Again, where did I say I wasn't qualified to review the multiplayer? I don't think that's the case at all. Frankly, as a dude who plays a metric ton of RTSs, I think I'm probably more qualified than most reviewers.
As for getting the review removed from Metacritic, I think you're missing the point of an aggregate, not to mention the literal definition.
This review baffled me, until I saw this in the comments:
"...I remember how Dustin Bowder confronted you at an industry event..."
Reading this review in the context of "It's payback time" makes all the sense in the world. But as others have correctly pointed out, your credibility is severely damaged. But you probably don't care... you got the page hits you were after.
I hate to disabuse you of your conspiracy theory, but you might want to look into what actually happened rather than just inventing scenarios. Dustin and I were on a panel at GDC and he was a little gruff with me about my rating of Starcraft II, a game I quite liked and graded with a B (it was on Gameshark, which I believe has since gone under). The disconnect for me was that he assumed I didn't like the game because he only remembered that my score was lower than most, not anything about what I'd actually written.
But I really enjoyed talking to him, and I particularly enjoyed a Starcraft II talk he gave at GDC. He's a great guy, a smart designer, and a fantastic public speaker. I wish him and his games nothing but the best.
Here's the link if you're interested:
2 is 40% of 5. The math works out lol
This review baffled me, until I saw this in the comments:
"...I remember how Dustin Bowder confronted you at an industry event..."
Reading this review in the context of "It's payback time" makes all the sense in the world. But as others have correctly pointed out, your credibility is severely damaged. But you probably don't care... you got the page hits you were after.
What a fantastic review... I'll just start by saying that I'm a huge fan of your writing style in general. 1. Am I just too lazy of an RTS player? It feels like such work to involve myself into the intricacies of every unit and combination thereof...
2. What happened to the meaningful story and cutscenes that had me playing into the early morning trying to get a glimpse of the evolving storyline? 3. Why do we settle for these ridiculous semi-expansions and pay full price all while massive game companies smile to bank? What happened to innovation and craftsmanship and developing a game for gamers - not to make a deposit into a bank?
Why on earth would you think you know something about reviewing?
Yeah, she was pretty cool back in the day as Raynor's main squeeze, pre-"Predator" hairstyle.
It is for me and most people I know, and I loved the story and the campaign. But I find MP to be crap, as it is all just about rush, rush and more rushing.
Which is why, contrary to what some fellow below said, this is probably the most informed review I've read.
My coworker said he LOVED the campaign and stayed up far into the night finishing it over the course of two nights.
I'm not into RTS except for Age of Mythology and Dawn of War 2, so I have no opinion.
Exactly what do you think Tom Chick gets out of "website traffic" that would primarily be from people who are coming to spam and post hate, then never visit again?
The idea is ridiculous. You may not like his review, you may think it is way off base, that is fine, but your premise that he is just Tom "Does it for the hits" Chick just does not make sense.
Except saying 40% makes people think of the traditional school grading system, where anything below a 60% is a failing score, an F.
I don't understand why people STILL don't get how Tom Chick's reviews work. There is a post on the site that details his process and what his scores mean.
Well seeing as Tom Chick's employer is Tom Chick I think it is unlikely he will get "canned".
I can tell you are a man of intellect and character.
Blizzard has said that 50% of their players never even play a single multiplayer match. Plenty of people buy this for the campaign, and the campaign has stunningly great gameplay despite the bad story and writing.
As for the multiplayer, much more has changed than you realize. You can't judge the additions to the multiplayer when you clearly are completely ignorant as to their purposes, and you can't judge the single player when you don't even consider it the real part of the game.
The question then is: Is there any legitimacy to this review at all? And the answer is no.
Ironically the final paragraph contains all the right words to describe this review: "awful," "poorly written," "pointless," "meaningless," "without a shred of [...] insight," "spectacularly [...] fail[s]"
Starcraft sucks. Company of Heroes 2 will mop the floor with this game.
"a few units is pretty much what your getting with this add on" ..... a few cells is pretty much what you have for a brain.
im not a even starcraft player, but i like to watch replay games on youtube and you have no idea how much this line would piss players off.
lol this guy is so naive, adding "a few units" in terms of its impact to the multiplayer is like-
- growing another arm
- adding a sausage to your hotdog bun
- upgrading from a ipod to a imac
- growing your 3 foot plant into a tree
- going from a pet goldfish to a pet dog
- miami drafting lebron james
some of these are bad analogies but you get the point