Halo 4 gets a 2/10...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Need I point you all to this page?

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/final-fantasy-xiii/critic-reviews

Notice the amount of positive reviews. Notice the negative reviews. Notice the bottom two reviews and the gap in scoring. The lowest of them is written by Jim Sterling. His view CLEARLY differentiated from the critical norm. Did that make his review incorrect? Are the four perfect scores incorrect?

Thing is, it's all subjective and should be taken with a grain of salt.

If you like Halo 4, then who gives a flying fuck what one critic said. Buy it, play it, enjoy it and move on. If you are that concerned over it, maybe there's something else at play here. Maybe deep down, you know that the critic is right, but the cognitive dissonance it created within you is causing you to lash out.

Actually, has Halo 4 been released yet? How can anyone positively refute what the critic is saying anyhow? Or did everyone here get an early copy?

I personally couldn't care less. I don't play any FPS games cause in my opinion they're all shit. ;D

lacktheknack:
Other games this guy has given 2/10 to:
Lollipop Chainsaw
Syndicate
From Dust
Resident Evil 6

Star ratings are irritating.

You mean he isn't just making an example of Halo 4... How about that!

Star ratings are the same as any other form of rating... completely irreverent.

Ignore the rating, and read the context for a change. Maybe then you might understand why he scored it so low...

snowbear:

lacktheknack:
Other games this guy has given 2/10 to:
Lollipop Chainsaw
Syndicate
From Dust
Resident Evil 6

Star ratings are irritating.

You mean he isn't just making an example of Halo 4... How about that!

Star ratings are the same as any other form of rating... completely irreverent.

Ignore the rating, and read the context for a change. Maybe then you might understand why he scored it so low...

I did.

From his review, I can see him giving the game a 2 or 3.

1/5 really does seem to be trolling for views. (Note: It worked.)

I think gamers need to grow up and stop throwing a fit every time a reviewer gives a low score to a game from a series they like. It's his opinion, he can give the score he wants.

Is he trolling for attention? If so, it only works because angry gamers give attention to reviewers who give low scores to games they like. If gamers didn't get so worked up with this, it wouldn't work as an attention grab.

I don't know if the critic in question is trolling for attention, but he's free to give Halo or any other game the score he wants. You may agree with him, disagree with him, or just completely ignore anyone with a different opinion, but that's it.

BTW, the only Halo game I played was Halo 3, briefly, in a friend's house (I don't own a 360). I thought it was quite fun. My opinion is irrelevant to my point, but I'm adding just so people don't say I'm a Halo hater or something like it.

White Lightning:
I haven't played it yet, but to be honest it's a Halo game I mean... what else is there to say? Everyone and their mum knows what it's going to be like, so I don't see why people are even bothering to read the reviews.

Halo is like Pizza, there's good pizza, (Reach) and bad pizza, (ODST) but even bad pizza is still enjoyable.

lacktheknack:

snowbear:

lacktheknack:
Other games this guy has given 2/10 to:
Lollipop Chainsaw
Syndicate
From Dust
Resident Evil 6

Star ratings are irritating.

You mean he isn't just making an example of Halo 4... How about that!

Star ratings are the same as any other form of rating... completely irreverent.

Ignore the rating, and read the context for a change. Maybe then you might understand why he scored it so low...

I did.

From his review, I can see him giving the game a 2 or 3.

1/5 really does seem to be trolling for views. (Note: It worked.)

I don't recall him saying much if anything positive about it to me he seemed pretty consistent on the not liking it front.

Kinda proves my point about the score being irreverent though. If you think the game sounds good then great that's your opinion go buy it and play it to your hearts content (maybe even write your own review as to why you think its good/bad).

This guy clearly didn't think much of it, and that is his opinion which he is entitled to. Who really cares about a little number at the end of the day its not like it makes everyone else's opinion somehow less valid.

