Support NeoGAF

[chicken_ramen]

I honestly can't believe that people with strong opinions on a 10 year old review of a PC game wouldn't know what RPS is. Threads like this make me sad.

edit: people who are upset about his 10 year old opinion but don't know who he is make me sad too.

...but then I read the commenters in those fidgit articles and everything gets put into perspective. It's not so bad in here after all.

 

[FoneBone]

Chick is fun for always posting a unique take on games, such as the infamous Killzone 2 "midget on a rampage" review. But when an interview starts off with "The exception was Tom Chick, now one of the most respected American games journalists currently writing about the medium," I immediately grow wary. Really, we have to flaunt some artificial credentials before introducing the subject of the article now? I doubt many gamers even know who the hell this guy is (as is already evident in this thread, no doubt).

Seriously. No exaggeration, the Deus Ex review is the only thing I know him for.

 

[BobsRevenge]

When you describe admittedly fun games as "overrated" simply because they have flaws, you are not really using language appropriately. I would think most gamers -- having played games and all -- know that there is no such thing as a perfect game. That every 10/10 has some kind of flaw.

If all he wants to do is discuss the flaws or lodge criticism against what he admits are great games, you would think "what's not working in some of the best games of 2008" is a more appropriate and less flame baity title. "Overrated" just screams "this title is here to get clicks." It's lazy and not at all accurate to describe some of the best games in any given year as "overrated" just because other people enjoyed playing them also.

Well, I read the article and he seems to understand and use the word "overrated" better than most.

 

[IrishNinja]

stupei - in that context, alright, i see what you're saying.
but said list had GTA IV, MGS4, and to a lesser extent ME, Spore etc. in the former examples, perfect scores were not uncommon, despite obvious design flaws...i can see where the language is often used for hits (at any given moment, we can check n4g or the like for an example), but im not sure of a more appropriate usage of the word; when a game gets almost universal acclaim/a pass on its faults, i think that's fair use. id argue Halo 3, an otherwise great game, woudlve had a high ranking on this list if it'd been released then, too, as a similar example.

 

[tokkun]

However, I think it’s important to look at that sort of anger as a sort of immaturity, a fundamental insecurity about your own opinion, about being unable to express it without simply being emphatic.

Already fully at play in this thread.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Of course I read the first fucking paragraph you dipshits. I just didn't understand it or take it in because I had already decided to find an article I could use from him that justifies my irrational and slightly sad hatred.

Oh that's okay then.

Wait, wait. So he thinks these games are fun and some of the best games of the year and yet is surprised that other people also thought they were fun and some of the best games of the year, which makes them overhyped and that's a worthwhile topic for a list as article... and this is the defense of his writing as a reviewer? That he is shocked that people find similar things fun?

Really?

Firstly, I'm making no defence of Chick as a reviewer. Putting aside anything else, I think reviews are bullshit used by people who have already made up their mind about something to validate their purchases or troll other people, and little more.

Secondly, the blog that was linked was posted here to establish that Chick has no credibility, not to defend his credibility. My point was that he was very clearly not reviewing anything in that post except perhaps the gaming industry itself, and it shouldn't be considered to be representative of his entire body of work.

Thirdly, yes. Really.

 

[Wallach]

Tom Chick is awesome.

I personally thought his Deus Ex score was too low even when I read it. I don't feel like it is a below average game. But, at the time, I felt the game had a lot of flaws and the whole experience would fluctuate wildly between fun and serious frustration. It was nice to see a review that was honest, at least. I'm just as tired as he is of the "7-9" review scale.

 

[dimb]

Tom Chick is horrible.

He hates everything good and loves everything bad.

 

[rareside]

If he hated Deux Ex I'd hate to hear what he has to say about Invisible War.

 

[SamBishop]

He's still a better reviewer than everyone who has ever and ever will work for IGN.

Also he's less annoying than Tim Rodgers!

Man, I'm really damning him with faint praise.

He, uh, wrote for IGN, dude. For a while.

And there's no d in Rogers' name. (Though I love you for capitalizing his name, which apparently he hates or something?)

 

[HK-47]

With critics, it isn't really important whether or not you agree with the review. That isn't what makes a good critic. When you read a review by a good critic, you should be able to tell if you would like the game, even if he didn't, and vice versa.

That's why Roger Ebert is still my go-to movie critic. I agree with him on most movies, and even when I don't, I can usually understand why. His reviews are so good that I can know what to expect, even if I don't agree with his conclusion.

This may not be terribly relevant, but I was inspired to write it after reading some of the comments about what makes a "good review."

