I like how you admit that your review is basically just like anyone's opinion. Everyone has their opinion. An opinion does not mean you have a review fit for a website that carries them. A review doesnt say "This racing game is only good for racing, 2/5!" or "This jrpg doesnt have competitive multiplayer and so I hate it, 2/5." because those sorts of opinions are irrelevant to people who arent the speaker.
Opinions=/=Reviews. Reviews are intentionally 1)Mediated for audiences, expectations beyond the individuals 2)Well-informed
One would not say "This racing game is only good for racing, so i hate it because i hate racing games and just want to play minigames between races instead, 2/5 stars!" in a review. That is mere personal opinion. There is a difference.
Hello. Do you know what hyperbole is?
Opinions=/=Reviews. Reviews are intentionally 1)Mediated for audiences, expectations beyond the individuals 2)Well-informed One would not say "This racing game is only good for racing, so i hate it because i hate racing games and just want to play minigames between races instead, 2/5 stars!" in a review. That is mere personal opinion. There is a difference.
What I get from this is that someone tells Mr. Chick to learn journalism.
Someone else replies with his Wikipedia page that says: " he was listed as "one of the field's rare American practitioners" in an article on "New Games Journalism" in the New York Times."
As well as an entire section on his writing career.
Are you being obtuse for a reason?
fiks - reviews are opinion. If you want a fact sheet, read the "about this game" section of the games website.
Alright, so let's go down that list a little bit.....
Forza: Mediocre
Rage: Mediocre
Gears of War: Mediocre
Catherine: Mediocre
FEAR 3: Excellent (wtf)
Dirt 3: Mediocre
Marvel vs. Capcom: Mediocre
Crysis 2: Mediocre
Halo Reach: Mediocre
Uncharted 3: Poor
Skyrim: 7/10 (guess that would be considered good but probably the lowest of the scores out there)
Deus Ex: Poor
I like to read a myriad of opinions and I especially like it when a reviewer goes against the grain for good reason. However, as I mentioned in my first post, it seems pretty obvious there is a pattern here.
One more thing....
The question remains as to why have a review score attached at all? If the fundamentals of game journalism should be about a true critical review, I just don't see the need for a score.
If only there was some way to find out what Tom Chick was thinking when he assigned a score! If only he would explain himself beyond the rating! Ah, alack and alas! If only he would actually, you know, write something!
Hey, here's another pretty obvious pattern for you, Jestin Jund:
Arkham City: excellent
Bioshock: excellent
Shift: excellent
Saints Row: excellent
Kirby games: excellent
Sims: good
Resident Evil: good
Dead Rising: good
Call of Duty: good
Starcraft: good
Man, that Tom Chick guy is just another industry shill!
Shitty review... but the review score is about right (if not too generous).
The game may lack offline content--who cares, it's a fighter. But where it really does vie for the 'Worst SC Game Yet' award is with its ruined gameplay.
Destroying the GIs system by tying the only parry available to a meter that's used primarily for the game's new super move and secondarily for the EX moves, is idiocy beyond rationale. The Just Guard thing goes no way to compensating for this grave floor as the Just timing is too strict and entails far too high a risk.
This game is clearly made for casuals in mind.
The SC, as of V, is dead for hardcore fans.
I think hyperbole doesn't really fit what he's saying. Hyperbole isn't a dude telling another dude to kill himself because he disagrees with his review. Hyperbole would be, well, saying "Damn, it's cold as hell outside," or something to that effect.
I think the correct term is being overly sensitive to video game reviews.
No, I wasn't. I laugh about it. His reviews are unbelievably childish.
The problem is ignorance to the mechanics and core concepts that define the game. These types of games NEED to be reviewed by someone who understands it and can give a review on ALL aspects...and they do exist. A major issue with fighting games is they are constantly reviewed by people who don't understand really any fighting games at all and can only really give a VERY minimal review of it. The depth of the game is completely lost on them and so gameplay can't be fairly critiqued.
An educated player however has the ability to give a review for all parties. They can tell the hardcore what to look for, what casuals will like, and what notes may be a pro/con for some. A casual can not speak for anything but their tier of casual, they cannot think outside that because they don't understand what the game is as a whole. It's like reviewing an RPG and skipping the sidequests cuz you don't care and stating the game had no content.
A good review always rates the game as a whole, not a personal bias. I HATE COD for many reasons, but in the review of the game as a whole it would still be given a 7-8, because my biases are restricted to small parts of the game and I know some people wont be affected.
My biggest issue is these reviewers are not being isolated to 'random casual player who likes video games'. These reviews are showing up in top sites (I spotted this on Kotaku and flipped my shit). People go 'oh SC5 was bad?'....meanwhile over at the soul calibur forums on 8wayrun.com people REALLY like the game and are wondering why people with no FG experience are being spotlighted.
Lol looks like this particular troll is the only thing emotionally distressed. Hey how bout this, come up with something ORIGINAL to say rather then trying to poke holes in defense of your precious reviewer. dumbass.
In all seriousness it's upto the gamers to figure out what it is they will like. It sounds so simple but in practice you may be buying every 8.5-10 scored game out there yet never really get into any of them. Reviewers scores are usually based on a solid knowledge of game mechanics, controls, graphics, the industry ect. <--This is the foundation of a review. Now add to that personal taste, experience and how influenced the reviewer is by Novelty and there you go: a full review.
Obviously ANY game review should be taken with a grain of salt. You should not buy games based simply on what score anyone gives them (unless u see a universal 1-4.0 then you got a problem..) or what anyone's opinion of said game is worth. Reviews can be and usually are objective and selective...it's all about WHO is doing the review and how that persons point of view/tastes reflect on your own.
I will say that this review of Soul Calibur 5 should have been done by someone who is more then just a casual player of fighting games. Comparing this to Street Fighter or other Capcom fighters is a serious disservice to soul calibur. Adding a special "ultra" move does not make it a 2d fighter AT ALL.
This is great, Brooski. I feel like you completely wasted it by posting it in this thread, to be read by these people.
"These people." That sounds far more condescending than I intended, but you're talking to a crowd that clearly doesn't share your perspective, and probably won't hear what you're saying. It'd be cool if Tom let you flesh this out for a front page article.
IGN gave this a 7.5. I think Tom giving it a 2 is generous.
a casual player that couldnt use a guard button in sciv is reviewing scv hmmmm
this game is geared toward casuals, though obviously experience players are going to be much better at it, the "rpg" element in sc4 was useless as no one played it online or offline in tournaments and such, you level up and aquire gear, theres no need for money and legendary souls and quick match are just as a good a substitute to the tower of souls, they made the guard impacting more for casual players as all u have to do is press back and a+b+k(or x+y+b) which impacts from high to low, or u can actually learn other characters moves and learn how to just impact which is basically guard impacts from sc4, i agree the story mode was shallow but not nearly as shallow as in 4, at least theres something going on, instead of a wall of text a few battles and a 20 second ending. in my opinion single player should only detract from the multiplayer experience, if u want a good challenge though in single player try playing the computer on a higher difficulty or try legendary souls, its like having a pro tournament player at home.