It requires some sort of emotional intelligence the reviewer simply does not have.
The game is based on the book "The Hero With a Thousand Faces", by Joseph Campbell, a study about the structure of the heroes' stories.
Also, too sensitive for your mechanical analysis.
I hope the myans are right so this fucker dies by the end of the year
choke on a dick and die, go look at metacritic, one review under 80 and its a 40 by this douche fag
hey tom, hope you choke on your boyfriends dick
OMG, from the same guy who gave Uncharted 3 a 4/10? You are just an attention whore. Did you get fired from Honest Gamers and is that why you are writing for this site now? I suggest printing out more resumes because yet again you will be out of work soon. You need a new career because you clearly don't know what you are doing.
I think it's safe to say that you'll have a similar experience with Dear Esther. It doesn't even have puzzles. It's simply taking a walk while listening to poetry. So it pretty much depends on how much you like taking walks and listening to poetry.
Every time Tom posts a review that upsets people, the same handful of complaints are repeated ad nauseam: You're biased (Yes. So are you. So is everyone). You're a contrarian (No I'm not). You only like indie games (re-read this review). You only like unpopular games or niche games (http://www.quartertothree.com/.... You shouldn't be writing reviews or anything about games (Why does Tom's opinion of a game bother you so much)?
Quarter to Three needs a FAQ or a mission statement or something to curtail all these wasted keystrokes and posts. I have so much respect for what Tom's doing to grow the field, and I hate to see it whooshing over the heads of so many folks. A direct, easy-to-access explanation of Tom's approach to writing about games could do some good.
When you give a highly reviewed game an extremely low score, you are trolling for hits end of.
I understand that it's your opinion, but with reviews especially ones that appear on metacritic you have to be as objective and unbiased as possible. There is no way you can give an objective review and give a generally highly reviewed game an extremely score.
" It does have multiplayer, though. Other players run around in your
game pulling your switches, mashing their circle buttons to activate the
“hey, over here!” beacons, and basically going the same place you’re
going without any meaningful way to interact with you unless you both
know Morse code."
This quote right spills out ignorance and an unwillingness to understand what the game truly is. The reviewer knows that Journey is an "artsy" game so he should expect obscurity and try to understand why it the multiplayer is the way it is.
I really think you are defending him just to be a troll luke. just as this review is trolling for hits.
Site looks like it's been made in the 90s. Troll review to get hits?
Then you shouldn't even be reviewing this game because right there you said "I don't consider videogames art". That is the whole meaning to this game. It's seems like right from the beginning you planned on giving this game a negative review. For God sakes you gave Assassin's creed revelations a 2/10 and Uncharted 3 a 4/10? When you see every other reviews giving a triple AAA budget game a decent to a very good score. why do you seem to be the outcast of these people. It seems like you are just aiming for hits and your site will be shut down from metacritic pretty soon; you pretty much guaranteed it.
What the hell is this shitty site?
Is it really the whole point? The word game implies play. If journey is a game surely the quality of play should be assessed. If it is just art that is irrelevant but even you called it a game.
If it is trying to be both perhaps a review that does not contain both a conversation on play and artistic merit is incomplete. I am not sure.
Wow. Who cares what metacritic says. If you are a marketing stooge or whatever you are coming on here just take your 2 stars and accept it. I'll bet half of those people who review budget titles like this don't even play the game they just look at what IGN said and paraphrase that.
Damn, always talking about the dick. Reminds me of a conversation I had with your mom. Course I couldn't hear what she was saying...
Your just two dumb to realize 2 stars is a c- . Joshua .
I guess all I can say is that art is in the eye of the beholder. Obviously this particular endevor did not speak to Tom so it fell flat for him.
I guess I find reviewing art kinda meaningless since so much depends on what you bring to it. Nonethless Tom"s reaction is perfectly valid since it was what he took away from it.
Shut the fuck up faggot dick sucking ASS LICKING BITCH!
That comment was to Ben by the way, and FUCK TOM CHICK, this guy is such a fucking loser, it truly astounds me.
You are a harvard grad? You need to stop "reviewing" video games you fuck ass
however what the hell would an art piece be doing on metacritic?