I agree with this view of reviews. But I dont see it in Chick's stuff.

And Ebert has gotten soft sadly.

 

[Jangaroo]

I agree with this view of reviews. But I dont see it in Chick's stuff.

And Ebert has gotten soft sadly.

I'm surprised by how many thumbs up he's been giving lately. I want to see cynical/dry/witty/sarcastic criticism darn it.

 

[Wallach]

I agree with this view of reviews. But I dont see it in Chick's stuff.

And Ebert has gotten soft sadly.

No, Chick is not that kind of level at all.

I love his stuff for two very simple reason:

1) Honesty. I tend to think most video game reviewers are being dishonest (either with us or themselves) when reading most modern reviews. With Chick's stuff, it's pretty clear that is actually how he feels. I like that.

2) Entertainment. It's like Miracle-Gro for internet trolling.

 

[Gravijah]

tom vs bruce

tom vs bruce

tom vs bruce


loved that shit

 

[Shai-Tan]

I agree with this view of reviews. But I dont see it in Chick's stuff.

And Ebert has gotten soft sadly.

Ebert is liked because he's an everyman in taste in spite of being knowledgeable about film. Tom Chick is like the Rex Reed of game criticism in my opinion but I'm clearly a hater so I probably shouldn't go on anymore about it.

 

[Zeliard]

I'm surprised by how many thumbs up he's been giving lately. I want to see cynical/dry/witty/sarcastic criticism darn it.

His relatively recent Transformers 2 review contains some vintage Ebert caustic asskicking, but then, that's a pretty easy target.

Tom Chick is like the Rex Reed of game criticism

:lol

Pretty much.

 

[Brobzoid]

As a fellow hater, I enjoy Chick's writing. I also can appreciate his attention-whoring headlines and the comments that they incur.

 

[Otrebor Nightmarecoat]

Tom Chick must love Alpha Protocol and Too Human

 

[Brobzoid]

Tom Chick must love Alpha Protocol and Too Human

WHY, I HAVE JUST THE ARTICLE FOR YOU!!!

 

[Crazed Alien]

Unfortunately for good games journalists, it seems that most of the readers are only really interested in a description of the game with a number at the end. To some extent it's true with all media, but other forms of media tend to have a higher proportion of mature participants. Most people out there just want to be told what to like and if someone goes against the grain it only confuses them and makes them angry (a natural reaction when ones cognitive abilities are too low to be of any use).

What good journalists try to do is make their writing interesting and thought provoking and maybe even stand as entertainment in it's own right. If I read a good review I can enjoy it as a piece of writing, regardless of whether I agree with it or not. this is something that's difficult for a lot of people to understand and their reaction is to dismiss the writer as having no value because they think that writing should only be used in the service of selling or dismissing a product.

 

[Zeliard]

Unfortunately for good games journalists, it seems that most of the readers are only really interested in a description of the game with a number at the end. To some extent it's true with all media, but other forms of media tend to have a higher proportion of mature participants. Most people out there just want to be told what to like and if someone goes against the grain it only confuses them and makes them angry (a natural reaction when ones cognitive abilities are too low to be of any use).

What good journalists try to do is make their writing interesting and thought provoking and maybe even stand as entertainment in it's own right. If I read a good review I can enjoy it as a piece of writing, regardless of whether I agree with it or not. this is something that's difficult for a lot of people to understand and their reaction is to dismiss the writer as having no value because they think that writing should only be used in the service of selling or dismissing a product.

Edge at one point was going to remove the numbers from their reviews before deciding against it. I wish they hadn't. Edge threads could have been awesome - their reviews are frequently written from a unique point of view and could foster some interesting discussion. Instead, almost everyone just concentrates on the scores, which tend to be lower than the aggregate since Edge actually uses the entire scale.

Particularly for a mag with Edge's readership, I'm not sure why they would care about putting a score there. If you're paying for an Edge sub, then you're probably not just someone who likes looking at the pretty pictures.

 

[_Bro]

Edge at one point was going to remove the numbers from their reviews before deciding against it. Edge threads could have been awesome - their reviews are frequently written from a unique point of view and could foster some interesting discussion. Instead, almost everyone just concentrates on the score, which tend to be lower than the aggregate since Edge actually uses the entire scale.

Did you know Tim Rogers writes for Edge?

 

[Stinkles]

Readers, including myself, generally want to see their preconceptions and opinions validated by an "expert" and when that doesn't happen, they flip out on the internets.