It's Quarter to Three. The site infamous for their bullshit reviews, most of which are written by this same guy: Tom Chick. He's a fucking terrible writer and he seems to know it, which is why he gave Halo 4 2/10, Max Payne 3 4/10, and wrote about how much he hates the original Deus Ex (I agree that it is way overrated, but his reasoning for why it was bad was just total bullshit). He's a sad, pathetic attention whore who's too full of himself.

Reviews are opinion.
Full stop.

My real question is why any of us should give a fuck about what some reviewer thinks about the game. If you like it you like it, and if you don't then likewise. Reviews are not some holy rating that determines whether a game is good or not.

BloatedGuppy:

Radoh:
Well now I've got another sensationalist reviewer that's going to be ignored right alongside Razorfist.

Uh...guys...

This is Tom Chick. The guy is one of the most tenured critics in the industry. He's been around FOREVER. He doesn't need to troll for attention. It's almost like saying Mike Wallace needed to troll for attention so people would know who he is.

Now, I should probably say here that I am not a FAN of Tom Chick. The guy is the Armond White of video game journalism. He's almost aggressively contrarian and is not afraid to ruffle feathers by butchering sacred cows. But holy fuck are ya'll ever hypocrites. We do nothing but whine in here on an hourly basis about the sad state of video game journalism and how they're all in the pockets of the publishers/developers, with manilla envelopes stuffed with bribe money stacked to the ceiling. And here's a guy who will quite cheerfully rip a major release because that's what he thinks of it, and everyone starts moaning that he's "trolling for attention".

Make up your fucking minds. Do you want journalists who tell you what they think, or people who soft peddle everything so they don't accidentally evacuate the 7-10 range and aggravate a legion of sweaty fans? If you don't like his taste in games, don't read his column. When I hear that Tom Chick hated a game I liked, my response is almost always "Okay, but...it's Tom Chick". But stop with the ad hominem attacks because you don't like the score he gave your Halo. The guy has been reviewing games longer than some of you have been alive.

Firstly, I've no idea who the hell Tom Chick is, nor do I particularly care that you view him as a tenured video game critic. It really doesn't matter how long you've been around, he could have been the very first reviewer in history and that wouldn't change my opinion on him being a sensationalist, since this is the first time I've ever seen a review of his ever. The simple fact being that if he didn't rate it so low as he did I'd still not know who he is (much like a large number of people in this very thread, so that helps support that thought as well).

Secondly, don't you dare call me a hypocrite just because I don't think somebody being contrarian is worthy of praise based simply off the fact that he's being contrarian. You seem to be under the impression that you somehow know that this opinion of his is actually his opinion, when you are operating with the same information as the rest of us: He gave a really harsh review for something.
How are you so certain that he isn't just trolling for views?

My mind has been made up: He's a classier version of Razorfist and as such is to be ignored all the same.

RedDeadFred:
I'll definitely rent it.

:O................ sweet mother of jesus you can still do that? WHERE???

TakeshiLive:
Can you give an example of a game this critic rates highly? It might show something about their standards and expectations

Go to his review page and organise them by rating.

OT: I think it's Tom Chick's opinion. His tastes don't tend to match up to more mainstream tastes - besides which, he employs the full breadth of his scoring table (and it's 1 out of 5, I don't know why you've translated it to 2 out of 10). That makes him more useful to people like me and less useful to people who like Halo.

So... what's the problem?

Stop throwing a fit over someone else's fucking opinion. My experience with the Halo series would lead me to score it a 1/5, I think they're shit. Guess how much that affects what people who like the series think of it? Oh, that's right. Fuck all.

And if someone tries to kick up a fuss about him dragging the Metacritic average down so help me I will strangle you.

Ilikemilkshake:

erttheking:
Oh and yes A.I.s have lifespans, this is a thing. This isn't something 343 pulled out of their rears, A.I. decay and rampancy have been a part of the Halo universe for years now.

What's this lifespan thing? I haven't played Halo since 2 so maybe I don't remember but lifespans sound interesting.

OT: The cynic in me would agree he's just trolling for hits. Unless the game doesn't function I don't think a 2/10 is really ever justified, even for games I hate.

In the first halo book they state that Smart AI's have a life span of 7 years before they corrupt their memory crystal, aka, they think themselves to death. Dumb AI's don't have this issue.

