If you didn't like the game, you didn't like the game. Not sure why you felt the need to defend it with a rebuttal that's substantially longer than the review itself. If game developers need to have a thick skin when reading negative reviews, reviewers ought to have them when people disagree with them. By responding like this, you come off as defensive... at best.
I have no argument with your review. It's fine, for what it is. But what it is not is objective. And for someone pushing that agenda so very hard right here on this page, the inconsistency is puzzling.
But what I really don't get is your anger, Chris. You came loaded for bear as if Tom had run over your dog and pissed on its corpse. Why? Are you personally connected to the developers? Just randomly decided to make this your own personal crusade?
Thanks charmtrap. But if you're gonna keep pointing those out, it's gonna be a long internet.
Anyway, Chris, you're obviously trying to support a very subjective argument with a sheen of some supposed esoteric knowledge, privy only to yourself. Suffice it to say, while I'm sure the worlds critics appreciate your input, they don't need to conform to you or anyone else to support their opinions. The readers decide whether it has merit or not. I'd suggest that if an opinion reads the same as everybody elses, then it is by nature irrelevant. If you have 50, or even 5 people saying the same thing, why on earth would you want to read more than one of them? Why would you want to read the first one, for that matter? People who have nothing to say, don't deserve to be printed. Having nothing to say, but saying it anyway, is what places like Blogspot are for. Maybe you should read some more criticism. In the world of movies, literature and TV, posing as a critic while thinking and saying the same thing as everybody else, is called being a hack. You have a lot of lecturing to do with those guys.
Tom, I can't help but agree that this is overly defensive and rather a lot of effort faced with a backlash from N4G forum commentary (what next, a 5 page response to youtube comments?). In this case, it seems only appropriate to consider a half dozen 13 year olds coming to your website and calling you a fag to be post launch DLC element of Journey's online communication system.
And dock another star.
Joshua, I like what you're getting at, but I want to say that acknowledging them is different from engaging with them. I feel it's important that we acknowledge they're a part of the conversation. That's an unfortunate reality about how many people talk about video games.
And, FWIW, I want to be clear that this article wasn't actually written for them. It was written about them.
Mr Bum, if you think this is an earnest defense, either I've expressed it poorly or you've missed the joke. Do you really think I'd actually write a FAQ as a way to defend a review of a videogame? If I'd wanted to mount an earnest defense, I would have written about the game instead. :) Which I already did when I reviewed it.
You know, this site will NEVER become anything if you actually THINK for one second that posting "questions" like "Ha ha, you didn’t say you wouldn’t suck my dick, so you’re a fag."Give up now and do something constructive with your time
i lol at the first 3 questions and answers
You actually sapped about 90% of your brain power learning Hebrew?
כבוד
Working for a gaming site (even your own, I own Hooked Gamers) has always been a hazardous undertaking. While I have yet to receive death threats, insulting comments on my reviews are not unheard of (fortunately they are rare enough not to be worried about them). :)
What many readers do not seem to realize is that objectivity in reviews does not exist. Personal taste, experiences with other games, a 'bad hair day' and a plethora of other things contribute to a game's score, no matter how objective you are trying to be.
Think of it: a game can have a good story, great graphics, impeccable controls and worthy gameplay, but it can still not be fun to play.
Tom mentioned his Moo 3 review, a perfect example of a game that did many things right but ultimately felt dry and soulless to play and would never deserve a high score because of it. Still, I can imagine some reviewers attempting to do an objective review and arriving at a score based on the fact that that parts were OK. In doing so, they totally missed that the - sum - of those parts is very disappointing.
For me, 'fun' is what should determine the score. If a game has poor production values but turns out to be incredibly entertaining, it deserves a good score.
If all reviewers adhere to that and actively advertise the fact, we can dismiss discussions about scores as 'fun' firmly resides in the 'not objective' category where any form of reviewing belongs. That way, reviewers can focus on telling their readers just why a game is fun (or not).
I've been doing the same in music for quite a few years. The second record I reviewed was met with threats and a supposed bounty on my head for anyone who "hurt" me when I showed up at venues. That's when I knew I had something to say.
