I actually watched the show where Advent Rising was reviewed. They made a big deal out of Tommy doing the music for it. They even had a short video clip of an orchestra playing one of Tommy’s compositions.
I think that counts as disclosure.
I don’t remember them mentioning he did the anything for Unreal Championship 2. He did give it a lower score than Vic did, 7 versus Vic’s 8.5.
Actually, maybe that was X-Play that reviewed it.
Tommy is teh dum! Watch Attack of the Show! or X-Play instaed!
–Dave
Caught a bit of X-Play at lunch today.
Adam was funny as usual. But the funniest riff was unintentional – Morgan ragging on the voice acting in a game. (Or maybe one of the show’s writers appreciates irony…)
Which makes your review completely worthless to anyone at all interested in that particular type of onion. A professional reviewer needs to look past their dislike of a particular type of product in order to give a useful review. If Rolling Stone reviews a CD with, “It’s country, so it sucks” I might miss an enjoyable CD. But if they are able to point out that although it has country stylings, it also has folk and alternative influences, I can expand my musical horizons a bit. “It sucks” is not a review, it’s an unsubstantiated opinion.[/quote]
SK, I’m not going to disagree, except that a reviewer in that position should reveal their bias, because their dislike is likely associated with inexperience. Do I want someone who hates strategy games to tell me about strategy games? Just tell me to move on. They probably don’t know what they are talking about.
Or said the onion way,
If you think all onions suck, can I really trust you to pick out a good one? I don’t want to here about the one you can eat without throwing up. I want to hear about the one that actually tastes good.
Oh, I agree, a reviewer should state that they may not be a fan of a genre, but the difference between a professional reviewer and Tomm^H^H^H^Ha moron spouting nonsense is that they are able to look past their personal preferances and identify what a game does well, and what a game does less well. Of course if a genre causes physical illness (say, simulator sickness in FPSes), then even a professional reviewer ought pass on games of that genre.
Tallarico’s inability to say anything coherent on any game in a genre he dislikes is completely unprofessional, and in fact, leads me to discount his opinions even on games he does like. The fact that he is still working in the industry with developers also raises all kinds of red flags. Has anyone ever compared his scores on games he’s worked on vs. games he hasn’t?
Tallarico’s inability to say anything coherent on any game in a genre he dislikes is completely unprofessional, and in fact, leads me to discount his opinions even on games he does like. The fact that he is still working in the industry with developers also raises all kinds of red flags. Has anyone ever compared his scores on games he’s worked on vs. games he hasn’t?
I think that everyone here can agree with all of that.
I am trying to imagine a restaurant reviewer who openly says, “I freaking hate Mexican food. It’s just something I don’t like. Now, as for my dinner at Casa Paco, it just sucked. I hated all the food.” What value is a review, when the reviewer openly admits he hates the genre, and bases his low scores on that fact? Some here laud the fact that he’s open about his prejudices. I ask, what value have reviews based on them? Why watch them at all?
I recommend reading this book to see how a real professional handles his prejudices. Also, a great, great book.
Cool stuff ordered.
I don’t get how this works. If I’m not a fan of RTS how will I be able to identify what a RTS game does well and what doesn’t work?
An opinion of someone who doesn’t normally like the genre can still be of interest but that seems more of a second opinion type of piece.
An opinion of someone who doesn’t normally like the genre can still be of interest but that seems more of a second opinion type of piece.
I agree and here is what I think. Lets say you gave the game a 9/10 because it was an amazing game but you like the type of game you reviewed. Now at the end of the review it would be helpful for the reader if there was someone who was not a fan of the review that could sort of back up the justification of the 9/10.
“Even though I dont like these types of games this one really pulled me in yadda yadda”
Or something along those lines. Something to sort of balance out the review. I dunno how feasable that is though and its prolly not at all.
I find the Tommy hate hilarous. People take his reviews too personally. Who cares if he knocks a game for frivolous resons? The show is for entertainment purposes. This isn’t the Learning Channel or PBS. It’s a show about freaking video games. OMG HE GAVE FINAL ANIME XIXIXXII A TWO because of the SPIKEY HAIR! How does that affect you in any way? The guy spent almost half a show GUSHING over a damn jockey simulator game without Victor. (Tommy is freakishly crazy about them for some reason)
Take a cue from MST3K: Repeat to yourself ‘it’s just a show, I should really just relax.’
He’s honest and straightforward and actually, it’s refreshing to hear a more casual opinion.
Me included, oddly enough.
I agree with this also. I think I’m just one to let this stuff slide rather easily.
Well, “honest” and “straightforward” are minimum standards, frankly. A 12 year-old can be honest and straightforward with you with regard to how he feels about a game. “Informed” and “discerning” are much more valuable.
Maybe instead of watching some dude on TV you could just head to the local GameStop and ask the clerks and the people who walk in how they feel about the games you’re interested in. By your standards, should be ultra-refreshing-- and commercial-free to boot.
That would be necessary if he was Dan Rather. You’re holding him to some high standard as an art critic when to me he’s just a guy talking about video games.
Maybe instead of watching some dude on TV you could just head to the local GameStop and ask the clerks and the people who walk in how they feel about the games you’re interested in. By your standards, should be ultra-refreshing-- and commercial-free to boot.
I would but it’s too much work. Besides, I wouldn’t get a) the gameplay footage, b) a rational headed viewpoint from Victor and c) amusing banter when they argue.
Like: X-Play, Filter, Cinematech (most of the time)
Dislike: Judgement Day (for reasons already stated by others)
Couldn’t Care Less About: Pretty much every other show on G4
Strangely Fascinated By: Laura Foy from G4tv
This has been a quite informative, and dare I say it, discerning thread. I really don’t remember much of what I’ve seen on G4. X-Play I remember. Oscar the Grouch with bizarrely mumbling mannerisms paired up with the cute chick who actually seems to have played the games (unlike most cute chicks on G4 that seem mainly to exist to hold up small items and read from teleprompters). It wasn’t that bad but, really, do you learn that much you couldn’t just hitting websites in a fraction of the time? I could be watching G4 or actually playing a game and my time is limited, people!
Still, I have caught a couple episodes of Icon, I think it’s called, and one was about The Dreamcast and another, tonight, covered EA Games. Now that was stuff that managed to hold my interest.
I’ll give G4 a bit more time and thought before I shift it onto the “don’t waste my valuable clicker time” list along with the Home Shopping Network, MTV, Univision and Oxygen.
[quote=“Jazar”]
That would be necessary if he was Dan Rather. You’re holding him to some high standard as an art critic when to me he’s just a guy talking about video games.[/quote]
Having not seen the show (already saturated with too much game info at work), I can’t comment on Tallarico specifically. But even the IGN mandate extends beyond “a guy talking about video games.”