Strong review of SE by Tom Chick

[eddyvegas]

Meanwhile I don't see this review pinned at the top. Despite this being the only review (yes, I've read them all) that could make someone want to buy the game who is not already onboard with all this groggy stuff.

[stemak]

ORIGINAL: Kolbex

ORIGINAL: stemak
That tells me the guy is a pretty poor reviewer tbh.

That tells me you haven't read his reviews tbh.

Well If It’s one star out of 5 for CiV 5 i’m not missing any objectivity. That’s laughable considering the typical review 90%/9/10 for that game, and the overwhelmingly positive reaction on steam. So that added to the rating for Shadow Empire means two of my favourite games got a combined 4/10 ....they never even made it to mediocre combined

[profanicus]

ORIGINAL: stemak

ORIGINAL: Kolbex

ORIGINAL: stemak
That tells me the guy is a pretty poor reviewer tbh.

That tells me you haven't read his reviews tbh.

Well If It’s one star out of 5 for CiV 5 i’m not missing any objectivity. That’s laughable considering the typical review 90%/9/10 for that game, and the overwhelmingly positive reaction on steam. So that added to the rating for Shadow Empire means two of my favourite games got a combined 4/10 ....they never even made it to mediocre combined

As a card-carrying member of the Tom Chick fan club, I feel obliged to pipe up and say that he is one of the best reviewers out there!

He doesn't do buyer guides where he goes through feature lists deducting points from a perfect score to arrive at some kind of 'objective' ranking. He embraces subjectivity, and articulates his experience playing a game. The stars rating is simple and just shows whether he enjoyed playing something or not. Three stars means he enjoyed it, and that's not meant to be converted to other sites 7-9 systems where '3 stars = 60% = bad'.

His opinion on a game doesn't need to mirror the majorities to have value. Just because a lot of people love the newer Civilizations, that doesn't mean his review needs to be similarly glowing to make him good at what he does. Do you always only want to read stuff that you already agree with? Or do you just care about rankings and points, and not reading about someone's thoughts and experiences? It's fine if you do, we all like different things, I just think it's a bit harsh saying he is a poor reviewer because of it.

You can read about the rating system and the review faq here: https://www.quartertothree.com/fp/our-ratings-system/

To quote the man himself,

"Ratings or scores are the least interesting part of a discussion about an opinion"

Q: Why isn’t your review objective?

A: That’s not how I write. Furthermore, I would argue that’s not how a review works. To me, a review is one person articulating his experience with a movie, a book, an album, a game, or whatever. That person will bring his own voice, context, and even baggage to the review, none of which is “objective”. If you want objective reviews, try IGN. I hear they’re very good at that sort of thing.

[Tomn]

ORIGINAL: stemak
Well If It’s one star out of 5 for CiV 5 i’m not missing any objectivity. That’s laughable considering the typical review 90%/9/10 for that game, and the overwhelmingly positive reaction on steam. So that added to the rating for Shadow Empire means two of my favourite games got a combined 4/10 ....they never even made it to mediocre combined

Your math is kinda off. Given that Tom Chick's reviews work on a 5 star basis, and given that Civ 5 got 1 star and Shadow Empire got 3, added together and converted to a 10 point ranking that'd be 7/10.

Not that it matters because the idea of adding two scores together is kinda silly anyways, and Chick doesn't seem to operate on the usual review system where "70%" means "average-to-mediocre" and "60%" means utter trash and nothing below that exists.

[stemak]

ORIGINAL: Tomn

ORIGINAL: stemak
Well If It’s one star out of 5 for CiV 5 i’m not missing any objectivity. That’s laughable considering the typical review 90%/9/10 for that game, and the overwhelmingly positive reaction on steam. So that added to the rating for Shadow Empire means two of my favourite games got a combined 4/10 ....they never even made it to mediocre combined

Your math is kinda off. Given that Tom Chick's reviews work on a 5 star basis, and given that Civ 5 got 1 star and Shadow Empire got 3, added together and converted to a 10 point ranking that'd be 7/10.

Not that it matters because the idea of adding two scores together is kinda silly anyways, and Chick doesn't seem to operate on the usual review system where "70%" means "average-to-mediocre" and "60%" means utter trash and nothing below that exists.

Yes it was clearly a joke, and nothing to get excited about. However one star in any language for Civ 5 must mean utter trash .... and that is nonsense in my opinion. I will stick with traditional style reviews that give a more accurate prediction of how ‘buyers’ might like it - rather than personal irritations, point making, etc. (PC Gamer - Civ 5 93% I’m looking at you!)

When I want good literature I will get back into my book