 

[Otrebor Nightmarecoat]

WHY, I HAVE JUST THE ARTICLE FOR YOU!!!

I stopped at "guns with personalities"

 

[Gravijah]

I stopped at "guns with personalities"

 

[Crazed Alien]

Edge at one point was going to remove the numbers from their reviews before deciding against it. I wish they hadn't. Edge threads could have been awesome - their reviews are frequently written from a unique point of view and could foster some interesting discussion. Instead, almost everyone just concentrates on the scores, which tend to be lower than the aggregate since Edge actually uses the entire scale.

Particularly for a mag with Edge's readership, I'm not sure why they would care about putting a score there. If you're paying for an Edge sub, then you're probably not just someone who likes looking at the pretty pictures.

In many ways a score seems to devalue the writing. Most book reviews don't have scores, but I suppose if you're capable of reading a book you can probably read a review and figure out what it means for you.

 

[Zeliard]

Did you know Tim Rogers writes for Edge?

He's written for GamesTM as well. Crazy like a fox, that guy.

http://www.insertcredit.com/reviews/jak2/

I remember that review. That's what happens when he isn't restrained by a word count. :lol

 

[Tylahedras]

Stop giving that jackass clicks.

 

[Crazed Alien]

Stop giving that jackass clicks.

There's not enough diversity of opinion out there. If you want to read the review that you agree with just go to metacritic and scroll to the top of the page if you like the game and the bottom of the page if you don't. Easy.

 

[entremet]

Gaming journalism is so sad. Everyone has the same opinion. And every sacred cow game needs to have tons of reviews validating its splendor. If not, you'll reap the wrath of the fanboys.

I agree that Chick does tend to have contrarian shtick, but that fact that everyone is dismissing his review, which are subjective pieces by design, because he doesn't agree with the status quo, just seems immature. In the end, if you don't agree, you don't agree. Simple as that. Does his opinion invalidates yours?

I don't agree with most of Chick's opinion. But his writing is better than 99 percent of ''games journalism'' out there. I don't know if that's a compliment to Mr. Chick or an insult to the state of games journalism.

 

[_Bro]

He's written for GamesTM as well. Crazy like a fox, that guy.

http://www.insertcredit.com/reviews/jak2/

I remember that review. That's what happens when he isn't restrained by a word count. :lol

Yeah, but he eventually makes a point that is imporant and forgotten by reviewers and readers: "Thinking back, now, I'm wondering -- what has prepared me to give this game the blisteringly high score I'm going to give it? Every good thing I bring up about it seems to deteriorate into a diss of some sort. This game is a truly philosophically-defeating beast.

I like it."

Not to mention that despite how much hate Rogers gets, GAF has accidentally agreed with him on many points by using his reviews for Official Threads and as a source for why they're correct on a game being good or bad in one way or another. His general approach to thought on videogames is different as you stated Edge's were, and here is Tom doing just that. But you've come off as angry because he didn't like it.

So much for being accepting of alternative viewpoints and desiring them for continued discussion. Ey?

 

[Otrebor Nightmarecoat]

http://i46.tinypic.com/1fu1zp.jpg

Calling ME2's combat rudimentary against Alpha Protocols shooting gameplay is just troll bait. Also as a bonus, the combat in ME2 is not a broken piece of shit. I understand what hes trying to say but its just a lazy argument that can be applied to a ton of games depending on how you play them.

Will take the advice of not giving that guy more clicks.

 

[Gravijah]

Calling ME2's combat rudimentary against Alpha Protocols shooting gameplay is just troll bait. Also as a bonus, the combat in ME2 is not a broken piece of shit. I understand what hes trying to say but its just a lazy argument that can be applied to a ton of games depending on how you play them.

Will take the advice of not giving that guy more clicks.

all I did was post a gif. a gif!

 

[Wallach]

all I did was post a gif. a gif!

Such is the power of Tom Chick's hatred.

 

[Zeliard]

Yeah, but he eventually makes a point that is detrimental and forgotten by reviewers and readers: "Thinking back, now, I'm wondering -- what has prepared me to give this game the blisteringly high score I'm going to give it? Every good thing I bring up about it seems to deteriorate into a diss of some sort. This game is a truly philosophically-defeating beast.

I like it."

Not to mention that despite how much hate Rogers gets GAF has accidentally agreed with him on many points by using his reviews for Official Threads and as a source for why they're correct on a game being good or bad in one way or another. His general approach to thought on videogames is different as you stated Edge's were, and here is Tom doing just that. But you've come off as angry because he didn't like it.

