You're not a Sony pauperfanboy, having read your other reviews, we know you're not, unlike the many losers and failures at real life on this page upvoting pro-Sony comments with zero post accounts, so I'll give you a break.
We know you have terminal cancer, which when reading this, where you're grading a game a whole 5 points under the lowest other review on Metacritic and apparently lost all sense of reality, hopefully hasn't spread to your brain. Keep fighting the good fight!
But tell us, sincerely. Why do you choose to spend the remainder of your time playing, in your opinion, bad games? Have you no life worth living? Are you a failure at real life like the Sony fanboys on this page and desperate for attention?
Reading this is hilarious TBH because we all know you're just a clickbait monger, which, considering there aren't many adds on this site, won't give you much in return. Wouldn't you feel bad, knowing, that when you die, your reviews will be removed from Metacritic, because MANY are asking for this from all sides, and you leave no mark whatsoever on this earth? Think about it Tom Click! Don't leave this earth being remembered like the $0N¥ pauperlosers in this comment section.
You base your reviews off what the game/movie offers. Eg Movies get rated on Plot/Sound/Visuals/acting etc while games have different categories like gameplay and lasting appeal. If you think a professional reviewer judges something based off Good or Bad then they need to go back to school. Tom Chick wants clicks to fund his cancer foundation by targeting hot topics and destroying them. Because of his strategy his not getting one penny from me.
Never mind!
God bless this pony site poor ponys
One start for horizon, what will drive club get DNF review hahahah
Tom chick is a ps4 fag
I don't see how that's relevant but OK.
I want you to read this article here:
http://www.videogamer.com/xbox...
With next gen hardware, you have more power to improve and get more powerful physics.
Some quotes from Dan G himself:
"The things we're doing on the Xbox One with Forza 5 physically just wouldn't have been possible with last-generation hardware," Greenawalt told us at Gamescom earlier today. "Partially because there wasn't enough power, but more importantly the approach. We have a completely new approach to how we're doing physics and a new partnership."
Greenawalt explained that Turn 10 ditched its partnership with Pirelli for Forza 5 to team up with Calspan, a science and technology research company that tested huge numbers of tyres in order to provide in-depth analytics for Forza 5’s handling."
Here is a link on Calspan:
This review is a great example of why I have been a Tom Chick fan for many years. He points out a few specific examples (driving straight through a turnabout without penalty is not acceptable in a racing game to me), but the overall picture of not caring about stuff like rewards or spinning slot machines or pitches for $19.99 VIP pass paints a vivid picture of what buying and playing this game would be like. I don't think I would enjoy this game, and I would feel ripped off. This is especially important to me, as I occasionally purchase racing games. A rare few are ones that I play the heck out of, but others are flops that I don't play for longer than the 20 minutes it gets takes to get bored.
Whenever I play a game less than 20 minutes or so, I think nobody involved with any facet of the game should get any bonus whatsoever. But, that doesn't correlate with the money that the game made, and perhaps that should be the real measurement for bonuses and stuff.
It is unfortunate that gaming publishers have chosen to tie bonuses to Metacritic reviews. This strikes me as lazy. Why not just tie bonuses to financial performance of the title? I understand why the poor developers get stuck with this, as in they may have no bargaining power. However, I have to question the motives of the folks who wandered into this website from Metacritic. Many sound very unhappy, and that kind of unhappiness probably is financially derived.
As a consumer, I prefer Tom's simple five-star scale. He gives a very lengthy discussion usually, and this is enough to let me decide whether I might agree with him or not. As a long time reader, I know that he is very into boardgames. So when I see a review of a boardgame, I know that I can probably ignore it because that's not my type of game. Although I will read them when I want a fix of his writing, he is writing less these days than he has in the past.
I remain,
a huge fan of both Tom and this website,
Jeff3F
Lionheart melting down cos his shit cross-gen racer got a bad review. I love it.
JAJAJA Go to play DriveClub....I mean DriveAlone
who cares about Tom Chick? Only 2 pages on NeoGAF about your cancer. 0/5 for your cancer.
I appreciate your taking the time to look at the star explanation, but I hope you'll also read the FAQ I linked.
However, I'm curious about these "rules" you mention. You mention "playability", but that's such a strange metric for a rating. So can you elaborate? An aggregate, by its very definition, is going to consist of varying differences of opinion, perspective, and even methodology. When I was included in Gamerankings and Metacritic, I was very specific with them about my methodology. Neither of them objected. So I'm curious what "rules" you feel I'm not following.
playbility refers to "do the game mechanics allow you to preoperly interact with the game". They're have been games with counter-productive elements that act as a hindrance to the game more than anything else. Not controls within the input lag, per se, but controls as related to what is available to the player can factor in.
if metacritic and such agree than I guess they u understand. As for the rules, review sites in general aren't always the best with this, bit it had to do with the difference between
"bad" I don't like it and "bad" it doesn't work. To put it into perspective, if Forza Horizons 2 is at the lowest on your reading, where would Big Rig 2 sit? (I regret to the notoriously broken tricking game on the pc a few years back). To me this is the same hyperbole in the opposite direction. Your review basically days that this game isn't worth the disc it's printed on, which I think isn't a fair assessment.
is this guy for real lol.
I disagree. Below 50% should not be reserved for things that are technically broken in some respect. A bad game can be technically perfect and still be bad. The fact that games are still judged by this standard is a sign of the medium's immaturity. The faster this kind of faux-objectivity is discarded, the better, in my opinion.
I disagree with you. Serious film reviews don't break movies down and calculate a score. The fact that games are still stuck in this juvenile argument is the problem of the audience, and I encourage professional critics to move past it.
As for your other comments, I think you're badly mistaken.
name a medium that is judged exclusively from its technical failings.
Again, thanks for the reply, but we're at loggerheads here until you understand the ratings system this site uses. Specifically, I'm not telling you whether a game is objectively good or bad. I'm articulating my experience with the game, and the rating is a reflection of how much I liked the game. I might dislike Forza Horizon 2 and Big Rig 2 equally, but for different reasons. The rating -- remember, there are only five of them! -- is just a shorthand notation of how much I do or don't like it.
The text is where a reviewer should elaborate the specific reasons for that opinion. That's where I would break down that Forza Horizon 2 is technically solid (although that's somewhat questionable at times) and Big Rig 2 (which you say is notoriously broken) is not technically solid. But why do you feel I'm breaking rules by not giving them different ratings on the basis of one single criteria, namely "playability"? That strikes me as entirely arbitrary.
for your site and your purposes it makes sense. Again, I agree in this method for you. When applied to an aggregation with more nuance and range it changes a lot more. I don't fault you if these sites incorporate your scoring, I just feel that being not that into a game and scoring that way, weighed against reviews that account for everything skews the overall number in a negative way (same could be said if you loved a game that everyone else hated...100% opinion vs a mix of opinion and technical doesn't give accurate results)
that said, people shouldn't just look at number scores anyway (that's why I read your review, I honestly thought there was something glitchy or broken nobody else mentioned). Its a fine line to balance when certain industries and peoples rely on those numbers for an accurate depiction of the end product.