Ok, so I understand why some may give it a bad score...but a 1?! A 1 impliea that the game is broken, and that's implying that every single other reviewer misssed that it was broken! I refuse to believe. Im not arguing the review, im arguing the insanely exaggurated score.
You know what I see when I see this? An unpopular site desperate for attention so they purposefully give a radically and exaggerated liw score to be morr noticeable. Pathetic. Credibility out the window. You remind me of the one dude that gave Uncharted 3 a 20/100...LOL
You keep saying this like it matters. Just because some idiot company chooses to base its policies on metacritic scores doesn't make that the problem of reviewers.
Ah the embodiment of irony, if one cannot quite describe what they actually hate about a particular product, than one cannot quite call it criticism. I'm 'full of shit'? If you can review a game with 4 paragraphs or less without clearly explaining your problems with a game thoroughly, then this reviewer has the same credentials as the average user review on metacritic. I don't agree with other's views when they cannot explain it.
I can respect someone's opinion as long as they can justify it logically without ripping on a game by comparing it to similar games in it's own genre and explaining their criticism clearly without resorting to 'combat's shallow' where's the basis for that? Explain it, don't describe the problem.
Hopefully it will get Suda 51 fired and run out of the games making business, because he's a talentless hack with nothing but cheap gimmicks and phony postmodern geek references.
Glad to see it on Metascore, to a balance out the bought-and-paid-for reviews like Destructoid's.
I don't think Tom Chick needs my help. If I was defending Tom Chick it would go something like this: "YOU LEAVE TOM CHICK ALONE! HE'S A GOOD MAN!". I've never met the guy.
What I'm defending is the right to review whatever you like, however you like. You're entitled to hate the review, but at some point you have to take a deep breath and realize, that the world isn't always going to shape itself according to your needs, desires and expectations.
I don't see the use in raging about the fact that Tom Chick has a different opinion than you do. I'm sure you have plenty of opinions that even your own brother doesn't share. That's humanity, for you.
It is Tom's view on the game. If you do not like it, get your reviews elsewhere. Metacritic and industry reliance on it should not affect a reviewer one way or the other. Tom Chick's reviews have often gone against the grain. This is nothing new and certainly not a gimmick to get a few hundred extra clicks any more than the last several years of reviews have. I am not defending Tom in particular as much as I am his style of reviewing. He does not walk you through the same checklist of items as found in most reviews. If you want that, you are in the wrong place. His words, as much as their brevity in this case, speak to what he thought of the game.
Are there not things we all have hated that others have loved? My wife loves reality TV as do millions of others. I think it is a tedious waste of time. Totally out of character, I have started listening to Dubstep non-stop as opposed to heavier rock. Many think the entire Dubstep genre is worthless noise that takes no talent to create. I cannot get enough. If I were to put my ratings to Reality TV and Dubstep, they would be far, far different than that of many of my friends and family.
This is a case where the reviewer saw absolutely no redeeming qualities in a game. The text reflects that as does the score. I, for one, trust that he put in the time to formulate this opinion and considered all the factors people say this review is lacking and saw no benefit in including them. If you cannot put that trust in a reviewer, you should not use his or her review in making your informed decision as to whether to purchase a game. If you already have the game and are enjoying it, I am not sure why the reviewer's opinion should matter to you whatsoever. There are plenty of reviews out there that will validate your purchase of the game with positive reviews.
He has no cookie cutter formula and he is rarely echoing what other reviewers are saying even when he agrees with them. Though some of his thoughts on some games and movies are completely different from mine, I want more reviewers who write unique reviews like Tom Chick not fewer.
I saw your abnormally low review score on Metacritic and decided to pop over and read the review.
You may expect more from James Gunn and Suda 51, but I expected more from you as someone who has taken it upon himself to give your opinion. Boiled down, your review is nothing but whining that it's not the kind of gameplay and humor you enjoy. So instead of focusing on what you think the game might have done right, you're tearing it down by focusing on everything you think it did wrong.
This isn't a review. This is a bully picking on the fat kid because his dad beats him at home.
This is definitely a situation where a website tries their hardest to get views. Well played sirs. You actually got the attention. I haven't made it through the entire game and will get back to you when I do on whether I agree but 1 is a bit harsh for what I have encountered so far. Stating LC is trying to be Buffy and Bayonetta is completely misinformed. It is blatantly mocking the horror genre. I was more put off by the fact it is trying its hardest to be a typical self-aware over-the-top wapanese game, so I guess you could say it's Bayonetta. However, games like Devil May Cry pioneered the cheesy, tongue-in-cheek dialogue prevalent in leading characters of successive games. It is nothing new dude. I think it this era, seeing hyper-sexualized female characters with very misogynistic dialogue should immediately make a critic look closer at the game rather than quickly jump to a conclusion that it isn't aware of its actions. But like I said, I will get back to you when have completed the game. I am already getting tired of the combat dialogue, I will give you that.
It's pretty sad that there are people who seem to think the existence of Metacritic means that anyone posting a review on the internet should care about how a score will effect the Metacitic average instead of how a score will best communicate his opinion to his readers.
If you don't like Tom's reviews, don't read them. Find a critic whose taste in games is a better match for yours, and then read that guy's reviews.
Because when you're reviewing a used-food sandwich, you have to keep it short and "sweet." If a reviewer is verbose about a title that they hate, the review becomes more about how many ways the reviewer can articulate his or her disdain for the title.
At the end of the day, would you rather take your 1 out of 5 star lumping and go home, or have 2k worth of snark to back it up?
