Aggregates are only as "powerful" as you want them to be. Sometimes I agree with reviews here, sometimes I don't. Usually I can understanding where they're coming from. There are some websites that seem overly prone to giving every title they review an absurdly high score.
But that's life. We shouldn't be silencing people.If you are angry that the views they are getting are from folks that are so sure a game title is amazing that they freak out at the existence of any negative grades, people have to make that decision for themselves
Been around a while. Clearly you got plenty of other gaming sites to look to for gaming reviews....or maybe just scores if that's faster for you?
The review and, if they chose to, grade of something from a critic is their prerogative. When other people start using formulas from aggregate sites to be able to value the merit of marketing of a game and whether they made sure "reviewers got it," then shit gets questionable. Then people are driven to fanaticism about their favorite game being ruined by a "low" score.
Well done. You got yourselves noticed via Metacritic. But honestly, I hope you get taken off. 2/10 would denote an unplayable game, not a bad or mediocre one. A dreadful, lazy ,attention seeking review. I think it would feel more at home in the Metacritic user section.
What the hell. This little article here brought down the whole metascore for the game and devs might get in some real trouble because of it. All that because some random dude on the internet didn't get the appeal of the game. You suck, sir. This review here is just unprofessional - it's a blog post, not a review. It should not be a part of the metascore for the game.
The thing is some devs get paid by the publisher based on a metascore of the game. If the metascore is low, they may get paid less and they may even have some cuts in their team. All becouse some random guy was in a bad mood. And this guy here brought down the metascore all by himself. I just don't think it's fair. Metascore actually means a lot in this industry.
Wait...$60 for a 4-5 hour game? At least with a game like BF3 you get a robust MP experience as well =/ What the hell, why don't devs price their games accordingly. Watch a few weeks later Suda 51 is going to say that his game bombed and people will cry "omg stupid gamers buying the same old crap and not buying new IP's!" No, it wouldn't have bombed because it was a new IP. It would have bombed because they expected us to pay $60 for a 4-5 hour experience and nothing more...You get massive RPG's for the same price.
Anyway, the few 9's this game is getting must be because of the heavily sexualized main character. Take that away and let's see if it would have gotten those same scores.
Jesus, is everyone so freaking uptight that they can't even enjoy a FUN game anymore? This game doesn't have the best graphics or the highest production values & occasionally the controls seem a bit floaty, but this is the most FUN I've had with a video game in a long time. I'm actually not a big Suda fan at all. I like a lot of his ideas, but his games have always seemed incredibly inaccessible & just very unpolished to me. LC strikes the perfect balance between playability, FUN & Suda's absolutely batshit-crazy sensibilities. Too bad everyone has such huge sticks shoved up their asses that they cannot see & enjoy this game for what it is. LC is a laugh riot that's actually crazy FUN to play. If this game doesn't make you grin or laugh out loud,then you're just fucking soulless or too pretentious.
Finding it difficult to defend a lazy, four paragraph review with no details and an incredibly low score? It would be one thing if the rationale for a 2/10 was explained. It isn't. This is a very poor review and merits delisting from the aggregate sites.
He can still write reviews and his cult can follow and praise him, but there is nothing in this review to suggest the level of professionalism most sites exhibit - yes - even the sites that inflate scores are more professional. At least they take the time to explain some of the mechanics they liked/disliked.
Absolutely. He's a troll whose meager little site needs some attention. I started calculating his review's deviation from the mean of scores for a variety of recent games yesterday. It was appalling. I'll post the numbers soon.
This reviewer knows that he is potentially affecting people's livelihood with his schlock. I wonder if he revels in the power a small troll like him should never have?
If you can't provide a thorough justification for a score that is far below the average of other sites, you have failed as a critic. You're just another internet hater.
The problem in such cases is metacritic and insane practices by publishers, not game critics. I really don't see how you can defend it, or think that such a practice should be pandered to.
Why does it need to be a longer review? Clearly Tom hated the game, hated the experience of playing it, found the humor stale, and has opted for the 'less said the better' approach which to me says all I need to know about Lollipop Chainsaw. What else is he supposed to do? Fill vacant space explaining game mechanics? Why does that even matter? It's Lollipop Freaking Chainsaw not War in the East.
Because that's a responsible reviewer's job - to explain the merits of the game. He didn't have fun... okay... but can't we evaluate the game based on what it's trying to do? Is this reviewer not that objective? Sheesh man... anyone can throw an opinion up on the internet. The whole idea of a review is to give people a better idea of the what the game entails and to whom it might have value. What is so hard about this?
For example, I didn't like Crusader Kings II. It wasn't my cup of tea. That being said, I recognize it's value to deep strategy fans and would explain the features they might enjoy. That's how a professional review should work. If I just slap-dashed up a few meager paragraphs and gave it a 20%, it would have no meaning or usefulness to anyone. That's just a trolling user review. That's what this review of Lollipop Chainsaw is.
