So if he went into florid, Anne Rice-level detail about all the elements that he thought sucked about the game, you'd read the entire 2k word review and think it was fair?
I'm glad someone has the balls to call a game like he/she sees it. I know that I can always trust Tom with my gaming budget. Keep up the honest and hard work Tom.
The guy with a Lollipop Chainsaw logo thinks you're an idiot.
Nice, intelligent response, but still I gotta say why are we arguing about a game?
Lets all take a deep breath and watch Suda play Tokyo Jungle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
There, now don't you all feel better?
This is a fucking horrible review.
Right... because I'm not defending the game. I'm standing up for written reviews that are thoughtful and have merit. This isn't one of them.
Tom Chick proves once again why he shouldn't be reviewing video games. 4 paragraphs, referring to it as a 'fighting game'. Oh dear how nauseating.
Lowest Common Denominator? I think they'll be turned off when the zombies bleed pink sparkles.
It's not a mud-brown shooter, and it's not chock full of tortureporn in order to pass itself off as "mature". What it is, is a fun, enjoyable game that could have used some more polish. I haven't smiled more while playing a game this year as I have in the two nights I've spent playing LC. It reminds me a lot of the goofy atmosphere Dreamcast-era Sega games had in titles like Crazy Taxi and House of the Dead.
It's got a fairly strong female character (who hasn't yet had to fight off any rapists, so we're up on the TR reboot in my book) who comes from a rock-solid, two-parent family (which must be a first for a Japanese title). The writing and dialogue are mostly great (especially when it hangs a lampshade on how stupid this hobby of ours can be), but the enemy dialogue can be unnecessarily crude at times, so I could do without that. But as someone who's genuinely sick of zombie games, I don't mind this one (probably because of the aforementioned pink sparkles and the way their heads pop like confetti when you score a multi-decapitation). The combat can be a little clunky, but I'm grateful it's not as super-deep as Bayonetta or Devil May Cry.
It's not brilliant, it's at times clever, but from what I see of games trying to be "brilliant" and "mature" lately, they're not either of those things either. It's a solid B and a mid-tier game in a time when we sorely lack anyone attempting to fill the gap in the market between triple A franchises and the mobile/casual space.
Even though this game this guy says this in a way that I can totally understand(though not agree with) it is truly a game of odd hilarity that just catches you off guard, if you are still unsure look for Twitch(dot)tv and go through until you find someone playing it to get the gist of it(as there is no way words can describe this game good or bad) All I know is that there is a zombie hunter girl that fights off her zombified classmates with a chainsaw and her hips and throws her boyfriends head at enemies(he still talks and the most random conversations start)...however it is not for the faint of heart as swearing and random sexual inuendos are basically like breathing for this one
agreed, I really don't like this reviewer. He rates the incredibly buggy and repetitive Raccoon City, and Io interactive's worst series, Kane & Lynch above the beautifully polished Mas Payne 3. I can't take this review seriously.
I don't care that Tom reviewed the game poorly. To each their own and all that. I just question why the site would attach a score to it at all when he really doesn't bother to offer us any insight into how he came to many of the conclusions that he did.
This is alright as a pure opinion-piece, but informative it is not.
No Rob, what you're actually glad about is that someone wrote a review that supported your preconceptions.
It's just that you'd have to be a damned drooling idiot to allow anyone else to have that much influence over your purchasing decisions, and you'd have to be even dumber still to take the word of someone that you don't know from the hole in your ass as gospel even if you found yourself agreeing with him once or twice in the past.
Maybe you are that dumb Rob. But I think that there's a better chance that you're all over Tom's nuts for this review because he feels the same way about the game as you were predisposed to feel about it, and not because you've found yourself agreeing with him so often in the past that you've gone ahead and handed the duty of doing your thinking over to him.
As an aside, four people liked your post. You haven't actually played the game, Rob, so not only do you come across as having ignorant prejudged it, but that ignorance makes you in no way qualified to asses the quality of Tom's own assessment of the game. That you seem to be all too eager to fellate him for "saving you money" given your ignorance just makes the whole mess all the more retarded.
So that four people managed to find something in all that idiocy that they could appreciate tells me that those people aren't too bright themselves. That, or that they too appreciate that Tom told it like THEY saw it, which is just a roundabout way of saying that they may be just as ignorantly biased as you so clearly are.
The worst thing about your post for me is that anyone could possibly write something so mind-numbingly stupid in the first place, much less take a look at the post after writing it and not have second thoughts about posting it. It never ceases to amaze me when shit as dumb as that manages to make it onto the internet.
Petey, try using some common-sense. If we were all here for the reason that you're strongly implying we are, wouldn't it stand to reason that our complaints would be all over the place? After all, if the goal were to simply attempt to undermine the review, then the complaints used to do so would be secondary to that purpose. So how the hell do you explain the fact that so many of us have the exact same complaint about this review?
Maybe it's because the complaint is legitimate after all, and just like Ghost said, some of you are way too eager to dismiss them and to defend Tom, especially since many of you have yet to actually play it.
It's pretty sad that in spite of the fact that its many critics are of the opinion that this review is too insubstantial and uninformative to be of any real value, there are people such as yourself who appear to be overly eager to dismiss that criticism using ridiculous mental gymnastics.
Also, I honestly think that it's a reflection of your own proclivities that you think that way. Perhaps you're the sort of person who gives a shit about Metacritic, and who would be inclined to read reviews that legitimize your own opinions while bitching about the ones that don't, but that doesn't mean that anyone else is. So project less, Urthman.
You know, I don't understand generalizing all the criticism of this review as coming from Metacritic users. Seems like an awfully ignorant generalization, as well as one that attempts to minimize the legitimacy of the criticism rather than dealing with it head-on.
Also, please consider that the only reason why you are in a position to determine the validity of this review is because you've played the game. Or at least you claim to have. Let's just say that I have my doubts, but I digress. Folks who haven't yet played the game will be able to take nothing of substance from this review, as its author provided them no context whatsoever for the bulk of his criticisms of it.
So yeah, he's free to give it whatever score that he feels that it deserves, but having attached a score to the review, he also has a responsibility to elaborate on how he came to the conclusion that the game deserved it. We know that he doesn't like the game, but we really haven't much of a clue as to why.
Also, Chris, having developed such refined tastes as you have, can you tell me why you'd even bother to play the game in the first place when it was always as clear as the gigantic zits on your acne-ridden face exactly what this game was always supposed to be? Unless you suddenly developed those tastes right as you played this game, I'm just wondering why you'd have bothered with it at all.
Oh wait, that's right! You're full of shit, Chris! You have no tastes to speak of, and that whole line about not being 12 and being above games like this is just something that you pulled out of your ass because what you really hate is that people dared to question Tom's almighty opinions of the game. You so clearly haven't played it, so stop being a sycophantic little douche-nozzle already, you pretentious little knob.
Where do you live that they give refunds for games?
Also, are you capable of comprehending what you read, Chris? Ghost was pointing out to you folks that Saints Row 3 is equally as crass as this game, and seeing as that sort of thing seemed to paint the majority of Tom's screed about Lollipop Chainsaw, the disparity is readily apparent.
Seriously dude, it's not that hard to keep up with this shit, so please do try.
And you read his well-reasoned post, and all you could bother to muster up in response was some ridiculous sarcasm that goes a long way to making you look like a drooling idiot and a sycophant?
You sir, and short-bus special.
Abso-fucking-lutely, Keys.
I think it's time to reconnect with the idea that a critic owes it to his readers to be informative, which Tom was certainly not in this review. Which incidentally, is what most folks are bothered by.