See, this is precisely why no review should have a score at the end.
The reviewer should simply speak their piece and let the reader decide for them selves how much their praises or condemnations mean.

By tacking a numerical value on the end of a review people end up criticizing that instead of reading the review. Mostly because no two people care the same way about all of gaming's different aspects.

For example the main thing that irks me about Halo 4 is that they changed composers so the score isn't as good. How many arbitrary numbers is that worth? -1? -2? -8? +1? Nobody feels the same way.

At least we can all agree that iron sights don't belong in Halo 4 (Most of us anyway) but this guy seems to have some valid points (Some valid points, not a lot) But you guys are throwing a shit storm over the degree to which they bothered him (Her? whoever) instead of taking the criticisms at face value.

Radoh:
Firstly, I've no idea who the hell Tom Chick is, nor do I particularly care that you view him as a tenured video game critic. It really doesn't matter how long you've been around, he could have been the very first reviewer in history and that wouldn't change my opinion on him being a sensationalist, since this is the first time I've ever seen a review of his ever. The simple fact being that if he didn't rate it so low as he did I'd still not know who he is (much like a large number of people in this very thread, so that helps support that thought as well).

I don't THINK he's tenured. That's not an opinion. He's been around forever. I guess I could quote Rock Paper Shotgun...

When Deus Ex debuted back in 2000 it was showered with universal critical kudos. Well... almost universal critical kudos. The exception was Tom Chick, now one of the most respected American games journalists currently writing about the medium, who gave it a sub-50% mark.

...but as their perspective on the man differs from your own knee-jerk reaction to a single review, I imagine you're going to hand-wave their opinion as well. That's what we do, right? Any opinion that differs from ours, we just reject it offhand! What is this garbage? People think differently from me? It's a fucking outrage!

Radoh:
Secondly, don't you dare call me a hypocrite just because I don't think somebody being contrarian is worthy of praise...

Uh...whatever gave you THAT idea? I find the fact he's deliberately contrarian ANNOYING AS HELL. If you read past the fact that I think your confirmation bias is hilarious and didn't immediately go into super defensive mode, you'd have noticed that I do not like Tom Chick.

Radoh:
You seem to be under the impression that you somehow know that this opinion of his is actually his opinion.

I am often given to understand that opinions are opinions, yes. What else would they be? Pomegranates?

Radoh:
How are you so certain that he isn't just trolling for views?

Because he doesn't need to? It's almost like saying Roger Ebert gave a bad review because he needs to troll for hits to make a living.

Radoh:
My mind has been made up.

Yes, I'm sure it is. That's a point of pride, no doubt. Your ability to have your mind "made up" based entirely on an outraged reaction to a tiny piece of information without any context, or knowledge of the individual in question. Well done. You'll fit right in here.

...Seriously? What the fuck is going on here.

Are we so insecure about this one fucking game, that we have to keep making threads any time someone posts a review we don't agree with? I don't even... when did gaming become this desperate, that any journalist who we disagree with must instantly become some sort of self-serving egotistical attention whore troll?

Look, let's clear a few things up. The reviewer did not give Halo a 2 out of 10. That's a numerical impossibility, considering that he didn't use a ten point scale. He used a five point scale, and gave it the bottom star. That's it. Not only that, but he gave plenty of other reasons why he didn't like the game. The OP is being deliberately misrepresentative of the reasoning.

The reason Tom Chick gave Halo 1 star out of 5 isn't because of the Mammoth Gun, or the fact that enemies have Tron lines. You'd have to be a complete idiot to read the review as such. The reason he scored H4 so low is because, as far as he's concerned, the game does absolutely nothing that earlier games in the series haven't already done. The new weapons are just laser versions of existing weapons (something I and many others pointed out when the E3 demo was first shown) and the new enemies are derivative and uninspired.

It's amazing- if you actually read the review, he actually gives reasons why he doesn't like the game. And those reasons are why he scored the game so low. In fact, if you squint your eyes, it's almost like the score follows on naturally from the review itself. Amazing!

