Random thing you love right now that doesn't deserve its own thread

My problem with Tom Chick is that I keep getting him confused with Jack Chick.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/clMe9.gif)

oilypenguin wrote:

The only sad thing would be if his 1/5 brought down the metacritic enough to cost the 343 people bonuses. I think the general opinion is "good" or "I can't believe it's this good." So if the game is actually good (picking up my copy today), I hope that the general consensus outweighs Tom so they still get paid.

That said, it's his review and making sure developers get a bonus shouldn't factor in. He reviewed and gave his opinion honestly and we need more people ripping AAA games new ones, frankly. IMO I think they generally get a pass. So while I may disagree with Tom %90 of the time, his clockishness is providing a service.

=)

It really depends on the bonus. In many cases, it's not really bonus as much as a core part of their compensation. Tying that to Metacritic is terrible, because poor marketing can tank it as bad as poor design.

But if it is really just extra reward that protects the developers for when a game is actually strong and worthy of praise, but still sells poorly, I think Metacritic can be a good goal.

If the publisher insists on tying bonus into metacritic scores, the developer should be able to insist that a weighting system, be put into place to eliminate obvious outliers.

The thing about Tom Chick and his reviews(I don't read them for full disclosure), is that he's really not writing them for anyone but himself. While they may be persuasive for some, unless he's completely disingenuous in his FAQ, the purpose isn't to persuade, just to ramble on about what he thinks. Pretty goofy.

As for things I love, I love when my kids are asleep for naps. When they're up and screaming, not so much.

AnimeJ wrote:

The thing about Tom Chick and his reviews(I don't read them for full disclosure), is that he's really not writing them for anyone but himself. While they may be persuasive for some, unless he's completely disingenuous in his FAQ, the purpose isn't to persuade, just to ramble on about what he thinks. Pretty goofy.

That's pretty much what reviews are in other media: reviewers presenting their opinions and impressions of a work; they're not meant to persuade people to agree with them or to convince people to spend their money. Video games are a bit of an odd duck, artistically, in that their reviews are half about the entertainment and half Consumer Reports-style technical breakdowns.

If Tom Chick cost someone their bonus, blame the company giving bonuses based off Metacritic, not Tom Chick. Or blame Metacritic for giving equal weight to his voice (if, for some reason, you think he doesn't deserve that). Don't blame him for speaking his mind.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
AnimeJ wrote:

The thing about Tom Chick and his reviews(I don't read them for full disclosure), is that he's really not writing them for anyone but himself. While they may be persuasive for some, unless he's completely disingenuous in his FAQ, the purpose isn't to persuade, just to ramble on about what he thinks. Pretty goofy.

That's pretty much what reviews are in other media: reviewers presenting their opinions and impressions of a work; they're not meant to persuade people to agree with them or to convince people to spend their money. Video games are a bit of an odd duck, artistically, in that their reviews are half about the entertainment and half Consumer Reports-style technical breakdowns.

True, no-one really cares to mention what lens a scene was shot with, or how it was lit by the DP in a motion picture review, but so many videogame reviews deal with processor load, frame rates, graphics cards... The list goes on.

SixteenBlue wrote:

If Tom Chick cost someone their bonus, blame the company giving bonuses based off Metacritic, not Tom Chick. Or blame Metacritic for giving equal weight to his voice (if, for some reason, you think he doesn't deserve that). Don't blame him for speaking his mind.

For the record, Metacritic weighs each reviewer differently.

http://www.metacritic.com/about-meta...

A peek behind the curtain

Creating our proprietary Metascores is a complicated process. We carefully curate a large group of the world’s most respected critics, assign scores to their reviews, and apply a weighted average to summarize the range of their opinions. The result is a single number that captures the essence of critical opinion in one Metascore. Each movie, game, television show and album featured on Metacritic gets a Metascore when we've collected at least four critics' reviews.

Why the term “weighted average” matters

Metascore is a weighted average in that we assign more importance, or weight, to some critics and publications than others, based on their quality and overall stature. In addition, for music and movies, we also normalize the resulting scores (akin to "grading on a curve" in college), which prevents scores from clumping together.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

That's pretty much what reviews are in other media: reviewers presenting their opinions and impressions of a work; they're not meant to persuade people to agree with them or to convince people to spend their money. Video games are a bit of an odd duck, artistically, in that their reviews are half about the entertainment and half Consumer Reports-style technical breakdowns.

Yeah, like I said, don't really like Tom Chick's reviews. He harps on tiny things way too much and then completely ignores massive flaws in games he likes, making his opinions not really of any value to me.

However, I actually think there should be more reviewers out there like Tom Chick. Too many of them sound way too similar, so not only will it be more interesting to read, but when you get to the point where whether an AAA game gets a "3" or a "10" from any website is completely unpredictable, then both publishers and fanboys will be forced to stop obsessing over the Metacritic score.

I have never bought or not bought anything based on reviews. I read them for their entertainment value.

Regarding reviews - I was on the fence for a Day 1 purchase of Halo 4 until Ben Kuchera over at PAR stated "it has the best Halo campaign of all time".

Picked up my copy this morning after voting.

