I think I'll say this much, and then put this ridiculousness behind me:
On Multiple occasions, both here and on the original review, many commenters brought up reasonable, logical, and legitimate concerns about the content and/or quality of the review. This includes things like his apparent inability to grasp the emotional aspects of the game, his misunderstanding of the story in total, his barebones and inaccurate descriptions of the game's mechanics, and others.
In this article, a so-called "defense" of his review, he addressed none of these. instead, he chose to poke fun at those who were less eloquent in expressing their distate for his review. The questions he asks of himself clear up none of the issues people genuinely had- such as the ones I mentioned above- but instead allow him to respond so that his review sounds justifiable. And, as they continue, they degrade into self-trolling, of sorts, which is essentially a jab at those who found fault with his review; it grants the "you suck" comments the same validity as the "I think you misunderstood" comments. Actually, it does the exact opposite: the more insightful, serious comments are given the same validity (none at all) as the ones expressing only hate.
It's fairly clear that this article's purpose was to render all the complaints and negative feedback of his review as insignificant by lumping the intelligent with the belligerent. If it had been a serious attempt at being explanatory, I might have at least respected his opinion, though I would still wholly disagree with his perception of the game. Instead, Tom Chick chose to confirm the suspicions of many: that he is unfit for the position of reviewer, especially given his inability to be objective.
(Many of you seem to think this impossible; however, objectivity is not nearly as difficult as that. It simply requires giving more weight to the intentions of the developers- and their execution of said intentions- than your personal opinion of genre, platform, artistic style, etc. I previously gave an example in my dislike for Call of Duty: I don't think MW3 is worth $60, given that the game has evolved very little over the past four titles, even while it continues to break records in revenue. Particularly of note is that the game is running on the same (well polished by now, but still the same) engine as too many entries before it. Even so, it's by and large a solid game that offers fans of the core mechanics exactly what they want out of Call of Duty. And given the many, MANY hours the average player sinks into each entry, they'll definitely find it worth their money.)
In any case, I've learned my lesson: Tom Chick's sense of self-importance- his impression his reviews are exceptional and beyond reproach- carries more weight than his desire to do an exceptional job as a reviewer. Instead of admitting his review can very easily be seen as a lackluster attempt, he would rather justify his shoddy ethic by demeaning his detractors.
His is NOT an opinion I would trust or value when it comes to games, except that I may likely enjoy what he rates poorly, and conversely despise what he praises.
