critic is based on. Yes, a game HE LIKED got a 60/100, because that's what meta critic translates his score into... if PC Gamer gave a 60 it would mean something completely different.
This is a problem with meta critic's "interpretation" more than Tom's like or dislike of the game, but if any publicity is good publicity then you can't say these scores don't drive traffic. ;p
Yeah, I totally agree with everything you just said. I just don't believe that his reviews should be posted on Metacritic because of their interpretation.
That's my entire point. This shouldn't be a critic review on Metacritic.
This idiot doesnt even have a decent pc to play the game on. Look at the shitty screenshot.
This review is a joke!
My 1st and last time at this site...
Critics don't get personal. You're completely missing my point here.