How someone could post on internets all day and be so fucking bad at making sentence.
Yeah they don't do the rote breakdown of elements around here. This site is more for people who want a no nonsense take on a whether a game is good or not from people that have a ton of experience playing and writing about games, and are not interested in being industry hacks. Personally I would say that makes this site a more mature discussion about what is good and bad about games, but I know that there are a lot of folks out there still that look at the individual elements like graphics and those elements can carry a lot of weight in how much they like the game.
Here is Tom's rating guide:
Five stars = I love it
Four stars = I really liked it
Three stars = I liked it
Two stars = I didn't like it
One star = I hated it
if FH2 gets 1 star whats Driveclub get -5 stars
You're just mad because you suck so much at the game that even drivatars who race dirty beat your time. How does that even happen? You actually admit to being that bad... no wonder you hate the game. Either you're a troll or you've no idea what a forza game is all about.
You critisize physics and being able to drive through smashable objects while it is well known this is forza's simcade franchise, not the regular forza series. It seems you're reviewing this game from a perpective that doesn't fit it's context.
This is an unprofessional review which focusses solely on YOUR opinion. A professional reviewer looks past their own preferences and reviews from a more objective standpoint. Yes, a review is always opinion. But a professional reviewer puts his OWN opinion to the side as much as possible, in favor of objectiveness. That is what good journalism is, being objective about your report.
Reading your personal army defending your 'work' is even more cringy, I've rarely seen such pretentious comments in my life. Very successful trolling though, so congrats about that.
@Tomchick Your review system doesn't work for a critics review score, its best suited under USER reviews since you are giving your personal opinion on the game rather then an opinion on the quality. Critic reviews are based off categories. Did Forza Horizon 2 offer great Sound, Visuals, gameplay, Presentation, Lasting Appeal etc. That's how people view metacritic reviews. You may hate it but that doesn't mean the game has bad sound or bad controls. Reviewers are telling people if the product is good, not if you like it. I hate racing games but I have played Forza Horizon 2 and its no where near a 1/5. If someone like me hates racing games yet I can still see the quality it offers to others then it makes me question your review. If you want to give your opinion on the game then you should put it under Metacritics USER reviews.
The guy sounds like he didn't even play the game at all if we have to go by his review.
This review is a joke, he literally looked for every reason to put this game down.
You can easily tell he's hating for no reason.
Judging that you hide your account as a guest so I can't look at your comment history and said no to a free game, Yes. Very biased.
I don't have to bitch. English is not my native language.
Now, go suck the reviewer's dick and stop playing teacher on internet.
So can you request your reviews to be removed from Metacritic? Because you're not playing the same game the other reviewers are yet your results are messing with the system.
Scoring a game differently than your personal opinion dictates isn't being objective. It's being dishonest & pandering to the game's intended audience.
Let's address the idea of being able to score even one technical element of a game objectively. How do you decide if the graphics are a 10? Would a game have to be running on the most advanced engine currently available & maximizing the usage of said engine without any hiccups, or merely doing the best it can with its available assets? Since there is no such thing as a 100% photorealistic game yet, how do you objectively evaluate a game's art style? As soon as you employ a single adjective, you cross over into subjectivity.
On the flip side, how bad would it have to be to deserve the lowest score possible? In all seriousness, there is no realistic possibility of a totally unplayable game anymore (it'd have to be unpatchable as well), so you'd come back to the problem of having a review scale with however many points but only half of it being implemented for most titles. Whatever the scoring method is, it has to allow for practical usage of the entire range or it's more functionally worthless than whatever game meets your standards for a 1. The mythical "completely broken game" is just a phantom used to scare reviewers away from minimum scores, lest it rear it's ugly head once and somehow ruin their credibility forever if they've ever dared to give a playable game a failing grade.
Any reviewer of entertainment who tries to put a veneer of science over their opinion is either lying to themselves, their readers, or both. If true objectivity were possible to achieve,
every review would be exactly identical. Think about how lousy that system would be for describing any type of product that isn't merely utilitarian.
Here's my opinion......this review sucks cause he sucks at the game.
Man you have to be the dumbest reviewer in the entire world. Never have i seen such a Biased review in my life lol. You should lose your job over this. Its a joke that Metacritic post this garbage. I will be complaining to Metacritic along with many others.
Your supposed to give them a Score baised on the gameplay and content. Not if you Like it or not lol. I hate many games but i don't give them worse scores becuase thats my opinion. I have to base the score on the quality and substance of the game and the gameplay and presentation. Or else i would just give every Super Mario game a 1 because i hate them.
I'm not implying total objectivity, just a little bit of it would have been nice.
What I've read here reminds me more of a personal opinion about a game written on a blog, based purely on personal experience and enjoyment.
When I used to write a review, or when I read a review in gamemasters, edge,.. I expect a personal opinion to be there, but I also expect to get a clear view of the game. One does not necessairly need to be entageld with the other.
For Instance (moreoff as an analogie) when playing Destiny I was personally put off by the fact that everything is so 'online based', but I have read many people who are thrilled about it being so online-oriented.
This can be shown with both cons and pros of it being so online-orientated and my personal negative feeling about this should not stop me from trying to keep an objective view on the quality of the (online)game(play) itself.
I can give an opinion about it inside the review, but I don't see how that would justify me giving the game a lower score due to my specific disliking of the online-orientated gameplay.
Many sites have implemented a sort of warning or 'second score/opinion' to give a more objective view on the situation.
The warning being a short clearly indicated explanation why the score might be variable for u depending on such and such liking.
The negative nature of this review, with not the slightest atempt of looking at it from a different perspective, put me off.
Just for clairity: I respect and understand your opinion, but I find it a lack of respect when saying an official review can give a game such a bad score based purely on personal disliking of the mechanics used. Even the slightest indication of 'maybe for this or this- person' would have been nice and would have made the 1/5 less overly negative and onesided.
To conclude: When I look up a review, I would like to know If "I" would enjoy the game and what the game is about in general. I Always click the lowest scores to get the most sceptical reviews (which I felt was my style, back in the day), but this is just so over the top negative and void of any actual information about the game, asside from the specific parts the reviewer disliked.
This is more fit for a blog, in my personal opinion.
Actually when a site gives a seperate score on graphics, gameplay, .. it will not affect the total score. It just helps to give a more in dept look at the seperate elements that make 'a game', 'a game'.
Like I stated in my post about a minute ago, I find this review more fitted for a blog than an actual review site.
This is an opinion-piece, it lacks too many things to be called a review.
Or at least that's still why I look up reviews... I want to see if the game is worth buying for me.
The writings here do no provide me with actual content on which I can base my opinion to buy the game or not. It lacks any sort of dept that makes a review, a review.
As a blog entry I like this very much though.
Tom Chick is and always has been a useless piece of shit. That's why he's laughed at throughout the gaming world. The simple fact is he is a professional troll, looking for hits to this shitty website, and for any attention he can garner.
The scale goes from 1 to 5. Cool pic.
You write what your editor wants you to write.
Tom is his own editor.
Have some Doritos to go with your whine.
thanks , need to rethink that scale if FH2 is a 1 , it functioned day 1. not leaving allot of room for a game that doesn't work like ...oh i don't know...i'm sure you can think of a example
You cannot rate games according to your personal opinion, you have to be non-biased with reviews. You are not a reviewer, your just some guy that loves to clickbate and cause trouble. Amazing someone that has beat Cancer, if that was even true, can do things as low as this. Karma is a bitch and you will get yours.