And that's counter to what I posted how, exactly? As long as the review presents an honest opinion, and doesn't contain any verifiable fabrications, it's just as legitimate as anything else out there.
Tom would never get to review Papo and Yo due to lack of national credibility. I have a feeling he will never get to review another SquareEnix game either...unless he buys it.
That's some incredibly broken logic there. It's arguably a lot less suspicious to have someone disagree on a game, than it is to have everyone agree on one. I don't know a lot of people outside of the games press, who can boast an almost complete parity of preference.
That doesn't make him good. At some point you need to actually earn a degree in journalism, or at least English. Because that my friend, is a poorly written article. It doesn't take much to figure out you're wrong...just compare your score to the rest of the world. Out of all the reviewers, he is the only one that thinks this game is horrible. Does that not throw up a red flag? What is Tom some genius and he's the only person who saw this game for what "it really is"?
What a joke!
Well, maybe you should have made the game a little more innovative. People aren't obligated to give good reviews because you already bought a car with money you didn't have.
That'ts fair enough Tom. I appreciate your reply and understand that everyone has their own take on the way a review/article should be written. All the best.
This review is appalling. It's great for maybe an opinion piece on a blog.. but something that has weight on meta critic. What attracted me to this review was how negative it was. I walked in with an open mind wanting to see why the reviewer didnt like it. I feel sick to my stomach reading this garbage. Please take it off metacritic. I will not be returning here again.
maybe i wasnt precise. of course any kind of review is up to a certain point blended with subjectivity of the review but...
what i wanted to point out is that its just not fair to rate a technically decent game with good mechanics and acceptable graphics and design a very bad rating just because open world titles are like ac/dc albums. and offer no "exciting new experiences" for more experienced gamers or whatnot.
Yes, that does throw up a red flag that games criticism is a joke. Go to Metacritic and look at recent popular movies or music. The reviews are all over the place. But look at games like this and apparently everyone loves every major game that comes out. And if one guy honestly doesn't like it, a bunch of fanboys like you show up to cry about how he's ruining the Metacritic score.
I've played a lot of games over the years, and I've lived with a lot of games that were fun, but flawed. What I've not done is played anything I didn't want to just because I was told I should. If I was that gamer my console would have had MW3 or BF3 in it by now. I never said Sleeping Dogs is a masterpiece, but there is fun to be had - and for my money more fun I had from than the last GTA entry - which is Tom's point of reference here. Tom is entitled not to rate it highly, but seems to have wilfully tried not to get any enjoyment from it, and that's what I found a little depressing.
But you also seem to be lacking an argument as to why it *is* wrong. Bad writing doesn't make a review disingenuous, failing to match the majority opinion doesn't make a review disingenuous, and 2 out of 5 is certainly not horrible. It's just below average.
What? everytime a CoD game comes and out gets good reviews, people bitch and say they deserve 1 or 2 out of 10. CoD games have good mechanics fairly good graphics, and tight gameplay. Objectively, judging from that, they all deserve 8 or 9 out of ten.
This review is awful. It doesn't judge the game on its own merits, it calls the driving godawful which is a flatout lie, and overemphasizes the hell out of the optional dating minigames that last a combined 10 minutes or so. This is a classic "I have an axe to grind, so I'll overemphasize extremely miniscule details to support that point and hyperbolize all other flaws" review, and it's getting old. But hey, how else is an ugly, shitty website like Quarter To Three going to get traffic?
Thanks for linking that. I can't help but think that's what any publication's Metacritic page should look like...
Psst, he's joking. I've only ever deleted spam from the comments section.
Wait, writers have to be *allowed* to review something?
Hahaha, " your review was written with the bias of an ign review but without the credibility", I literally laughed out loud. The oxymoronic nature of your statement aside, if IGN has anything, it has credibility, right? Hahaha!
There are too many terrible comments up for us to think anything otherwise.
Isn't that technically the point of all articles on any site?