Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Lol - Tom Chick single-handedly lowered the Metacritic score of The Last of Us
Avatar
xtal
planet
Moderator
Staff
June 13, 2013 - 1:17 pm
Member Since: April 19, 2009
Forum Posts: 1685
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

With his 3 out of 5 review Tom Chick has single-handedly brought The Last of Us' Metacritic score from the uber-sexy-shared-with-Bioshock/Half-Life 2/and those other Big Boys of 96 to the Lol-paltry/shared with Baldur's Gate II and other terrible games!-score of 95. (Let's be sadly honest - this is a huge deal. All the highest games from this gen (one exception: GTA IV) have 96 Metascores. The Last of Us is now not Officially As Good As Uncharted 2 and Bioshock 1. Rut roh!)

There's like a billion comments in the last few hours and Qt3 is getting lambasted. Expect Tom Chick to finally be assassinated by angry Sony/Naughty Dog execs this weekend.

The only more horrifying thing I could imagine is some modern review of Ocarina of Time lowering its score to the low 90s!

Obviously I haven't played the game, but it's a classic against-the-grain Chick review with well explained reasons for the middling score. He compared it to Bioshock Infinite, which doesn't bode well for me since I grow to hate Infinite more with every passing day (sorry Armand!).

http://www.quartertothree.com/.....more-22383

If being wrong's a crime I'm serving forever

Avatar
Steerpike
Subtropical Southeastern Michigan
Admin
June 13, 2013 - 3:40 pm
Member Since: April 10, 2009
Forum Posts: 3310
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Youch! I do love Tom Chick's writing style. 

Funnily, here's a review that takes more or less the opposite position from Chick's, but also makes mention of the importance of Metacritics and uber-scores: http://www.grantland.com/story.....me-last-us

Life is the misery we endure between disappointments.

Avatar
Toger
Somewhere, out there...
Moderator
Staff
June 13, 2013 - 4:02 pm
Member Since: April 10, 2009
Forum Posts: 1488
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Please explain to me how a difference of one. single. point. can be such a huge deal? Where I come from, that's still an "A". Why is 96 vs 95 or even, god-forbid, 90 that horrible?

I'm serious. I've never understood the mind-set for the teeth-gnashing and rending of clothes a low 90s meta-score generates.

Powered by PMS ™

Avatar
Synonamess Botch
Texas, y'all
Admin
June 14, 2013 - 12:08 am
Member Since: November 9, 2010
Forum Posts: 1127
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Oh Tom I love you man!  Seriously, I think Tom is great for video games.  He brings a cheery, unswayed by the frothing masses demeanor to the table.  It's such a refreshing change from the norm.

I've been listening to his podcasts recently.  And even though he often talks about games in which I have no interest, he's always entertaining.  He's good at articulating why he likes or dislikes a game.  He often brings on developers as well - recently one of the guys behind Monaco.  

 

Rule #2: Double-tap

Avatar
Synonamess Botch
Texas, y'all
Admin
June 14, 2013 - 12:15 am
Member Since: November 9, 2010
Forum Posts: 1127
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

From that review you mentioned Steerpike:

"Respectability is a terrible thing for any art form. People wrote better novels when the cultural status of the novel was contested."

 

This, I think, perfectly sums up why I'm indifferent to games becoming accepted or respectable.  The fundamental question to ask is:  will it make games better?  I for one don't think so.

 

Rule #2: Double-tap

Avatar
xtal
planet
Moderator
Staff
June 14, 2013 - 1:44 am
Member Since: April 19, 2009
Forum Posts: 1685
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Oh Toger, you have so much to learn!

wink

Uncharted 2 = best game ever!

Baldur's Gate II = awful game!

96 good! 95 bad! Now do you understand? You're welcome!

(While my tongue is planted firmly in cheek, all you need to look at is the-- as of this minute-- 441 comments on Quarter to Three's The Last of Us review to see what a big deal this is to a shocking number of slobbering trolls!)

 

I did read Bissel's review on Grantland as well; it was a good read - though he is the Hollywood to Chick's ... oh I don't know, Flint, Michigan of video game critiquing. (I don't know what I mean by that. I just type words make look nice pretty.)