At the end of this day, the guy has an opinion. He gets paid to express that opinion. If you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to read it. If you're truly the type of person to get so worked up about one negative review, when gaming journalism is currently in dire need of more criticism, then you are exactly the sort of gamer reinforcing negative sterotypes about gaming. The insecure, loud types who cannot even bear the thought that someone might think differently to them. It's gamers like this who are killing integrity in gaming journalism, and it's gamers like this who are responsible for the piles of trash that are sites like IGN.

In short, grow the fuck up, and put your big boy pants on.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
...Seriously? What the fuck is going on here.

Are we so insecure about this one fucking game, that we have to keep making threads any time someone posts a review we don't agree with? I don't even... when did gaming become this desperate, that any journalist who we disagree with must instantly become some sort of self-serving egotistical attention whore troll?

Look, let's clear a few things up. The reviewer did not give Halo a 2 out of 10. That's a numerical impossibility, considering that he didn't use a ten point scale. He used a five point scale, and gave it the bottom star. That's it. Not only that, but he gave plenty of other reasons why he didn't like the game. The OP is being deliberately misrepresentative of the reasoning.

The reason Tom Chick gave Halo 1 star out of 5 isn't because of the Mammoth Gun, or the fact that enemies have Tron lines. You'd have to be a complete idiot to read the review as such. The reason he scored H4 so low is because, as far as he's concerned, the game does absolutely nothing that earlier games in the series haven't already done. The new weapons are just laser versions of existing weapons (something I and many others pointed out when the E3 demo was first shown) and the new enemies are derivative and uninspired.

It's amazing- if you actually read the review, he actually gives reasons why he doesn't like the game. And those reasons are why he scored the game so low. In fact, if you squint your eyes, it's almost like the score follows on naturally from the review itself. Amazing!

At the end of this day, the guy has an opinion. He gets paid to express that opinion. If you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to read it. If you're truly the type of person to get so worked up about one negative review, when gaming journalism is currently in dire need of more criticism, then you are exactly the sort of gamer reinforcing negative sterotypes about gaming. The insecure, loud types who cannot even bear the thought that someone might think differently to them. It's gamers like this who are killing integrity in gaming journalism, and it's gamers like this who are responsible for the piles of trash that are sites like IGN.

In short, grow the fuck up, and put your big boy pants on.

image

Thanks for that. I endorse this opinion, which is a reflection of mine. Were you a reviewer, I might peruse future reviews you wrote, based on this concurrence of our perspectives.

When I first knew about this score I immediately thought of one reviewer, Tom Chick from Quarter to Three, I absolutely despise the guy, he gave two of my favorite games ever, Deus Ex and Journey, mediocre scores, he also gave Uncharted 3, a game which I like (but not enough to become a favorite) a 4/10. WHY does someone like him work in this industry, the man knows nothing about videogames!

First I thought he was a Sony hater, but then he gave Gears 3 and negative score and now of course Halo 4, two games that I will never play but I can see how good they are, two games that I know are not to be rated below a 7.

There are some valid complaints somewhere in that review, I assume.

I've yet to play Halo 4 but everything I have seen and heard just hints at this: Halo has changed, but not enough. Or to much, depending on your point of view. It's now in a limbo, hanging somewhere between Call of Duty and Halo: Combat Evolved. Personally, I think they should have either made it a full Halo game, or a shameless COD rip off.

But again, I've yet to play it, so I'll reserve final judgement.

BloatedGuppy:

Radoh:
Firstly, I've no idea who the hell Tom Chick is, nor do I particularly care that you view him as a tenured video game critic. It really doesn't matter how long you've been around, he could have been the very first reviewer in history and that wouldn't change my opinion on him being a sensationalist, since this is the first time I've ever seen a review of his ever. The simple fact being that if he didn't rate it so low as he did I'd still not know who he is (much like a large number of people in this very thread, so that helps support that thought as well).

I don't THINK he's tenured. That's not an opinion. He's been around forever. I guess I could quote Rock Paper Shotgun...

