It probably affects the kid watching who uses it to gauge what he should spend his $50 on for the month. JD is very quick to point out that their show is an “opinions show” not a “review show,” but with the scores up there and such, most people don’t make that distinction. Tommy’s positives and negatives wouldn’t make my head hurt so much if they were a little better explained. The Forza bit was mindboggling to me. My jaw literally dropped open when one of the positives listed for The Guy Game (which got an obscenely high score from Tommy) was “High quality video.”
Vic’s usually right on the ball, IMO, so it’s kind of like the old At The Movies days when I saw things Ebert’s way instead of Siskel’s about 90% of the time. I like Tommy personally, and enjoy talking games with him whenever I see him at events or when he drops by the office, but occasionally Judgment Day makes me feel confused and sad.
Huh?? Exactly whats the distinction? They talk about a game. What they liked and didn’t then they give it a numerical rating. They will talk about a piece of hardawre/accesory and say wether people should get it or not. Exactly what about their show doesn’t fall under a “review show”. Does that make X-play a “opinion show” too?
Another part of the problem that I have with him is the fact that he has the power to influence millions of potential game buyers and he does so with these bullshit antics.
He has the ability to turn off potential buyers to a game buy going off on bullshit tangents about them.
I’m not sure I can. He gave Advent Rising higher marks than average, but gave Unreal Championship 2 lower marks than average. He worked on both. I’d need to see a fairly comprehensive list of examples where he marked up games he worked on before I jumped to that conclusion. He may be a horrible reviewer for ignoring his own genre biases (instead pretending the games are flawed and not just his thing), but I don’t think he’s biased towards games he works on.
[color=blue]Pro-Tommy
Numerous times I’ve heard him tell the audience before reviewing certain games, that he’s not a fan of particular genres, and that reviews of such games should be taken with a grain of salt.
I don’t know what you people think his reviews are supposed to represent, but ever since I saw my first episode on Discovery Science, I’ve been aware that Tommy reviews games as a gamer, and not necessarily as a game reviewer. Is this unacceptable? I don’t really get where all the hate is coming from. Are you mad that he gave your favorite button manufacturing sim a low score or something? Get over it.[/color]
[color=red]Anti-Tommy
Sometimes I really get pissed off when Tommy trashes a great game simply because he doesn’t enjoy the genre. A subjective review serves only to spawn ones own limited taste of games and thus does a great disservice to both the industry and the viewer.
A review should be an honest analysis of the product, it’s features, and it’s place amongst other titles in it’s respective genre. What do his reviews accomplish? These abominations of gaming journalism are less a review of the games themselves, than of the man playing them.[/color]
Huh?? Exactly whats the distinction? They talk about a game. What they liked and didn’t then they give it a numerical rating. They will talk about a piece of hardawre/accesory and say wether people should get it or not. Exactly what about their show doesn’t fall under a “review show”. Does that make X-play a “opinion show” too?
A review is an opinion on something.[/quote]
I just report the news, man. Never said it made sense. I think the idea is that they’re just two dudes saying what they think, as opposed to being traditional critics operating within a formalist construct. Or something.
Sidenote: You’d be amazed how often we get email complaining that we’re supposed to be reviewing games, not giving our opinions on them. :roll:
Are these two different things? Every game reviewer I know is also a gamer, or do you turn your gamer card in at the door once you give a game a rating?
Gamers’ Standpoint - This game is boring and it sucks. 1/10
Game Reviewers’ Standpoint - I don’t like this kind of game, but it’s well designed and stands up well against it’s peers. 8/10
What’s the difference between these two reviews? They’re both perfectly valid opinions. Do you think it’s possible to give a good (honest) score to a game that you don’t enjoy? Do you think the latter review holds more or less credibility than the former?
Idealy, you’d want a fan of the genre to review the game, as they would be more likely to represent the prospective buyers’ point of view. Fail that, you’d want to be more objective in your review, so as to be as fair as possible to the game and the readers.
Tommy happens to be more personal in his Judgement Day reviews. I don’t really see the problem.
I got kinda lost in the thread when people were calling Morgan Webb a mutant and being fascinated by Foy instead. Fear.
As others have said, X-Play is great because they usually show quite a bit of a game, even if they go a bit over the top in their ‘reviews’ at times (though I usually find them pretty funny, even when I disagree with the ratings).
But WHY oh WHY is Whip Set on this channel of all things! My eyes! It burns!
Tommy is an ass. I have never heard him say anything I found particularly enlightening or useful. Victor Lucas seems to do a good job though.
As for the rest, The Whip Set needs to ditch Dr. Ghetto Stereotype And Boobies. Or, at least, change his image and get rid of the dancing whores.
I like X-Play. I find both of them entertaining and their reviews insightful and honest. The OMG HUGE GAME EVERYONE MUST PLAY don’t automatically get the 5/5, and they manage to find redeeming features in games they may not personally enjoy, but others that love whatever genre the game is may enjoy. I mean, there is such a thing as a good barbie game, and it’s time we realized this. Most people on this board would not ever play one, but there are a lot of little girls and questionable boys out there that want to play computer games too, but everything out there for them is stupid.
I like attack of the show, most of the time. If they have a geeky in a not endearing way co-host, I won’t watch it, because they are so annoyingly distracting that I can’t stand it. I like the co-host that does the Feed and otherwise sits on the couch. All the hosts seem to interact with eachother in a very real way, and it looks like they enjoy what they do. That goes a long way into making a good show, in my opinion, and is also the reason I love shows like Regis and Kelly and Conan O’Brian. They are often a little (or a lot) behind the times in the latest internet meme, but they catch some I haven’t, and I’ve bought a few things that they’ve shown on the show. Lots of good, useful information presented in a fun, laid back manner. A+
I never called Morgan Webb a mutant. She’s cute, and I like X-Play. But yes, there’s a reason I wrote “strangely fascinated by” Laura Foy, instead of just “fascinated by”. Dunno, it’s just there.
Why? XPlay would be a considerably better show if it was split screen, with strippers on one side, and the videogame footage on the other side.
It is acceptable to call for fewer ghetto stereotypes. It is acceptable to call for fewer cars. It is not acceptable to call for fewer boobies. Turn in your man card at the door.
It is acceptable to call for fewer ghetto stereotypes. It is acceptable to call for fewer cars. It is not acceptable to call for fewer boobies. Turn in your man card at the door.[/quote]
Gold. This is just a great exchange. My only hope is that Euri doesn’t drop the ball–so to speak–and ignore it.