So much for being accepting of alternative viewpoints and desiring them for continued discussion. Ey?

When did I ever say that Tom Chick shouldn't be writing? He can write whatever he wants and publish it wherever he wants. There is in fact quite a lot that I read from him that I enjoy - namely, anything that isn't a review, whether or not I agree with it. He's more Zero Punctuation than anything else as a reviewer, which is probably intended. He's more interested in provoking a reaction. His lists are usually pretty amusing to read.

 

[chicken_ramen]

Yeah, but he eventually makes a point that is imporant and forgotten by reviewers and readers: "Thinking back, now, I'm wondering -- what has prepared me to give this game the blisteringly high score I'm going to give it? Every good thing I bring up about it seems to deteriorate into a diss of some sort. This game is a truly philosophically-defeating beast.

I like it."

Not to mention that despite how much hate Rogers gets GAF has accidentally agreed with him on many points by using his reviews for Official Threads and as a source for why they're correct on a game being good or bad in one way or another. His general approach to thought on videogames is different as you stated Edge's were, and here is Tom doing just that. But you've come off as angry because he didn't like it.

So much for being accepting of alternative viewpoints and desiring them for continued discussion. Ey?

The biggest shame about Rogers is that he's obviously able to talk intelligently about videogames. He just couches it in some of the more extreme written douchebaggery around. For every intelligent thing he says, there's about 3-400 words talking about his workout routine, or some famous Japanese developer he met at a bar one time.

The fact that he can come to a cogent, intelligent point is really not enough to excuse his turgid, self-serving style. That's why he gets the hate he does.

PS: Official threads would probably quote Stalin if he gave a good review of the game.

 

[Red Blaster]

Tom Chick desperately wants to be the Robert Christgau of gaming.

 

[usea]

I love how so much of what's posted in this thread validates what Chick said in the interview.


Why do many of you guys view things in such simplistic ways? A game lies on a scale from Bad to Good. Reviews range from Wrong to Right. Reality is more nuanced than that.

The verb "troll" on gaf has come to mean "to state an opinion the reader disagrees with or that is unpopular." You don't even try to understand. You think some guy with whom you often disagree is being contrary just for the sake of it? How can you come to a conclusion like that. It boggles the mind.

 

[Zeliard]

Tom Chick desperately wants to be the Robert Christgau of gaming.

It would be amusing to see a Christgau in the gaming industry, laying down extremely pithy summarizations of entire works.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

I love how so much of what's posted in this thread validates what Chick said in the interview.

Yep. I don't even like Tom Chick much to be honest, and yet I find myself here defending him on the basis that not doing so would be allowing morons to spread moronism across my internets.

 

[_Bro]

When did I ever say that Tom Chick shouldn't be writing? He can write whatever he wants and publish it wherever he wants. There is in fact quite a lot that I read from him that I enjoy - namely, anything that isn't a review, whether or not I agree with it. He's more Zero Punctuation than anything else as a reviewer, which is probably intended. He's more interested in provoking a reaction. His lists are usually pretty amusing to read.

This is why you don't task a console gamer with something like a Deus Ex review.

The biggest shame about Rogers is that he's obviously able to talk intelligently about videogames. He just couches it in some of the more extreme written douchebaggery around. For every intelligent thing he says, there's about 3-400 words talking about his workout routine, or some famous Japanese developer he met at a bar one time.

The fact that he can come to a cogent, intelligent point is really not enough to excuse his turgid, self-serving style. That's why he gets the hate he does.

PS: Official threads would probably quote Stalin if he gave a good review of the game.

The point is that people don't know it's Rogers.

But yeah, his style is pretty "look at me" but that's deserved since, if you're willingly reading his review, it is a "look at me" sort of thing. Since his reviews in Edge aren't (if I remember correctly) listed as being written by him the style changes. It's kind of an interesting thing, intentional or not.

 

[usea]

He's more Zero Punctuation than anything else as a reviewer, which is probably intended. He's more interested in provoking a reaction. His lists are usually pretty amusing to read.

You don't get it at all. This couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[chicken_ramen]

edit: probably talking crap. When I can find sources I'll come back.

 

[cuyahoga]

Calling ME2's combat rudimentary against Alpha Protocols shooting gameplay is just troll bait. Also as a bonus, the combat in ME2 is not a broken piece of shit.

I played both games, and I think he's pretty much on target; IMO ME2 was extremely streamlined compared to AP to the point of being unsatisfying. There's also a certain irony in complaining of "troll bait" but going on to complain about something being a "broken piece of shit."