If being wrong's a crime I'm serving forever

Avatar
geggis
Moderator
Staff
June 14, 2013 - 9:14 am
Member Since: September 26, 2009
Forum Posts: 1435
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Haha, I'm not surprised, in fact, you'll notice that there are a few comments near the top along the lines of SEAL THE DOORS, CLOSE THE GATES - THEY'RE COMING! because this happens with every Tom Chick review that doesn't fall in line with the Metacritic aggregate once it's submitted there. Halo 4, Journey (oh god Journey, it prompted this hilarious FAQ), Bioshock Infinite, now The Last of Us. It's absolutely in-fucking-credible how butthurt gamers get over this stuff. We don't really have a critical mass, we just have this giddy bunch of jizz monkeys eagerly awaiting the next high profile game to fap their load over, so, naturally, I welcome the likes of Chick and Croshaw, if only to calm things down.

The annoying thing is, it's almost solely the number that causes all this vitriol. As I said in a comment fairly recently, I remember posting up my Brink review on Steam for the lulz and what did people say? Nothing about the detailed review itself, just the number. That pretty much solidified my position on scoring games: it's distracting and a nuisance. In isolation, and with most other media in fact, I don't mind scores as a quick gauge on how much somebody enjoyed something but -- specifically with games -- it's just too heavily loaded. It should be a sideshow, but instead it's centre stage. 95... the horror.

 

Avatar
geggis
Moderator
Staff
June 14, 2013 - 9:48 am
Member Since: September 26, 2009
Forum Posts: 1435
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Synonamess Botch said
Oh Tom I love you man!  Seriously, I think Tom is great for video games.  He brings a cheery, unswayed by the frothing masses demeanor to the table.  It's such a refreshing change from the norm.

I've been listening to his podcasts recently.  And even though he often talks about games in which I have no interest, he's always entertaining.  He's good at articulating why he likes or dislikes a game.  He often brings on developers as well - recently one of the guys behind Monaco.  

 

I absolutely agree. Between Tom, Kelly, Jason and many of the others on Quarter to Three, the site's a bit of a melting pot of film and game nerds (and devs!) so their podcasts and many of the topics in the forums are really interesting and entertaining. I'm a big fan of their 3x3 rundowns as well.

 

Avatar
Steerpike
Subtropical Southeastern Michigan
Admin
June 14, 2013 - 1:54 pm
Member Since: April 10, 2009
Forum Posts: 3310
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I did read Bissel’s review on Grantland as well; it was a good read – though he is the Hollywood to Chick’s … oh I don’t know, Flint, Michigan of video game critiquing. (I don’t know what I mean by that. I just type words make look nice pretty.)

I was born in Flint! True story.

 

Even if I disagreed with every opinion Tom Chick ever had - which I don't, though I don't always agree with him either - I'd love his work just for his prose style. I still remember one line from his Painkiller review that was so perfect. He'd gone on for a little bit about how shooters had evolved in complexity and nuance, and then he said "...but sometimes, you need the simple joy of shooting hideous things." Perfect.

Trolls will be trolls. Chick and most of the others who've given Last of Us lower scores have defended their opinions with valid arguments. This is where subjectivity comes in. Different things bother us differently. The trolls never understand that blind support is as bad as blind hatred. And Tom Chick's review is hardly blind. It's quite specific about why he had issues with the game.

You're right, the industry needs him. He's like the opposite of a fanboy.

Life is the misery we endure between disappointments.

Scout
Portland, Oregon
Moderator
Staff
July 18, 2013 - 3:03 am
Member Since: April 10, 2009
Forum Posts: 1205
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Toger said
Please explain to me how a difference of one. single. point. can be such a huge deal? Where I come from, that's still an "A". Why is 96 vs 95 or even, god-forbid, 90 that horrible?

I'm serious. I've never understood the mind-set for the teeth-gnashing and rending of clothes a low 90s meta-score generates.

I don't get it either Toger. Tempests. Teapots. Dust to dust, etc. 

 

Avatar
xtal
planet
Moderator
Staff
August 7, 2013 - 12:34 pm
Member Since: April 19, 2009
Forum Posts: 1685
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

It has a lot to do with some of the long-standing reviewers (IGN, GameSpot, etc.) essentially adopting a 7-9 scale over the past 15-20 years, which most review outlets have also adopted. Here is an overview:

*Once in a lifetime masterpieces get 10s, games that are less than great (which does not equal bad) are typically put in the 0-69 range; it doesn't matter; today if your game has a 69 on Metacritic it might as well have a 0.

Games that meet expectations get an 8-9; games that have unmet expectations score below 8, and are sometimes even put in the "shocking" range of 7.0-7.4!

 

Could you imagine if in high school, for example, you had a teacher who just had something against you, and for whatever reason wanted nothing but for you to fail. So on a test where you legitimately scored, oh...a 91, they made a few tweaks and handed you back a paper graded with an 88 (!!!). ULTIMATE REVENGE! COLLEGE APPLICATION DENIED!

