Thanks for being a voice of reason in a wilderness of people who have no idea what $50 should be worth. The pain of paying $50 for a mediocre 4 hour game is unfathomable. Plenty of people can talk about replay value to get magic shiny awards, but when the opportunity cost is spending that money on a game like The Witcher 2/Skyrim where you can enjoy a good 60-100 hours for the same price, makes this a no brainer.
What an awful review. If you're able to justify the score, you can have any opinion you want. But this is just a rant about the humour, with no insight, intelligence or justification shown. I highly recommend you re-evaluate how you review. I'm not telling you your opinion is wrong, just that you should write something remotely useful to the game consumers you're writing for, especially if this drivel is going to appear on Metacritic.
You haven't? They appear periodically when Tom says something they don't like. Usually it's about some AAA critical darling, though. I'm a bit mystified by this response re: Lollipop Chainsaw, which is a game I would probably never have even glanced at if it wasn't made by Suda51. Seriously, just from pre-release coverage it looks like a throwaway bit of silliness at best. Suda51's take on the Oneechanbara budget games, maybe.
Oh, no, the combat is terrible. I was just curious; I loved the game for the anime nonsense, and I'm not the biggest anime fan. It's 'epic' in a spectacularly dumb fashion, and I can get behind that.
There's not much to it outside game-wise of the DLC true ending, where I think they do some really interesting stuff with QTEs, which is probably faint praise.
Oh Tom if only, I pray to the gaming gods that Overkill will get a sequel just so it could iron out the kinks and be the legitimately great game it could have been. I doubt there will be one especially now they're bringing out that terrible looking WiiU, the Wii should have brought on the but it botched it which is a shame because Lightgun games are just pure nostalgia for me. They bring me back to the arcades of my youth and I'll always remember opening the box for Time Crisis on my PS1.
Ah no... A game I haven't played was reviewed very poorly by this reviewer. He sure has a cult of personality. You kids enjoy your hating.
"You can get that from various other review sites."
>:C
YOU.....NO. NO. DON'T WRITE REVIEWS IF THIS IS YOUR RESPONSE TO PEOPLE SAYING THAT YOUR REVIEW FAILS TO ADDRESS THE IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF A VIDEO GAME REVIEW.
You seem to have missed the point that I don't think these are important element of a videogame review. A review isn't a checklist. It's someone articulating his experience with a movie, a book, a videogame, what have you. I like to think that people in general, and reviewers in particular, have far more interesting things to say than running down the same bullet points you can find on the back of a box.
To respond to your reply to my comment... you're full of shit.
1) I've played the game to completion.
2) If Tom writes a review I don't agree with, I won't agree with it.
3) I shave my neck almost religiously.
Calling people sheep while criticising someone for having a critical opinion different to your own or the norm is the divine embodiment of irony.
You're part of a group of people who flooded this site within the last 24 hours, to say the exact same thing, about the exact same article, which you apparently found in the exact same place.
My neckbeard is absolutely tingling from the irony in that.
"Great Review"
Trololololololololol
Shave that thing off, you damn hippie.
Latecomer comment: My new catchphrase is now "What the dick?"
For some reason, I can't reply to your specific comment. :\
Anyways, the problem is that your review doesn't say anything about the quality of the game other than "it sucks" and "you find it stupid". It BARELY goes into why you think it's a bad game. What's the point of your review if people gets almost nothing out of it? Seriously, it's barely more useful than simply posting the score without any sort of review at all. If you seriously tell people "If you want to know anything about why this is a bad game, then read someone else's review", then the set of paragraphs you have isn't what I'd call "credible".
Hey, you found your caps lock key! :)
It's a brief review because I don't really have a lot to say about the game. It's a shallow game that relies heavily on gimmick and a sense of humor that doesn't work. I could pad that with a bunch of hyperbole or the usual rundown of features. That's kind of what people are used to, isn't it? That's what I meant by reading other reviews, or the back of the box. I'm not a consumer report.
But, hey, if all you got from what I wrote is that "it sucks" and "it's stupid", then I'm okay with that. It does suck. It is stupid. And if you want to know more specifics, well, here I am. Let me know what you want to know and I'll happily explain.
Tom Chick, worst reviewer in the history of gaming, applause Tom, its deserved
As has been said before, comparing Lollipop Chainsaw to Bayonetta is quite like comparing Portal (or Portal 2) to Tetris, or apples to oranges. Coincidentally, you also screwed up the metacritic score.
Same reviewer giving a 10 paragraph review to an expansion I believe on the same day? Scoring 5/5?
I think if you are going to give a score that low to something in this day and age, you should just pass it right along (due to bias). You just may mislead someone who truly would have liked the game. After all, we all have different tastes in video games and I am really glad that there is a wide and varied market of games out there.
The same thing was done to God Hand PS2 by Chris Roper formerly of IGN. He gave the game a score of 3, the aggregate was about 7.5 Guess what Playstation does when they start releasing PS2 games for PSN? They release God Hand, 61 other reviewers graded God Hand at least 29% higher than Roper's. Roper is entitled to his opinion but his God Hand review discredited him with a ton of gamers. Roper just did not have a clue that the game was all tongue in cheek, seriously.....
Anyways, with so many reviews out there to the contrary....it really just makes the reviewer look like they either have a bias or something against the game.
anyways, I have never heard of quartertothree before this week, is the site new?
It still amazes me how abruptly Metacritic has eroded the traditional consumer-critic relationship. It's one thing to disagree with a review, it's another to insist that all reviews fall within an arbitrary range and disparage those who deviate too far from the average.
To any who who are not familiar with Mr. Chick's stance on reviewing, I would refer you to read http://www.quartertothree.com/....
Back in the day, it was common courtesy to familiarize oneself with a critic's work and appreciate the philosophical underpinning of their reviews - mind you, I'm only 28, and artistic critique as a profession goes back even further (some guy named Sam Johnson).
has anyone made a list of the QT3 that generate this kind of response? Tom's scores seem to deviate from the metacritic average more often than it happens. I would be interesting to try to find the link. I can't think of any way to draw a line from journey to this