For instance, I thought this was a 2D game until I now looked at other reviews.
I wouldn't get your back too far against the wall over this. I can't see your website stats, but I'll bet most those comments were drive by profanities.
Of course, I haven't played Journey. Maybe I should be in the trenches implying you enjoy sex with men like the rest of them.
"Q: Why isn’t your review objective?
A: That’s not how I write. Furthermore....."
im going to stop you right there. You just abdicated your right to ever be taken seriously as a critic. Congratulations
I think it's a surefire sign that there is something wrong with a review, whenever you have to
write a secondary explanation defending yourself, which is about 5
times as long as the review itself.
anyway, lets see what people on N4G have to say about your review
http://n4g.com/news/964003/qua...
"I can't imagine being so mentally shallow to not feel any impact by this game
"
"This guy again?!! I didnt know Harvard had troll 101 as a class
"
"My armpit has better taste than this guy.
"
"Hmmm
I find this article rather shallow and pedantic....
"
"Meh, I thought Journey was class. This Tom guys review is pretty sparse and doesn't really go in to any detail whatsoever. "
"Wow, that's a sad review and reviewer. Awful review, wouldn't consider this guys opinion" for a single solitary second.
"Obvious troll for hits review is obvious. That or the reviewer is a hipster."
"Nothing to see here, just an attention seeker. He just hates everything that's popular or gained some great reviews.
"
"Frankly this guy sounds like an self-inflated, egotistical idiot with the attention span of a maggot.
"
"Quarter to three ?! is that the size of Tom's brain? lol.
"
"My troll senses are tingling"
"I have a better question. How did he get on Metacritic?
"
"Hmmm...well, I disagree with just about everything he said in that review.
"
"If the guy doesn't like games like this, he's got no business reviewing
them. Don't care how long he's been in the industry or what his agenda
is. Unbiased reviewers were able to see Journey for what it was supposed
to be, and reward it for what it was. This guy went shopping for a 50"
TV, bought a 24" one, and rated it crappy because it was too small."
"After looking at his review history and seeing the list of AAA games
he's slammed for one reason or another, I don't see how many people
would value his opinion enough to care about what he says. The
uselessness of Metacritic is already well documented so it's no surprise
that they'd use him in their formula. Overall, it's just one more
example of how far gaming journalism has sunk this generation.
"
"Yeah, I am a part of a fledgling tech site, the sort of site that could
benefit greatly from trolling and giving games low scores to bring in
hits to my site. However, this practice is extremely unprofessional and
am not going to give him the hits he so desperately wants.
"
"Wtf?! 40/100 implies a game is a failure, doesn't pass the grade. It implies something's broken.
Journey doesn't even have a bad frame rate or screen tear to speak of.
No bad art style, bad story, bad music, bad controls, bad online, day
one DLC. It's polished and accomplishes what it set out to do. Tacked on
insanity difficulty or perk system need not apply.
I
don't have to like or listen to classical music in my spare time or in
my car to know or appreciate a moving score when I hear one. Wouldn't
give Beethoven 2/5 on the grounds that I expected more cowbell. Yet here
we are.
To give it a 40% despite such polish says as much
about metacritic as it does about this guy. Trolls aren't just on
message boards anymore.
"
What in the world does an objective video game review look like? A bullet point recitation of the game's features? I can flip the video game box over and get that.
if you want a review of the game that is actually insightful, well founded, and sensible, read mine. (or any other one except for Tom's)
http://arbitorgaming.blogspot....
I would argue that my blogspot page has better aesthetic appeal than this site, along with more comprehensive content (which isn't very hard).
"What in the world does an objective video game review look like?"
it entails reviewing a game with such things in mind as genre and sub genre. also being able to recognize one's own genre biases. An objective, or, if you dont like that term, a PROFESSIONAL reviewer is able to act as a non partisain judge of a game's merits in order to give the public an idea of where it stands in the market. If I went around giving every sports game a 3/10 because I find them boring, that would make me a pretty lousy reviewer. that is NO different than what Tom has done. not, one iota of difference.
Of course, none of this makes any difference to you, because you are a credulous sycophantic nimrod. No one outside Tom's circle of sad fanboys takes his review seriously. because it is an incomprehensive pile of rubbish
I hope that's a troll. I don't want to think that anyone is actually stupid enough to try and critisize a review for not being "objective", by using commentary by the "people of N4G" as an argument. Yikes.
Wow! That is a massive ego you're swinging around there!
Hey bro. Thanks for letting me know what I should think about your review in advance.
If you want to be taken seriously as a critic, you might want to stop talking about pricetags and length as somehow being relevant to the quality of a creative work, and start concerning yourself with the actual content. Instead of leaving that to "some people [who] might critisize.." - I'm not reading so you can tell me about the people who might critisize. I'm actually reading to see you do that.
So, I watched a playthrough on Youtube and, indeed, this game is utter crap.