 

*disclaimer: all of the above is incredibly silly and of course I don't agree with it. I like the 1-4 or 1-5 star system. Or just words. Either way you can't beat those systems.

If being wrong's a crime I'm serving forever

Avatar
geggis
Moderator
Staff
November 8, 2013 - 10:52 am
Member Since: September 26, 2009
Forum Posts: 1435
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hahahah:

http://www.quartertothree.com/.....more-27515

How's Metacritic going to deal with his daily reviews of the new Secret World content? Priceless. And a lovely critique of Polygon's policy of changing review scores.

Avatar
Steerpike
Subtropical Southeastern Michigan
Admin
November 10, 2013 - 3:02 pm
Member Since: April 10, 2009
Forum Posts: 3310
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Oh Tom Chick, you rascal. He can get away with it, he's Tom Chick! And I still have a hetero man-crush on him, because he writes so darned well.

 

Not sure I agree completely with the claim that Polygon's policy is "waffling." Not sure I agree completely with Polygon's policy, either, but the idea that numbers can change depending on circumstance does strike a chord with me.

I've told this story before, but here goes: my first REALLY MAJOR review for a print publication was Two Worlds, for what was then Games for Windows magazine (formerly Computer Gaming World). I got review code for this 250-hour epic maybe five or six days before the deadline. So I took time off and basically played nonstop with short sleep breaks for four days. Terrible way to experience a game. 

As it happens, Two Worlds couldn't have been more of a 6/10 if it was called "Six Worlds (of Ten)," but it's not always so easy. Deadlines make it impossible to let opinions simmer. Since reviewers are experts, they should be able to get past that - I agree. If you can't then you're not a pro.

But what about review code? It's not usually Gold code, it's one iteration before. Sometimes big changes go in between Review and Gold. I believe in scoring a product based on the product given to the reviewer, but if I trashed a game for a break bug that was fixed in the gold release, is that fair? A low score for something that literally doesn't exist in the version consumers would buy?

Chick specifically calls out Russ Pitts' SimCity review. I know Russ, and I know how much shit he took for that score, which changed hour by hour for about six days. He was naturally mad and defensive, especially when a bunch of journos sort of ganged up to crack jokes about it on a private mailing list. Mostly, though, I think he was humiliated because he felt used. He and other reviewers played a special Review Version of SimCity, on a special Review Server. None of the problems that plagued the launch existed in his experience. Problems that did exist - pathing, etc - he mostly called out.

So from a journalist's perspective, you're either an idiot for giving an obviously wrong score to a game when you reviewed something different than the consumer version, or you're a waffler for trying to update your score as new information comes to light.

I don't approve of rescoring because a patch comes out, unless its a massive change like Witcher Enhanced Edition. Ship a broken game, get scored as a broken game. But I know opinions change and mature over time, and occasionally new facts deserve mention. I have to look up Polygon's specific policy. They can't just change whatever whenever, there are rules. And I get it's a fine line - once a score becomes a changeable thing, it's open to manipulation, trickery, and a million other anti-consumer moves. But a cast in iron score can be just as bad. Russ Pitts doesn't deserve to go to his grave as the guy who gave SimCity an 8. He should go as the guy who was misled and tried to stabilize his verdict through a hailstorm of mockery calling into question his sanity, ethics, loyalties, and knowledge of the medium.

This is going to be an interesting and ongoing discussion, with strong points on both sides.

Life is the misery we endure between disappointments.

Avatar
geggis
Moderator
Staff
November 11, 2013 - 1:56 pm
Member Since: September 26, 2009
Forum Posts: 1435
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Yeah that sounds like a raw deal. I think the best thing to have done would have been to follow up the review with an article outlining the nature of reviewing something that may differ to what consumers play, and that there's no way of knowing how big that difference will be until the masses start playing it and weighing in on their experience -- obviously by that point it's too late. Essentially reviewers are (trying to) review something that's unfinished in a short space of time and that's A Big Problem. This should be the new rule for game reviewing/critiquing:

Thou shalt only review games that have been released.

Short of rewriting a review entirely I'm not sure how changing a score can alter or reframe the points made in the text either. Some of my reviews I think 'Was that really a five? Perhaps it should have been a four?' but then I think 'Fuck it, that's what I thought at the time'. Brink was a bit of a weird one because it was plagued with issues at launch to the point that everyone pretty much hated it and didn't want anything more to do with it. By the time I got round to playing it most of the issues had apparently been fixed. I remember Armand saying I should have factored in the launch problems but that just didn't strike me as fair seeing as I wasn't playing it at launch and nobody else would/should be suffering from those same issues any more. By all means mention potential problems if you're aware of them, but put them in context to your own experience. A review is about your experience, not everyone else's. Go to Metacritic if you want an aggregate.

