Wow. And I thought Gamespot's Simpson Arcade game review was horrible. The only reason they gave it this was because of the fact that the reviewer didn't like the humor, and didn't think it was as good as Bayonetta. I seriously don't think a short 4 paragraphed 'review' can be called a review without talking about the major gameplay, or the sound. Worst of all, it took the game's Metacritic score from 82, to 69. 13 points because someone thought the humor wasn't funny. What a joke. Especially since all the other reviews are 60 or above. I'm playing through it and at least a 70. 2 out of 10? That's something I would expect from Amy. Well, anyways, what do you have to say on this issue?

Link - http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2012/06/12/what-do-you-get-when-you-cross-buffy-and-bayonetta-not-lollipop-chainsaw/

This game really seems be splitting opinions, Jim Sterling gave it a good review,

http://www.destructoid.com/review-lollipop-chainsaw-229321.phtml

I trust his opinion more than some random person on a website that I've never heard of. I'd like to hear from people who have played the game too.

It reads like he wrote a four page review and only remembered to post the last one

Is... is this an officially-sanctioned review? No way. That length is good enough for a user review, but you have to be more in-depth than that if you call yourself a freaking professional!

I trust my opinion more than his, and mine says that the game is awesome and delightfully corny. I love Suda's self parody and satire through gratuitous use of sex jokes, violence and pop culture references.

Zombies need to die now...

Oh I just noticed that he responds to some user comments and explains his problems with the combat... meaning that his comment responses have more meat than the review now -_-

...

Tom Chick:
If you want to play a shallow fighting game that combines bad humor, cheesecake, and gore, Splatterhouse would be delighted to get a little of your attention. It knows what it is and it delivers. But the gravest insult in Lollipop Chainsaw is that it's such an obvious and vapid attempt at Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Bayonetta. You, ma'am, are no Bayonetta.

I have no idea where this guy gets the impression that this game is taking itself seriously in any way, shape, or form. Lillipop Chainsaw is The Big Bird Cage to Splatterhouse's Shaft. Tongue-in-cheek exploitation all around... less sex doesn't make Shaft or Splatterhouse less exploitative or less serious.

Eh, I don't really care for the review, it compares the game to the games and media that it's trying to parody, and tries to be grownup by using words it found in a scribble dictionary...
But I don't fault the review, the guy obviously didn't like it (or is just a bastard who wanted some attention by giving poor reviews), the issue I have is with Metacritic and people who feel the need to use a point based system.

Daystar Clarion:

Game looks like tits on a ferret fun.

You know, that actually does not sound that fun...

OT: So some random guy on some crappy little site did a crappy little review that said he did not like a game. So what? Do people really get this worked up over another's opinion?

this guy is terrible

http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2012/05/30/what-if-electronic-arts-published-dragons-dogma/

look at this review, this isn't a review it's just him taking pot shots at EA.

Look at this, max payne review he gave 2 stars

Oh this is gold!

"Max Payne 3 mostly looks good, but it's no Kane and Lynch 2, and not for lack of trying. It's obviously attempting Kane and Lynch 2′s brilliant and subversive YouTube aesthetic without really having a reason to do it"

Wow this guy is insane.... He..I.. no.. I have no words.

This is either trolling or this is so bad it's hilarious

Wow, I don't think the game is great but that review was horrible.

Tom Chick's whole routine is that he puts one small aspect of a game that nobody else cares about under the microscope and judges it based on that. Then he waits for people try to work out what the flip he is thinking, if he is a dick or some sort of enigmatic genius.

Sneezeguard:
It's obviously attempting Kane and Lynch 2′s brilliant and subversive YouTube aesthetic without really having a reason to do it"

My god, he really wrote that? Unironically? In the words of the internet:

"Dafuq did i just read?"

PsychedelicDiamond:

Sneezeguard:
It's obviously attempting Kane and Lynch 2′s brilliant and subversive YouTube aesthetic without really having a reason to do it"

My god, he really wrote that? Unironically? In the words of the internet:

"Dafuq did i just read?"

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you've never played Kane and Lynch 2, you've just heard that it had a negative reception and have gone along with the idea that every single aspect of it is universally terrible.

I might be completely wrong, in which case I'm sorry. Just for the record, I've never played it either, but I looked up some footage of it on Youtube and the camera thing he talked about does indeed look pretty interesting, whether or not the rest of the game is any good.

Point being, what exactly do you think is particularly bad about K&L2's camera trick? Actually, for the record, have you played it or not?

random_bars:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you've never played Kane and Lynch 2, you've just heard that it had a negative reception and have gone along with the idea that every single aspect of it is universally terrible.

I might be completely wrong, in which case I'm sorry. Just for the record, I've never played it either, but I looked up some footage of it on Youtube and the camera thing he talked about does indeed look pretty interesting, whether or not the rest of the game is any good.

Point being, what exactly do you think is particularly bad about K&L2's camera trick? Actually, for the record, have you played it or not?

Actually, the camera effects in Max Payne 3 are better than Kane and Lynch 2, in that they're not as fucking obnoxious. Yeah, they're annoying in both games, but in Kane and Lynch 2 they're unbearable.

Still, the main reason that statement is completely insane is that Max Payne is that Kane and Lynch 2 is just not fun to play in the slightest. Take away the camera effects, and though you'll have less of a headache, you'll still be bored beyond comprehension because the gameplay is so repetitive, and fails to be satisfying in the slightest.

Coming from somebody who's played both games extensively (Well, as extensively as you can play a four hour game).

Wow this guy thinks they're trying to combine Buffy with Bayonetta in this game? And he considers himself a serious reviewer?

From what I've seen of the game, I absolutely agree with him.