When Deus Ex debuted back in 2000 it was showered with universal critical kudos. Well... almost universal critical kudos. The exception was Tom Chick, now one of the most respected American games journalists currently writing about the medium, who gave it a sub-50% mark.

...but as their perspective on the man differs from your own knee-jerk reaction to a single review, I imagine you're going to hand-wave their opinion as well. That's what we do, right? Any opinion that differs from ours, we just reject it offhand! What is this garbage? People think differently from me? It's a fucking outrage!

And then let's start with this shall we? I don't have an opinion on Halo Four. I've not played it, I have no real interest in playing it, but as it stands I've seen a total of one incredibly negative review for it: This one.
You are operating under the assumption that I went into this thread looking at the title and going "What? No! Halo Four is the Perfect game! They must learn of this post-haste!" When in reality I went here to see who it is that holds the sole negative that has been forwarded unto me. After reading this review I've made up my mind that he is less crass than Razorfist, but doing the same thing as him and has been ignored because of it.

BloatedGuppy:

Radoh:
Secondly, don't you dare call me a hypocrite just because I don't think somebody being contrarian is worthy of praise...

Uh...whatever gave you THAT idea? I find the fact he's deliberately contrarian ANNOYING AS HELL. If you read past the fact that I think your confirmation bias is hilarious and didn't immediately go into super defensive mode, you'd have noticed that I do not like Tom Chick.

I did notice that, but for some reason you mark that as relevant to the discussion at hand.
It is not.
You see, you called me a hypocrite for me saying that he's just some guy I will take to ignoring based off of reasons already gone over, and that somehow marks me as saying one thing but doing another, and as such I did react negatively to your insult.

BloatedGuppy:

Radoh:
How are you so certain that he isn't just trolling for views?

Because he doesn't need to? It's almost like saying Roger Ebert gave a bad review because he needs to troll for hits to make a living.

You can say that as much as you want and it still does not change the fact that I don't know him from a hole in the ground. If he's so relevant and such a big name, then why have I never heard of him before? I don't claim to know everyone of relevance in the world, but when someone points to a random yabbo and says he's important, I have a difficulty believing it until there's actual proof of his importance.

BloatedGuppy:

Radoh:
My mind has been made up.

Yes, I'm sure it is. That's a point of pride, no doubt. Your ability to have your mind "made up" based entirely on an outraged reaction to a tiny piece of information without any context, or knowledge of the individual in question. Well done. You'll fit right in here.

And there you go taking what I said out of context, you'll fit right in here.
I said that in retort to you telling us to "Make up our fucking minds" on what we want from game reviewers, but then put forward some bullshit choice which I chose to ignore out of the sheer stupidity of it.

Keep telling me how important he is for as long as you want, it will not change that I find him incredibly unimportant.

4RM3D:
Oh gee, 1 reviewer gives a game a bad score. The end of the world is near!

I don't look at game reviews anymore; I haven't for years. Because the reviewers can not be trusted. There are mostly unprofessional, biased and sometimes even corrupt. There are a few exceptions, mostly the independent reviewers, e.g. hobbyist.

The only people who are overreacting are people like you who don't bother to read a forum before commenting.
They are discussing a review, they are not crying or whining about it, they are looking at the points he made and giving their opinions on these points, since when was that taboo? Looking at the later posts, it seems to be a little hijacked by people who think an opinion can't be discussed.

Okay...Halo 4 got nothing new...it introduces the forerunners, finally giving a face to that mysterious race that apparently made everything and then died to contain the flood.

AIs have a lifespan is only really new for people who didnīt spend any time with the story at all...All AIs have a lifespan, just like your friggin MP-3 player wonīt last forever. Also itīs meant to prevent AIs from litterally "living forever" and turning into Shodan and GlaDos...with this system, you can just wait until they die. Problem solved...

