Those seem like fair points for the most part, but I take issue with one: you mention that he fails to take into account what others would feel in this situation. But whose feelings? Any potential player's? And how would he anticipate what they might be feeling?
Not this guy again.
I've already pointed out this guy's poor review on Twisted Metal and how it was factually inaccurate on many details.
"If you gauge an article by the quality of the comments in the comments
section, it was Quarter to Three’s least successful article."
I see you react poorly to criticism. Love your work, hate this part of your online persona.
I agree with everything you posted, btw, but this plus some of the forum stuff indicates that you react really poorly to criticism and it is a little off-putting to read. I feel you should be rising above this stuff. The Internet is full of self-righteous losers who can't stand to have something they enjoyed and liked called anything less than perfect by anyone, let alone a successful gaming journalist. You can't write an article like this every time one of them calls you a fag for trashing a game they like.
It's pretty clear that there's a big difference between "criticism" and profanity-laced ad-hominem attacks.
This might get me into trouble but I think it is a serious attempt to jab back, in a humorous way, at the people who reacted so vehemently to your Journey review. I think when people leave feedback like they did it hurts you a little, as I believe you really care about your writing and reviews.
So now you are reviewing games based on a Youtube video? I haven't played this game and have no opinion one way or the other but the idea that you can get a real sense of the qualities and merits of a game through watching a Youtube video is ludicrous.
You play bass, right? Something about your handle just screams "bass player."
This is the best thing I've read all day.
This review? http://web.archive.org/web/200...
Along with a bonus rebuttal from Bruce:
http://web.archive.org/web/200...
Ah, nice find, Manresa. The internet never forgets!
Well, yes, I do care about my writing. I don't know many writers who don't! And I certainly agree with your assessment about jabbing back in a humorous way. But if there's one thing I've learned in the last ten years, give or take, it's that sometimes you shouldn't take personal comments personally.
Dude, have you tried to learn Hebrew? Oh, right, so you have. Show off.
By the time I started studying Hebrew, I'd had three years of Latin and two years of French. My first semester of Hebrew was ten times as daunting as all those combined. The bottom line is that some people are good with languages. I am not one of those people. Plus, I'm an American, and we don't really do languages.
Sure, I agree, but this happens on all gaming sites that have any sizable traffic. Tom will have a lot less time for his regular coverage if he responds like this every time people are unhappy with a given review.
My basic point is that while horrible, this is part and parcel of writing about games. If there was some legitimate concerns being raised, then sure, Tom should respond. When people are grousing over a review for a game they like he should ignore it and move on.
It's a fair point, but personally I don't see this going beyond merely recognizing that it caused a bit of unrest. There are those two barbs in the piece. The one you point out, and the second to last answer. Whether they're neccesary or not is a judgement call, but I can only sympathize with the point they're making. I respect the idea of letting a piece speak for itself, it's stoic and proper, but I see no reason why you can't recognize the turmoil it caused. There's still no quarter asked, and none given.
Q: Didn’t you hate Starcraft II, Forza 4, Skyrim, Gears of War 3, and Uncharted 3?
A: No, a little, no, not really, and somewhat.
You love every game but the PS3 exclusive with a 10/10 on IGN.... hmmmmm?
Just playing lol.
what a faggot
I was replying to the original version of your comment, without the "I agree with..." onward.
I understand where you're coming from. I still think it's preferable to attempt to improve the conversation, rather than to just accept things as "the way they are."
"If you like existential romps through the desert," would be a nice, simple way.
Chick reviewed the game with the intent of disliking it. That's an assumption on my part, but it's backed up by the content of the review. At no point does he judge the game based on its own merits.
And, sorry to say, but being subjective makes for a poor reviewer.
You are aware that your review is filled with opinions and is therefore invalid according to your own standards, right?
Ah, so fans of the movie "Gerry", I guess.