And today's random love is a double-whammy

1) it took less time for me to vote than to pick up a copy of Halo 4 at GameStop

2) when I told the GameStop employee "just the game, no preorders, no cross-sells", he just shut the heck up and let me buy my game in silence

McIrishJihad wrote:

2) when I told the GameStop employee "just the game, no preorders, no cross-sells", he just shut the heck up and let me buy my game in silence

My Gamestop has gone though some management and employee turnover. Now I have to retrain the new staff to just shut it.

Tanglebones wrote:

My problem with Tom Chick is that I keep getting him confused with Jack Chick.

I had to google Tom Chick because I was confused about why the Chick Tracts guy rated so much serious discussion.

kuddles wrote:

Yeah, like I said, don't really like Tom Chick's reviews. He harps on tiny things way too much and then completely ignores massive flaws in games he likes, making his opinions not really of any value to me.

One man's "tiny thing" is another man's "massive flaw". I read reviews all the time that obsess over the glories of things I didn't even notice while completely failing to comment on things I thought were a huge deal, positively or negatively.

Jayhawker wrote:
McIrishJihad wrote:

2) when I told the GameStop employee "just the game, no preorders, no cross-sells", he just shut the heck up and let me buy my game in silence

My Gamestop has gone though some management and employee turnover. Now I have to retrain the new staff to just shut it.

I went to Best Buy and asked them for the pre-order code (I didn't pre-order) and got it. It was crazy.

Of course, it still took the usual 5 minutes to check out but hey, I knew what I was doing when I walked in there.

Strangeblades wrote:

I have never bought or not bought anything based on reviews. I read them for their entertainment value.

I bought Fable based on a couple of pre-release reviews. Before that the game wasn't even on my radar. Sadly I ran into the whole "You should have preordered" BS when I went to GameStop in the mall to buy it on launch day. Best Buy across the street had it though.

My rule of thumb is that any games writer named Tom is automatically worth reading—Tom Chick, Tom Bissell, Tom Francis, Tom Armitage. If you want to guarantee that I'll read and enjoy your games writing, change your name to Tom.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

One man's "tiny thing" is another man's "massive flaw". :)

I think we can all agree that a man's "tiny thing" is indeed a "massive flaw".

Gravey wrote:

My rule of thumb is that any games writer named Tom is automatically worth reading—Tom Chick, Tom Bissell, Tom Francis, Tom Armitage. If you want to guarantee that I'll read and enjoy your games writing, change your name to Tom.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

One man's "tiny thing" is another man's "massive flaw". :)

I think we can all agree that a man's "tiny thing" is indeed a "massive flaw".

Does mean that a man's "massive thing" is a "tiny flaw" also?

Tanglebones wrote:

My problem with Tom Chick is that I keep getting him confused with Jack Chick.

I did that for a long time. I really didn't get why people cared about that assholes thoughts on video games.

Gravey wrote:

My rule of thumb is that any games writer named Tom is automatically worth reading—Tom Chick, Tom Bissell, Tom Francis, Tom Armitage. If you want to guarantee that I'll read and enjoy your games writing, change your name to Tom.

You should keep up with my thoughts on games, since my name is Tom. Of course, here people always call me Jay. Go figure...

Tanglebones wrote:

My problem with Tom Chick is that I keep getting him confused with Jack Chick.

Add me to the list of people who wish they'd posted that before you.

That I ignored my father in law when he said " Best Buy will back up all of the stuff off of your wife's laptop before they fix it" and copied it all to another computer anyways. Now to copy it all back over during the night, which will result in the wifi being useless.

Triple posting from choked wifi for the win!

Triple posting from choked wifi for the win!

oilypenguin wrote:

... some stuff about some guy, who writes stuff on the internet... =)

Probably for the first time ever, I read that entire post using your voice in my head Oily. It was awesome! I don't know why, I don't normally do that for the posts of people I know.

You're... welcome?

Personally, I weight movie reviews quite strongly based on who does the review. I know that I tend to agree very much with Ebert and Berardinelli, so I look at their reviews first, and go with them if they conflict with other people. I wish I could do that more often with video game reviews--mostly I just ignore people like Chick who I know I don't agree with at all.

I've always loved this song, though it was a bit before my time. Finding this video makes me love it even more!

m0nk3yboy wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:
AnimeJ wrote:

The thing about Tom Chick and his reviews(I don't read them for full disclosure), is that he's really not writing them for anyone but himself. While they may be persuasive for some, unless he's completely disingenuous in his FAQ, the purpose isn't to persuade, just to ramble on about what he thinks. Pretty goofy.

That's pretty much what reviews are in other media: reviewers presenting their opinions and impressions of a work; they're not meant to persuade people to agree with them or to convince people to spend their money. Video games are a bit of an odd duck, artistically, in that their reviews are half about the entertainment and half Consumer Reports-style technical breakdowns.

True, no-one really cares to mention what lens a scene was shot with, or how it was lit by the DP in a motion picture review, but so many videogame reviews deal with processor load, frame rates, graphics cards... The list goes on.

Rare, but I've seen Ebert comment on the technical aspects when he doesn't like the lighting or colors of a film. And CG animated films often have the quality of their CG critiqued, usually in comparison to Pixar's work.