But to be fair, if he doesnīt like it, why should I care? Litterally NO REVIEWER liked Steel Battalion: Heavy Armor, and everyone trashed it for the controls...incidentally watching them play made me realize why. They press the reload button to jump and wonder why it doesnīt work comparatively...Or, in other words, they use completely wrong hand gestures and then wonder why Kinect wasnīt patched to include mind-reading yet.
And I still love the game. I think itīs an amazing military like experience, that has put alot of effort into their characters, gameplay features and little stuff like your crew feeling alive (when not repeating themselfs over and over XD).
And, having no Kinect experience before it and actually taking the risk to buy it with the game, I was suprised that everyone, telling me I need a big room thatīs well lit was wrong...

So fuck reviewers...they give their opinion of a game, and you can use that to decide if you want the game, or if you donīt want it, or if you simply wait.
I tend to read multiple reviews and if the complaints are in my eyes not valid or wonīt bother me, then Iīll get it regardless of the score.

Shouldn't - in any sane society - "nothing new compared to the previous decent/good games" be exactly a 5/10? You know, as in "delivers precisely what was promised, but does not excel or disappoint in any major way"?

Not that I'm a Halo player or even a fan, but generally reviews like this are created just for the shock value. Not that we shouldn't look at games critically, but I doubt that the game is really that poor to merit a 2/10 rating. I could, for example, potentially compare it to Duke Nukem Forever, which would almost certainly have a lower rating, therefor meaning that this game should be rated higher than DNF.

That being said, IMPO I think the genre and series are going stale, so I don't think it would deserve perfect marks either. The gameplay probably isn't ground-breaking, it probably won't innovate the industry or set the bar higher, etc. That doesn't mean it won't be a good game, just not one that deserves a 10/10.

But without having played it, I can't say what the score should be exactly, just somewhere probably in the middle; perhaps 6/10 or 7/10? It would probably depend on how good other elements of the game are, such as a compelling story or the quality of PvP.

Why is this anything new?

People give extreme low scores to good games all the time.

I mean, if it's not buyable hats, it's Ironsight.

RedDeadFred:

Anyway, what do my fellow Escapists think about the review.

I think you should wait the 24 hours for the game to be released so you can get a good idea of what the general gaming population believes about the game. I mean, this is going to go one of two ways. Either the game is good and this guy will be called a troll or it will be awful and this guy will be considered the only reviewer who wasn't "Bought out" by Microsoft's money.

Honestly, its the same old song and dance.

Subjective review is subjective. I'm sure Yahtzee will have some choice words for Halo 4 next week, but it doesn't mean its bad. Everyone has an equal opinion, which is why sales drive development more than reviews.

Halo 3 was a sham. I haven't picked it up since. Tried to once, then I went back to playing Armored Core an hour later.

I'm waiting for the walkthroughs to come out, see if I like the gameplay, and get it in December with Reach because I actually enjoyed it's campaign

I don't really bother reading reviews and agreeing them fully based on one reviewer. If it's a 2/10, I am going to look into other people's reviews on Halo 4 and see if they have similar agreements or if that one reviewer was just being very unfair. Ether way, it is his review but that opinion won't even sway me from not buying the game.

That, and I only trust a few reviewers for their honesty.
Marter is one, Sassafrass is another, and some other good honest users here like mParadox

Wait, there's no flameware here? STOP BEING SO REASONABLE DAMMIT! Seriously, I've got a huge bag of popcorn here and NOTHING to eat it to!

Haven't played it but if it just sucks a 4 would seem more appropriate. 2 is the rating of a broken or fundamentally flawed game.

Radoh:
And then let's start with this shall we? I don't have an opinion on Halo Four. I've not played it, I have no real interest in playing it, but as it stands I've seen a total of one incredibly negative review for it: This one.

Then how would you have any idea whether or not the negativity was warranted?

Radoh:
I did notice that, but for some reason you mark that as relevant to the discussion at hand.

It was entirely relevant to your bizarre assertion that I was a fan of contrarian perspectives in criticism. Or maybe that's not what you meant. In fairness, the sentence I was responding to was word salad, you could have meant almost anything.

Radoh:
You see, you called me a hypocrite for me saying that he's just some guy I will take to ignoring based off of reasons already gone over, and that somehow marks me as saying one thing but doing another, and as such I did react negatively to your insult.

