Oh shit, you reviewed gears of war 3 for gameshark. Was wondering who that idiot was, all making sense now.
"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?"
I don't care that it's a brief review. The length isn't what bothers me What annoys me is that the review, brief as it is, says next to nothing. Fine, you don't have a lot to say. That doesn't make your review any more credible. The little list of things at the end of an IGN review (much as I dislike them) is more informative than your review, and those things are tiny as hell. The only thing that you said that is actually informative is that it's shallow. It's not hard to make a review brief while still covering the important parts of a video game review. There doesn't need to be hyperbole. Just your honest thoughts on the different parts of the video games. It doesn't have to be more than a few sentences each. Do you really mean to tell me that covering graphics, sounds, or, god forbid, going a little more into the gameplay, really counts as padding?
"That's what I meant by reading other reviews, or the back of
the box. I'm not a consumer report. I'm not a consumer report."
No, you're a reviewer. What you wrote was not a good review. A good or even decent review really needs to cover even a little bit about what makes the game bad.
"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."
I want you to step back and consider the quality of your review of a video game if I have to ask "What is the gameplay?"
No, that isn't his job. It's not even close to his job. A reviewer shouldn't try to be the Amazing Kreskin and read the tea leaves of who might enjoy it. Clearly, Tom hated this game. What else should he do with that? "Well, fans of zombie killing cheerleaders should get in line! It was wasn't my cup of tea but you might like it!"
3 stars.
Truth is, when you read a review that says, "If you like strategy games you'll love Crusader Kings II!" you are reading a terrible and ultimately useless review.
midloo, if you wrote a review of CK2, explaining the "features I might enjoy" you are wasting my time and yours. I can read a fact sheet. I can watch a trailer. I don't need you to tell me what I already know. I know CK2 is a deep strategy game and everyone reading a review of CK2 knows that. People reading a review of Lollipop Chainsaw don't need a lesson in what it's about.
Does Lollipop Chainsaw deserve a 1500 word write up? Why? Would this particular review have been better if it checked off the features and tried to guess who would like it? How could Tom or any other writer POSSIBLY know that?
The notion that every review needs to be long or needs to describe game mechanics or needs to predict the type of people who "might" enjoy it is precisely the problem with a lot of game writing.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that review. A tad baiting? Yeah, perhaps. But unprofessional and useless? I strongly disagree with that. I got Tom's message loud and clear and it didn't take him long to convey it.
It's common for fans of a game/designer/genre to get upset when a writer disagrees with their opinion. I question if the reaction to this had been as vitriolic if the review were the same length but 5 stars and gushing with praise.
If I would buy games according to his reviews, I would have 0 games in my gaming library.
@cfdb23fa3ba656604d59a3a804e702e8:disqus My opinion is simple: This is a terrible review for the reasons I, and many have stated here. You don't agree with that? Keep enjoying the cult of Tom. The rest of us are going to go over here and read useful things and enjoy our time with people who aren't cantankerous curmudgeons or trolls looking for profit.
I can't tell if you're trolling of if you're a snob that hates fun and will never be able to grasp the point of this game.
It's fun. It takes you back to oldschool games. It pokes fun at itself. It definitely knows what it is. It's not trying to be Bayonetta or Buffy. It's trying to be a Troma film. Nobody low balled this game like you did.
But if you hate fun, only play games that are AAA titles, don't like taking risks for enjoyment and you like Citizen Kane more than Army of Darkness, you probably shouldn't play this.
What the dick.
So, wait, you throw the word "paroxysms" in to your article, but you couldn't be bothered to write more than four paragraphs? You didn't even write 400 words, and the criticisms thrown at the game? You're complaints have no context because the supposed negative aspects of the game aren't even described in detail!
I've been given four paragraphs (barely) that are crammed full of terrible metaphor, but lack any actual substance. I expected more from "The Man Who Hated Deus Ex".
This is my first suda 51 game. So far I'm finding it very enjoyable in a strange and maniacal way. I've only finished the first two levels but had to go back and replay the first to get a better score. ( It's a very addictive game. ) So far, I'd give it an 8 out of 10 score. The fun factor is through the roof. I stand by my position. The reviewer is flawed, not the game.
So you feel that the number of mouths to feed at a given studio should directly affect someones judgement of the games they make?
So how many dependents should the employees at a given studio have before they can get an 8/10? And will you apply a handicap for indies who may not have the same number of employees?I don't see how other sites have anything to do with defining a review. An entertainment review is a critique on a creative work.You may not like the writing, and you may not agree with the opinion, and you may think the reviewer is a douche, but here's a thought: You don't always get to have everything your way.Personally I don't think an opinion is made more or less valid by including pity, charity, a feature list, or every inane detail contained in it.
That's the owners decision, not the reviewers.
You could stop buying their games and encouraging practices like that, but I'm thinking that would be slightly less convenient than simply targeting the reviewers instead.
To summarize your reply,..........Yeah, you're clearly the epitome of human intelligence, aren't you? Let's reply to someone's post with sarcasm! Oh wait you're 8 years late.
My ears! You can't just throw around the "F" word willy-nilly like that!
No - I believe this was a bad review... plain and simple. Unfortunately, at some point one of these witless reviews may actually have an effect on someone's livelihood. I'm not saying that's a good system, I'm merely pointing out the fact.
Disregard that comment about paychecks if you like - you're still left with a vapid review of this game.
And I'm not defending the game. I'm just calling a poorly written review a poorly written review.
Yeah because sophisticated games come in spades don't they? Notice how the same reviewer gave SR3 a 10. Yeah that game clearly challenged the average person, didn't it?
So if your next door neighbour's a Nazi, would you tell him to carry on? Backwards logic, idiot.
It's actually $20, worth pointing that out.
Mr. Chick reviewed this game from a pessimistic and cynical viewpoint that boils down to shitting on it for the sake of shitting on it. I firmly believe he did so just to generate controversy. He went in with a mindset to hate the game before he even played it. Whereas a game can be truly horrendous and be deserving of it's low score (i.e. rogue warrior or bubsy 3D ) this is not the case with lollipop chainsaw. From what I've played so far it has proven itself to be an enjoyable lighthearted romp filled with bloody goodness. As a longtime gamer I have played the good and the bad that as graced ( or disgraced ) many a console generation. Lollipop chainsaw is a good game, pure and simple. The reviewer is wrong and his review is absolute crap.
Wow! This is a professional game review? You must be joking. This is a short, biased rant that tells us nothing about the quality of the game then throws out a score since he didn't like the game.
You're certainly entitled to feel that way, but I'm sure you realize that you're being just as subjective in feeling that way, as any critic is in reviewing anything.
In gaming, 90% of reviews read mostly the same, contain mostly the same, and score mostly the same. And you seem to expect that, as if getting the same opinion over and over again is actually a service.
No other medium gives you that. TV, movies and to a lesser extent music are all blessed with critics that actually have opinions that aren't just logical deductions of "what they should think". For that they're infintely more interesting to read. But then that's just my opinion.
This isn't a fighting game, and the fact that you describe it as a "fighting game" casts serious doubt on your judgment as a game reviewer.