There is not one thing redeeming about it. It's not funny (and by that, I mean it's really not funny, the gameplay mechanics looks really dull, and... honestly, why was it made in the first place? What about this seemed a good idea?

Edit: I don't agree with his review, just his score.

I feel this score is completely accurate for the game.

The7Sins:
*Grunt*

Care to elaborate? Do you perhaps have something against fun?

More Fun To Compute:
Tom Chick's whole routine is that he puts one small aspect of a game that nobody else cares about under the microscope and judges it based on that. Then he waits for people try to work out what the flip he is thinking, if he is a dick or some sort of enigmatic genius.

He just wrote an imperfect but decent review of Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion... I guess he only wrotes a few vague paragraphs (read: shit review) for games he didn't like

EDIT: Yeah reading some of his other stuff it seems That he has a Rant/Blog-post/Real Review scale that matches pretty nicely to his 1-5 scale

Sneezeguard:
this guy is terrible

http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2012/05/30/what-if-electronic-arts-published-dragons-dogma/

look at this review, this isn't a review it's just him taking pot shots at EA.

Look at this, max payne review he gave 2 stars

Oh this is gold!

"Max Payne 3 mostly looks good, but it's no Kane and Lynch 2, and not for lack of trying. It's obviously attempting Kane and Lynch 2′s brilliant and subversive YouTube aesthetic without really having a reason to do it"

Wow this guy is insane.... He..I.. no.. I have no words.

This is either trolling or this is so bad it's hilarious

Wow... That's just....

I'm guessing this guy is the Armond White of game reviews.

As or Lollipop Chainsaw, I got it and I love it, so I really don't care what this doofus says.

Tara Strong as the protagonist. I give this game a 11 out of 10. I am not biased at all.

Tom Chick is relatively infamous for hating Deus Ex when it came out, although I guess that whole ordeal has long-since faded.

Anyway, people have different opinions to you. Deal with it. If Metacritic choose to feature him that's their problem, and he shouldn't have to alter himself to accommodate them. (I mean really, have we not worked out that this whole review score business is fucking retarded yet?)

Besides, this game's been getting some pretty divisive scores. Saw someone give it a 3/10 yesterday.

Oh, and the complaints are:

- Shit, uninspired and poorly implemented gameplay
- It's inherently gimmicky
- It's got stupid, unfunny humour
- No interesting characters
- Sexism
- A weak mixture of two other properties
- There are better alternatives

So, a bit more than "not funny" and "it's not Bayonetta". I mean, for four paragraphs I'd say it's deceptively dense.

I got a better impression of the game from watching a preview of it done by this girl who worked for IGN a day or two before the public release than I did this review- and that was just the first 10-15 minutes of the game, not counting the cutscenes. The only reason I find this game appealing because it was made by Suda 51 and has that same raunchy humor as Shadows of the Damned. The game is not Shadows of the Damned, however. This game is more in the vein of bayonetta or God of War, in the sense that it's a spectacle fighter. It has a very 1950's feel to it, combine with elements of modernism. It may not be the greatest in terms of cinematics or writing, but if you want to just plain have fun and kill a bunch of zombies, this is the game for you.

I can also recommend it for those who liked Shadow of the Damned, though not for the atmosphere. This game is very bright, considering it's not set in Hell, but in an average California town, albeit in the midst of a zombie invasion brought about via an arcane ritual. However, the real brightness comes from the fact that as you cut through the zombie horde with your bedazzled chainsaw, the zombies explode into sparkles and rainbows. And gore. lots of gore and body parts too.

This game does not deserve the rating it got, especially considering the fact that the reviewer basically condemned it because he didn't think it was funny and that it wasn't bayonetta. It goes to show that the rating systems of today aren't entirely accurate of effectual. I just wish more people would realize that.

Regardless of this review, I checked out some others (the Joystiq review is quite good) and based on them I'm picking up Shadows of the Damned today and waiting for Lollipop Chainsaw to hit the bargain bin. Given that most reviewers put it at having between 8 and 10 hours of content (and that includes achievement grinding), I'm not dropping $60 for that. Of course, because of the short gameplay and lack of online content, I can't imagine it will take long for used copies to pile up at your local game store anyways.

I have no vested interest in defending Lollipop Chainsaw (didn't preorder and haven't bought it or anything), but I did check out Metacritic and was surprised to see that one massively negative review sticking out like a sore thumb, drastically lowering the overall score. Clicked through out of curiosity, expecting to see an interesting difference of opinion from Jim's glowing review and... yeah, no.

How does one become a "professional" reviewer for the purposes of Metacritic? Because seriously, if this really is his profession he's incompetent. Four tiny paragraphs of a blog post amounting to "I didn't like the jokes" and "it's not Bayonetta" do not a full review make. Who decided that this guy's opinion was worth more than the average blogger's?

As I said, I have no particular interest in this game, and I'm usually all for critics giving their honest opinions even if they're unpopular, but honestly. I expect to see some evidence of professionalism in a "critic" review.

Seriously though, anyone know how it's decided what counts as a "critic" review?

Xaio30:
Tara Strong as the protagonist. I give this game a 11 out of 10. I am not biased at all.

That sounds pretty low, you must be biased against Tara Strong......

Just relax

Add +5 to any Tom's review

So lollipop is kinda 6\10 then if he would work for magazine

Jim just nails it right here:

This is, without a doubt, the stupidest game I have ever played.

I also think I am in love with it.

In three days, I've clocked 15 hours on it. Not bad for an OTS beat-em-up. I shall forever enshrine it in third place of my Goofy Holy Trinity with Bayonetta and Onechanbara.

Damn, but some of the cheevos are brutal, though. <_<