If I had to shoot it, I'd say the best reviews are 25% analysis, 25% entertainment and 50% opinion. Great critics don't become great critics based on education, they become great based on their intuition and personality. In terms of games, I think the most valuable spot you can ever hold is that of the friend who disagrees. Most gamers don't agree amongst themselves, so why would reviewers?
Agree completely. :) (though it seems the admin has taken down my comment so few people know what you've responded to)
You never finished your first sentence, so your name tag might actually apply to you.
Falconer, are you talking about your comment here on Quarter to Three? I see it plain as day just above the previous post. I have never taken down a comment in the comments section unless it was spam.
Uh, but that's not really what criticism is about. What you're talking about is "consumer advice" and a whole different beast. A review should provide perspective on something, and be an argument in a discussion, and especially with something as "arty" and ambitious as Journey it would be really disrespectful to not give it that sort of criticism.
There is NO such thing as an objective review. There is no preordained value to what 5 star, three star or one star means.
Let me take this out of the realm of games here. I recently spent a great deal of time car shopping. During this time I considered many factors. When I had narrowed my search I looked up reviews.
Now the review giving the most effort to being objective was Consumer Reports, but it really wasn't. For example fuel efficiency is king for me. Amenities and 'fun' are completely irrelevant in my personal view. Now Consumer Reports had a review (and review score) completely based on grading a multitude of categories on a 5 point scale. Add all those categories and you have the overall score.
Objective right?
Hell no! See this 'objective review' had weighted certain things differently. To them there was 7 categories that could loosely be described as about how 'fun' or 'sexy' the car was. Only one for fuel efficiency. So the car I wound up getting was lower on their scale than another car I considered. See they had put a scale in place which emphasized certain values more than others. My own personal scale did not match theirs. So my opinion of better car was not in agreement with theirs.
Other car reviews much the same. They would couch their praise of the car I got by making derisive statements like 'it's only fun to drive if you like watching you're mileage go up' or 'it gets great mileage, but looks completely boring'.
You know what though? Even though these reviewers had different standards they graded on (not based on real world costs in repairs or gas like my view is) the reviews were still helpful. By knowing what their bias was I was able to parse out what information was useful to me.
Same thing with Tom. He has biases. I've been around long enough to know what they are. I know any time he falls for a strategy game of some kind that I should get my wallet out. I also know any time he reviews a shooter to ignore it completely. The biggest one of all though is knowing when he reviews an RPG that I should read the damn article because his score will be meaningless to me, since that is the only genre where my tastes are neither wholly divergent (like for shooters) or wholly in agreement (like with strategy games). By using basic reading comprehension I can see if there are elements in the game I like or dislike.
So I'd say brush up on your rhetoric and analysis classes, because you've obviously forgotten how to use those skills. Sometimes a disagreement in opinion can shed light on things you never considered.
Any reason why you don't simply delete the unhelpful comments? I've had the mind to do that since about 2001 (should've patented the technology, sigh). Fear of DDoS retribution, I don't think anyone would agree that the place would be worse for it.
Plus, most sites where the comments are worth reading do exactly this. Delete and ban, as long as you're not living off of ad-clicks.
My problem (and to an extent) a lot of people's problem with this review was that it felt very subjective. And logically as a review, that's how most games are supposed to be reviewed. Unfortunately there are some past transparencies that also question the credibility of the reviewer, as he frequently puts down a game based on what he thinks makes the game bad, and fails to take into account what others would feel in this situation. This criticism also extends to games that he likes. I particularly liked Journey. But perhaps the greatest tragedy was Mr. Foo's coment 'this game is utter crap' followed by 3 likes on his comment? I know some people love to defend Tom C.(who's a decent reviewer, don't get me wrong) but to the point where throw you own opinion followed by some criticism that obviously stems from personal bias, I feel you are less credible to throw your opinion than Tom C. who backed his opinion with decent, valid flaws.
Aesthetic appeal? All your body text is in bold, you monkey.
Haha don't agree with your review but this is pretty funny. :)