Yeah, well one of the worst reviews from probably THE worst reviewer in history. People who believe anything that Tom Chick reviews have to check their heads. What a waste of bits and bites.
I am not a blizz fanboy but I'd say this review is pretty undeserving. Granted HotS isn't a masterpiece, it's blizzard being blizzard, presenting the generic stuff their fans like. Still I'd say it's a fair improvement on the core game.
Something a few people in the comments need to hear - the reason there is more than one video-game reviewer, is because different people value different things in games, so more than one perspective is needed to give everyone an idea whether a game is up their alley.
So you liked Heart of the Swarm? Good for you! It seems many other reviewers shared your opinion, and gave it a high score. But if you're someone who can't stand lazy storytelling, those reviews might not be quite as useful as this one. So don't bash someone just for valuing different things in a game - historically, that doesn't accomplish much.
Oh no! Don't let Gormongous make up his own mind, no matter what you do!
He didn't give it a 40. He gave it two stars.
Metacritic really is one of the worst things that happened to videogame industry.
I know, right? What a shame that those "bites" aren't being used to feed the hungry!
Moreover, the "anything that Tom Chick reviews" are typically video games. Do you not believe in video games?
This 'review' is just here to generate traffice from metacritic and gamerankings. Nothing to see here, move along.
Tom's being generous. Based on that screenshot alone, I would give this game one (1) star for being so fucking hideous.
I know you heard this before, but you're horrible at this reviewing thing.
So you think the campaign is the reason most people play Starcraft?
I’m playing online is actually putting the protoss oracle to work because now my zerglings have slowed to a crawl and they’re getting mowed down by stalkers. The indignity.
Are u a Fail bronce player?
Small quibble. The skill ceiling is just as high (have you ever seen 400 apm marine splitting?) - the minimum skill floor is lower to make it more accessible.
Basing any part of a review on the fiscal obligations / intentions of a company does not help me decide whether to play it or not. When purchasing a game, I assume the developer wants to make money and benefit its shareholders. I assume this of even the most "indie" developers as they need to eat and pay mortgages too. Please focus future reviews entirely on gameplay, mechanics, balance, narrative, aesthetics, and other gaming issues as this one was not helpful. Thank you.
PS: I did read the other parts of the review and appreciated the dissenting opinion greatly. We need a range of opinions in criticism or media will not improve. I feel the overarching thesis of this review, however, returned only to the motivation of the developer, which is not relevant.
Disappointing, this review reads more like a polite nerd rage than an actual professional review.
Blizzard has crafted a strange thing. It's a game I love to watch, but hate to play, and will never buy any expansions for.
These new units can be used in awesome ways. I know because I've watched it happen. But if a game is tuned in a way that precludes most gamers from enjoying it, can it really be considered a success?
I think you can dislike a game, but when you are supposed to be objectively rating it, your personal biases shouldn't really matter. If you cannot separate your biases from the process, then you shouldn't be reviewing it. I think that objectively, the worst you could give a game like Halo 4 would be something like a 60/100. Not a 20. The game controls very well, has no glitches, has really good graphics for the 360, has a deeper story than any other Halo game. Even if you think it isn't creative, or you don't like the story, that doesn't merit a 20. But that brings me back to my original point- I don't think the reviewer actually cared much about giving the game a fair score- I think he is much more interested in website traffic. To be the only negative review on 2 marquee games is no coincidence. As I said above, he just wants website traffic- and it's working.
omg ...excellent trolling there mr chick ... :(
The entire point of reviews are to see what people think about the product. If you and I didn't care, we wouldn't have visited this site in the first place.
Was scrolling through chat. Big deal? Now just responding to comments. Big deal? Still the last review of theirs I'm reading. Have a good day.
I care in the sense that I wanted to see how Mr. Chick felt about HotS. I disagree with his assessment, but it doesn't make me angry or upset. I just don't get why you're so vitriolic over his opinion.
No offense, but what do you mean by "objectively rating it"? We all view media subjectively. You can knock a writer for being mistaken about a technical issue (which he may deserve a bit for not really getting the impact the new units will have on mp), but you can't have "wrong" feelings about a game. You feel what you feel, and if you can express why you feel a certain way (which Tom does) that's all that matters.
I also was speaking about why do you care about metacritic so much? Do you have a financial stake in any of these games that Tom blasts? If not, I would simply like to know why you seem to care so much about the impact of Tom's scores on metacritic.