Will take the advice of not giving that guy more clicks.

Your loss, he probably conducted the best Schafer interview vis-a-vis Brutal Legend.

Anyways, I'm an unabashed Chick partisan and think he's the only critic worth reading even if I don't necessarily agree with him.

 

[Crazed Alien]

Anyways, I'm an unabashed Chick partisan and think he's the only critic worth reading even if I don't necessarily agree with him.

Any professional journalist who raises the ire of so many gamers is worth reading for those of us who are interested in thinking about our chosen hobby more critically.

 

[Zeliard]

The point is that people don't know it's Rogers.

But yeah, his style is pretty "look at me" but that's deserved since, if you're willingly reading his review, it is a "look at me" sort of thing. Since his reviews in Edge aren't (if I remember correctly) listed as being written by him the style changes. It's kind of an interesting thing, intentional or not.

Edge reviews tend to be written with unique points of views, but they're all written in anonymous third-person in essentially the same format. Tim Rogers is probably reigned in on Edge regardless of the anonymity, since the reviewing style there remains pretty consistent between the writers. Rogers' leash is quite a bit longer in GamesTM, though whether that's simply due to the fact that he can use TIM ROGERS is another matter.

The verb "troll" on gaf has come to mean "to state an opinion the reader disagrees with or that is unpopular." You don't even try to understand. You think some guy with whom you often disagree is being contrary just for the sake of it? How can you come to a conclusion like that. It boggles the mind.

I often AGREE with Tom Chick. The reason I think he comes at reviews from a contrarian viewpoint is because of the style of his writing. The language.

You don't get it at all. This couldn't be further from the truth.

Sure it is. Zero Punctuation and Tom Chick both seem to approach reviews from a cynical point of view. Both are frequently praised for their honesty, and I have no reason to think they aren't being so. Both, in my opinion, generally look to see the bad before they see the good.

Some people don't take issue with this because this line of thinking does often manifest itself in the reviewer coming across as more honest in their feelings, and that's fine. But they're not my type of reviews. I don't ask for objectivity, but I do ask for some attempt at balance, and Tom Chick doesn't give me that. He does give me amusing lists and fun random observations, though.

 

[Crazed Alien]

Sure it is. Zero Punctuation and Tom Chick both seem to approach reviews from a cynical point of view. Both are frequently praised for their honesty, and I have no reason to think they aren't being so. Both, in my opinion, generally look to see the bad before they see the good.

It could be argued that everyone should be more cynical in their criticism of games. Most games (including the most critically acclaimed and best selling ones) are still downright embarrassing from an outsiders perspective and yet many of the huge flaws are just ignored or glossed over because we don't expect any better.

 

[JasonUresti]

I gave up on trying to read through Tim rogers tripe after his Diablo review. Not anything he said about the game, mind. It was the fact that, within a few short opening paragraphs, he showed he had no idea about what tennis, fighting, and tactics were on even an elementary level, and yet he was speaking from a self assumed position of authority on the three, and how they intersected.

It was painful to read. Because of this, I feel obligated to either smack him in the face or punch him the gut if I ever meet him. I would apologize, of course, and buy him a drink later, but such a poorly thought out piece of writing cannot go unpunished.

Tom Chick doesn't make his headlines completely on his own, by the way. He discussed it on a TMA podcast. SyFy wants the hits and traffic, so Tom writes headlines that he knows are terrible, because the attract the attention (and clicks) of the angry internet video game fanboys.

Tom can then write what he wants in the article itself. People with attention spans get to read a thoughtful piece, and the sub-human system wars apes give SyFy their hits. Win win.

 

[stupei]

Well, I read the article and he seems to understand and use the word "overrated" better than most.

I don't know. Creating a list around the idea that giving something 10/10 while it still has flaws -- ie. the assumption that all scales perceive 10 as perfection when that is clearly not the case -- is the intellectual equivalent of, "Well if you love that game so much, why don't you marry it!" That's obviously not what is meant when people say they "love" something and "pure perfection without any problems whatsoever" isn't what's meant by a 10/10 in most gaming review scales. "Overrated" suggests that giving a 10 to what you consider the best games to come out in a given year is wrong.

On his scale, sure. But most people don't operate on that scale. It's like going into an Edge thread and holding their review scale to the common standard. It's silly.

He makes good points but has chosen to frame them in a way that is most likely to make other people ignore them. Totally what all writers should strive for.

 

[_Bro]

he was speaking from a self assumed position of authority on the three, and how they intersected.

reading review now

sounds hilarious