Avatar
Dix
Moderator
Staff
November 11, 2013 - 3:47 pm
Member Since: June 6, 2011
Forum Posts: 483
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Updating scores is tricky.  I think in an ideal world scores would be, if not updated, reassessed at major patches, at least: perhaps the review would be edited with an addendum, so that both the old score and the new were visible.  Because if I am looking for reviews for a game that came out - let's say - a year ago, and I find a review that knocked off considerable points for bugs and such, in this day and age I'd like to see some acknowledgement that those bugs have since been fixed (or not) and sort of a "I'd now call this game a [whatever]."  Since so many reviews hit at release or shortly thereafter, those later, after-fixes perspectives are few and far between, and we've all played those games that were really good in many ways except for the fact that they crashed consistently, or the menu was broken, or whatever.  Actually doing those reviews, even if they are lightweight relative to the initial one, would be somewhat intractable, though.

Obviously recent releases like SimCity and Diablo III suffered in the reviews from issues that were resolved thereafter, that you'd never see if you picked them up for the first time now.  By no means should we forget the flaws they had when they hit shelves.

I also often think of Lair, the oft-forgotten Factor 5 title which is basically Rogue Squadron with dragons, and which was initially panned pretty hard for being hard to play because it used (exclusively at the time) Sixaxis controls for flight.  Boy, people hated the Sixaxis.  But a patch later allowed players to opt to use much more familiar, tried-and-true flight controls, and what launched as a game some people would call unplayable becomes with that addition good to mediocre, depending on your interests; certainly not unplayable by any stretch.  It seems to me like that kind of major, fundamental tweak might sometimes warrant a second look.

"Home is not a place.  It is wherever your passion takes you."

Avatar
Steerpike
Subtropical Southeastern Michigan
Admin
November 11, 2013 - 5:40 pm
Member Since: April 10, 2009
Forum Posts: 3310
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Second looks are excellent. Often it's a much clearer, more balanced, more subtle look than the first. And not always because of a major change or fix, sometimes it's just time for a second look. Part of the reason I like the Revisiteds that we do here - be they from another perspective or the same one.

Unless of course that second perspective is Gregg's. He didn't like Journey, people. I mean come on. There's low and then there's low.

Thou shalt only review games that have been released.

I can get on board with this, and even toss in a hearty "shut your mouth" to anyone on the professional side who says it's unrealistic. It's only unrealistic because the press allows it to be; it needs just a wee tweak:

Thou shalt only review release code.

Release Day reviews are important to consumers, so that seems a fair compromise. People get excited and may depend on that Day Zero score to save them from a bad purchase. Doesn't do much to ease the time pressure on reviewers, but hey, that's their job.

Personally I'd love to institute a standard whereby reviewers revisit their work three or six months later. I think back to the games I've done and how my opinions have changed... generally not major reversals - I can think of a few I truly regret, but just a few - but more fully-formed viewpoints.

Factor in launch issues when you reviewed it months later? That makes little sense. Mention them, maybe, like "this game had serious problems at launch, but from the vantage of four months out...". Lower its score for something that's been fixed seems odd, unless of course it's Low Score -> Because of Low Population -> Because of Issues at Launch. In which case people would benefit from a second look, since it's been solved!

Life is the misery we endure between disappointments.

Forum Timezone: America/Detroit

Most Users Ever Online: 252

Currently Online:
10 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Spike: 1187

Pokey: 894

Jarrod: 607

Finkbug: 468

Armand: 318

kaythomas: 307

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 9

Members: 15005

Moderators: 18

Admins: 6

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 4

Topics: 816

Posts: 18549

Newest Members:

Japreme, DanaNow, MusicJarge, RaymondGar, lumsefoFese, GeorgeStuby

Moderators: Jen: 631, Orb: 0, Scout: 1205, Toger: 1488, Yapette: 836, Dobralov: 17, xtal: 1685, Meho: 82, Tap-Repeatedly: 0, geggis: 1435, Lewis B: 214, Mat: 245, AJLange: 200, Dix: 483, Cheeta: 0, LewisB: 0, Amy Louise: 12, l0vetemper: 3

Administrators: admin: 2, MrLipid: 31, Steerpike: 3310, Helmut: 795, Synonamess Botch: 1127, heddhunter: 27