Basically the whole game is a 3D platformer with no enemies, where the only unusual gameplay element is that apparently gravity is reduced, and you thus tend to float around.
The game doesn't seem to depend on skill at all, and at times it seems it literally makes you fly to the objective (the guy playing never seemed to die).
Now the plot is also an utter joke: the goal of the game is to reach a light beacon coming from the mountain.
Basically you start running to it, and then you get to an underground place where you see a drawing on the wall of you first reaching the underground place and then going to the mountain.
Finally, you float up to the mountain, and reach the light beacon; at that point, the screen fades to white AND THE CREDITS ROLL.
Yes, you read it right: the game tells you to go to point X, you go there AND THEN THE CREDITS ROLL.
Basically it's one of those situations where if you had paid for the game and the developers were in the room when you reached the ending, you would just punch them in the face, kick them in nuts and defecate on them as they lay on the floor.
Maybe it's meant as a satire of the fact that ultimately all games are just about moving to the final point, but it seems more like they just wanted to cut costs by not bothering with the plot.
Regarding the graphics, this is basically a monochrome game mostly tinted in sepia tones, but sometimes tinted in white or something else instead: it feels like the developers don't know that the PS3 can show more than one color at once.
Oh, and it has visible aliasing despite the primitive graphics!
So Tom Chick has actually been pretty benevolent; the game is actually utter shit, unless you happen to have a fetish for the minimalistic cel-shaded color-graded art style it uses, in which case it's great masturbatory material.
So that's all you've got, Chris? Insults? And you're going to accuse those who disagree with you as sycophants while simultaneously expecting all reviews to he's to the narrow range of scores you have carved out beforehand? How do even carry these two thoughts around at the same time?
of course. everyone who questions the legitimacy of Tom Chick is a troll. Well, that goes for virtually the entire gaming world.
Go to any forum or article where this review is discussed, it is universally panned and laughed at. Only in the cult-like atmosphere, of this pathetic site, is Tom Chick taken seriously.
And I hold the average opinion of ANY N4G member in higher regard than the obnoxious, brainwashed, pretentious sycophants that frequent this place
@Pogue Mahoneit has little to do with the actual game. if he gave "halo reach," a game I dont even like, a 2/5, I would still say that he is an unobjective, moronic, unprofessional, imbecile.
I disagree with the idea that reviews are supposed to be read by those who haven't played the game. The people that got their balls in a twist over Tom's review weren't folks reading the review to make a purchase decision, they were folks that had already played with the game and were dealing with cognitive dissonance-inspired rage (I assume) that someone could disagree with their experience with the game. I would also say that a significant (I bet more than 50%) of people that read (and I do mean read, not just browse the scores on MetaCritic) do so after they've played a game to compare how they experienced it with how the reviewer experienced it.
Those are a lot of very objective adjectives and theories you got there.
Critisizing or challenging Tom Chick on his technique and methodology is perfectly valid, but critisizing everything but that, simply because you can't stomache an honest opinion says more about you. I wasn't commenting on any of those things though. It's the fact that you're completely undermining your own argument, by establishing yourself as a hypocrite, that strikes me as slightly counterproductive.
Im not sure if you have ever taken an "English Composition" or any others involving rhetorical strategies and analysis. I don't know if Tom took any such classes at Harvard, considering his short lived studies were focused on ancient superstitious nonsense, but apparently both him and his fans are unaware of the fact that a "review" and an "opinion" are not synonymous terms. Everyone has an opinion. reviews, especially ones for which people are paid, entail more tact, objectivity, and scholarly aptitude. All of which are sorely lacking from Tom's inane ramblings. Which is why he has been torn a new asshole by literally 99% of the people who read his review.
The rest of the professional reviewing world realizes the difference between a review and an opinion. Which is why (well, one of the reasons) no one remotely agrees with his scores and why this site will never garner a sizable fanbase outside Tom's harem of fanboys. hell, my youtube channel has more viewers and subscribers than this site.
this site is a joke and so is Tom. and you, his fans, are just a tragedy.
I read the review at the link. Just noting the final paragraph of that review:
"Given the sheer sophistication, polish, scope, and emotional
resonance that this game provides, while working under serious limitations, it
seems unthinkable to give it anything other than a 10/10. It is as close to
perfect as a downloadable game can get. It is easily the best “download only”
game on PSN or any other console, for that matter. It is also one of the best
games to be released so far this year. At only 15$, any gamer who neglects to
pick it up is doing themselves a great disservice."
The only objective phrase in the above paragraph is that the game costs $15.
"Criticize", please, sir.
cool story bro
I guess the 11 paragraphs of detailed analysis and observation that came before it are irrelevant and certainly dont merit a closing statement such as this.
I should just follow Tom's model of posting 4 measly paragraphs (less than a high school paper) without any structure or serious detail. surely he is the paragon of depth and insight that all reviewers strive to be