Actually I implied that the FORUM was full of hypocrites for their ardent whining about corrupt, toadying journalism that gifts high scores to game, then doing an abrupt about face and assuming any negative review is "trolling". You were one of MANY people quoted, for your specious assertion that it was "sensationalistic".

Radoh:
You can say that as much as you want and it still does not change the fact that I don't know him from a hole in the ground.

And this...there's really no response to this. You already seem to be aware how stupid it is to frame an argument around "Well I'VE never heard of him", so I'm just going to leave it at that. His "importance" however is entirely relative to whether or not you personally agree with his opinions and thus enjoy his reviews. I don't give a fig whether or not you LIKE Tom Chick.

Radoh:
Keep telling me how important he is for as long as you want, it will not change that I find him incredibly unimportant.

Can you quote me saying he is "important"?

Go ahead, take your time. I can wait.

RedDeadFred:
A 2/10 score really stands out on Metacritic so my review will get more traffic (oh wait, that's my assumption not his written reasoning)

You pretty much said it right here, he probably wouldn't have given it a brilliant score anyway but he wanted to score his website some extra views and so bombed it.

Sadly that tactic isn't restricted to the small websites either, I've seen similar tactics employed in some more reputable websites too.

The Rookie Gamer:

Eddie the head:

TakeshiLive:
Can you give an example of a game this critic rates highly? It might show something about their standards and expectations

Well he has a top 10 games of 2012 so far list. It was made in July but, if that's what your looking for.

http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2012/07/03/the-best-games-of-2012-so-far/

And he needs to tone down his pretentious writing. My spleen ruptured from reading the last entry.

Yeah, this is the same guy who railed Lollipop Chainsaw with a three paragraph review and wrote a limerick as a "professional" scored review for... dammit, I can't actually remember anymore.

No offense to Tom Chick, but I'm going to just ignore his opinion on video games.

BloatedGuppy:

Radoh:
And then let's start with this shall we? I don't have an opinion on Halo Four. I've not played it, I have no real interest in playing it, but as it stands I've seen a total of one incredibly negative review for it: This one.

Then how would you have any idea whether or not the negativity was warranted?

Because there's been one review that is negative by a person who I put little stock in as far as opinions go. The people that I do pay attention to and that I agree with say otherwise. How can you not grasp this?

BloatedGuppy:

Radoh:
You see, you called me a hypocrite for me saying that he's just some guy I will take to ignoring based off of reasons already gone over, and that somehow marks me as saying one thing but doing another, and as such I did react negatively to your insult.

Actually I implied that the FORUM was full of hypocrites for their ardent whining about corrupt, toadying journalism that gifts high scores to game, then doing an abrupt about face and assuming any negative review is "trolling". You were one of MANY people quoted, for your specious assertion that it was "sensationalistic".

Then maybe you shouldn't have quoted me in a post where you are calling others hypocrites. And yes, I do find this sensationalistic review to be sensationalistic. And before you go and tell me how tenured he is, that's irrelevant to him being a sensationalist.

BloatedGuppy:

Radoh:
You can say that as much as you want and it still does not change the fact that I don't know him from a hole in the ground.

And this...there's really no response to this. You already seem to be aware how stupid it is to frame an argument around "Well I'VE never heard of him", so I'm just going to leave it at that. His "importance" however is entirely relative to whether or not you personally agree with his opinions and thus enjoy his reviews. I don't give a fig whether or not you LIKE Tom Chick.

And I don't give a fig that you think he's important because he's been around for a long time as that is irrelevant. Seems like opinions cut deep.

BloatedGuppy:

Radoh:
Keep telling me how important he is for as long as you want, it will not change that I find him incredibly unimportant.

Can you quote me saying he is "important"?

Go ahead, take your time. I can wait.

Okay, how about the fact that you've waged war in the thread for two pages because people don't agree with him on his opinion that Halo Four is a piece of shit? That seems to strike me as you thinking it's important, so yeah, I'ma just circle ALL on this one.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked