Judgement Day

[Allos]

If you get G4-Tech TV you've probably seen this show. I hate it. It seems to me that Tommy underrates games and Vic overrates them. Their game reviews are usually the complete opposite of everything else and it seems like they have no idea about what they're talking about. Tommy pisses me off more than Vic though. He finds fault or something he hates in every game and it's usually something incrediblly stupid. The man gave a 9.5/10 to The Suffering and a 7.5/10 to Ninja Gaiden? What the hell is he thinking???

And they both gave that fire fighting game 8/10. Sometimes they rate on par with the magazines and websites, but it's as if these guys at G4 have no idea of what they're doing.

[Sord]

On 2004-06-17 08:30, Allos wrote:
If you get G4-Tech TV you've probably seen this show. I hate it. It seems to me that Tommy underrates games and Vic overrates them. Their game reviews are usually the complete opposite of everything else and it seems like they have no idea about what they're talking about. Tommy pisses me off more than Vic though. He finds fault or something he hates in every game and it's usually something incrediblly stupid. The man gave a 9.5/10 to The Suffering and a 7.5/10 to Ninja Gaiden? What the hell is he thinking???

And they both gave that fire fighting game 8/10. Sometimes they rate on par with the magazines and websites, but it's as if these guys at G4 have no idea of what they're doing.


True, that's why I only watched one episode on the joined channel and have never watched it since

[Allos]

I think G4 in general has a lot of useless shows (g4tv.com, sweat, cheat, etc.)

[Link00seven]

I've done bitched about G4TechTV.

Read the old rant here.

http://www.pso-world.com/viewtopic.php?topic=83777&forum=11&17

[ForceOfBrokenGlass]

G4's going the way of MTV, it's not about the games so much as it is about advertisement and celeberties.

[Bradicus]

Tommy and Vic are actually my favorite game reviewers... Well, just Vic >_>

I've watched Electric Playground for several years, and Reviews on the Run from its beginning.
I find that they are more opinionated than the standard "yes man" personalities (although Vic does have a tendancy to over rate games).
They give a good contrast between the views of casual gamers (tommy) and the informed gamers (Vic).

Never watched this "Judgement Day" show though... It could be a different formula.

[Allos]

Judgement Day is all reviews and Electric Playground has turned into a preview show Brad.

[SpikeOtacon]

A simple explanation (http://www.vgcats.com/vgc_comics/?strip_id=115)

[Sord]

On 2004-06-17 13:12, SpikeOtacon wrote:
A simple explanation (http://www.vgcats.com/vgc_comics/?strip_id=115)


i don't normally get VG cats with my filter and all, but i got this one! http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_lol.gif

[Mixfortune]

Tommy once reviewed Neverwinter Nights, and gave it a bad score because it was an rpg, and he didn't like rpgs.

Uh... hello? You're supposed to be reviewing them and scoring them basing on how the gamers may like it. Of course they won't like it as much if it's an rpg type of game.

And he needs to stop talking about how he was a part of the Aladdin game...

I saw him playing some games at E3, but from what I could tell he seemed more into the control schemes than the actual gameplay... maybe that's just me.

[Allos]

I hear he was also part of the Echo the Dolphin game for DC......whoop dee doo Tommy, you know a lot about gaming now!

[Skett]

Oh, another G4 bashing thread. I never get enough of those. (Sarcasm) Don't worry, this time I am not going to make a big post about how they are trying and gaming TV is hard like I did on 1UP's forums.

This time I am just going to say this: it is their opinions. Not fact, not rule, nothing more, nothing less.

He rated a RPG game low because he is not a fan of RPGs? If you were not a fan of FPS and had to review Halo, would your score be any different?

[KodiaX987]

Yo guys, is there such a thing as a "good" reviewing program or website? http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_lol.gif

[Allos]

On 2004-06-17 21:37, Skett wrote:


He rated a RPG game low because he is not a fan of RPGs? If you were not a fan of FPS and had to review Halo, would your score be any different?



The point is that he should've rated it as how he thinks people in general would treat it, not by his liking of the genre.

[Bradicus]

On 2004-06-17 13:05, Allos wrote:
Judgement Day is all reviews and Electric Playground has turned into a preview show Brad.


Like i said, i've never seen Judgement Day. Considering these comments, i don't plan to O_o

[SpikeOtacon]

On 2004-06-17 21:37, Skett wrote:
Oh, another G4 bashing thread. I never get enough of those. (Sarcasm) Don't worry, this time I am not going to make a big post about how they are trying and gaming TV is hard like I did on 1UP's forums.

This time I am just going to say this: it is their opinions. Not fact, not rule, nothing more, nothing less.

He rated a RPG game low because he is not a fan of RPGs? If you were not a fan of FPS and had to review Halo, would your score be any different?



Ok first off, some statistics.
Approx. 98% of the world are morons. The other two percent are not. Of this 98%, The gaming % that watch G4 and LIKE it are shown that a game that some dumbass (I.E: Tommy) rated low because he dislikes RPGs, Therefore they believe it is a bad game. Why? Because G4 is like MTV. It rots the mind, spirit, and sanity. Tommys nonsensical bullshit has destroyed the name of videogame reviewers all over. Because of his efforts (Read: NONE) some good games are getting bad names and low scores. Thus, making it difficult for that small tiny percentage of people who can stand all types of games to save the world from dumbasses like Tommy.
Oh, and this is just my opinion. Accept it, or not. Don't bitch at me because of it. However, my ranting here makes more sense because I have reasoning. Something that Tommy lacks in his reviews. Let us not forget that Logos is a very important part of speech. And without it, tommy just has his personal thoughts and the power of persuation. However, he can only persuade people with the IQ of jello. IE: 98% of the gaming community.

[Blitzkommando]

On 2004-06-18 09:09, SpikeOtacon wrote:


On 2004-06-17 21:37, Skett wrote:
Oh, another G4 bashing thread. I never get enough of those. (Sarcasm) Don't worry, this time I am not going to make a big post about how they are trying and gaming TV is hard like I did on 1UP's forums.

This time I am just going to say this: it is their opinions. Not fact, not rule, nothing more, nothing less.

He rated a RPG game low because he is not a fan of RPGs? If you were not a fan of FPS and had to review Halo, would your score be any different?



Ok first off, some statistics.
Approx. 98% of the world are morons. The other two percent are not. Of this 98%, The gaming % that watch G4 and LIKE it are shown that a game that some dumbass (I.E: Tommy) rated low because he dislikes RPGs, Therefore they believe it is a bad game. Why? Because G4 is like MTV. It rots the mind, spirit, and sanity. Tommys nonsensical bullshit has destroyed the name of videogame reviewers all over. Because of his efforts (Read: NONE) some good games are getting bad names and low scores. Thus, making it difficult for that small tiny percentage of people who can stand all types of games to save the world from dumbasses like Tommy.
Oh, and this is just my opinion. Accept it, or not. Don't bitch at me because of it. However, my ranting here makes more sense because I have reasoning. Something that Tommy lacks in his reviews. Let us not forget that Logos is a very important part of speech. And without it, tommy just has his personal thoughts and the power of persuation. However, he can only persuade people with the IQ of jello. IE: 98% of the gaming community.



I find that true of 98% of stuff on TV in general... Hince why I don't watch it. I listen to what people say about games, take in all of what they say, compare that to how I feel/play games and... well, choose whether or not to dish out the cash. Ignorance is bliss, which is very apparent in videogames... and entertainment in general. So... no biggie for me... Back to playing PSO now.

[Bradicus]

Erm...
Tommy just gives his opinion on the game. He then rates it by how much fun he had.
It's not complicated.

Like any other human, he will not like every genre of game. That is why Vic is there. He likes more cerebral games, and tends to award more points for originality.

I'm not saying Tommy isn't an annoying ass, just that he likes a different kind of game >_>

[Mixfortune]

On 2004-06-18 15:21, Bradicus wrote:
Erm...
Tommy just gives his opinion on the game. He then rates it by how much fun he had.
It's not complicated.

Like any other human, he will not like every genre of game. That is why Vic is there. He likes more cerebral games, and tends to award more points for originality.

I'm not saying Tommy isn't an annoying ass, just that he likes a different kind of game >_>



I'll give the fact that reviewers will of course base a review score around whether they like it or not, but for someone to say "This seems like a pretty good game, but I don't really like the RPG genre, so I'll give it a 3 out of 10" screams stupitiy in my mind. If you want to alienate a target group of players every time you rate a game, you aren't going to be taken seriously by those who know a bit more than that, and it definitely won't help any rising ego feeding requirements down the line.

I personally don't care for driving or sports games, but if I saw someone review a game, give it a rock bottom score, and not give any glaring flaws in their defense other than "it's a sports game/driving game, and I don't like sports game/driving games", I'm going to call bullshit, and state that they shouldn't have even bothered to review the game in the first place.

[Bradicus]

On 2004-06-18 15:56, Mixfortune wrote:


On 2004-06-18 15:21, Bradicus wrote:
Erm...
Tommy just gives his opinion on the game. He then rates it by how much fun he had.
It's not complicated.

Like any other human, he will not like every genre of game. That is why Vic is there. He likes more cerebral games, and tends to award more points for originality.

I'm not saying Tommy isn't an annoying ass, just that he likes a different kind of game >_>



I'll give the fact that reviewers will of course base a review score around whether they like it or not, but for someone to say "This seems like a pretty good game, but I don't really like the RPG genre, so I'll give it a 3 out of 10" screams stupitiy in my mind. If you want to alienate a target group of players every time you rate a game, you aren't going to be taken seriously by those who know a bit more than that, and it definitely won't help any rising ego feeding requirements down the line.

I personally don't care for driving or sports games, but if I saw someone review a game, give it a rock bottom score, and not give any glaring flaws in their defense other than "it's a sports game/driving game, and I don't like sports game/driving games", I'm going to call bullshit, and state that they shouldn't have even bothered to review the game in the first place.


this is the reason that there are two of them >_>

Anyways, i think it was more along the lines of "I didn't like plaing this game, as i never have fun playing RPGs."
The point is for the viewer to realise that they won't find anything fun or new if they also do not enjoy RPGs. If they do, the other reviewer is there to give his opinion. Obviously, if there was only the RPG enthusiast, the game would be reccomended - even to those who dislike the genre-

What with all of today's "multi genre" games (every producer out there seems to claim to have "RPG elements" [a rant for another day]) I think that opposing views are helpful.

[Mixfortune]

Maybe it was the fact that he thought it was a pretty good game, but the only reason he gave it a 3 out of 10 was because it was an rpg. Now, if he didn't care for the genre, maybe a point or two, but if it's something like genre favorites, what is the point of docking off 5 or more points on that alone? I tell you, there would be a lot lower averages if the same sort of thing was happening everywhere, whether there were reciprocating reviewers or not.

Tommy is not a good reviewer. That is possible...

If he wants rate games low based on genre, he should at least try and find some other reasons to lower the score, because all I really see him doing now is rating the genre, not the game.

[Dangerous55]

You guys are mad at Tommy because he is reviewing games how he likes them instead of how other people like them?

What the fuck?

Tommy gave Neverwinter Nights a low-score because he doesnt enjoy RPG's. So? If he didn't like the game then he shouldn't give it a good review or score.

Now that doesnt mean you don't have to like the game.


I like Judgment Day, I enjoy watching them review games. Maybe you guys should understand that a review is what ONE person thinks of a piece of work.

[Kadavreski]

On 2004-06-20 23:19, Dangerous55 wrote:
You guys are mad at Tommy because he is reviewing games how he likes them instead of how other people like them?

What the fuck?

Tommy gave Neverwinter Nights a low-score because he doesnt enjoy RPG's. So? If he didn't like the game then he shouldn't give it a good review or score.

Now that doesnt mean you don't have to like the game.


I like Judgment Day, I enjoy watching them review games. Maybe you guys should understand that a review is what ONE person thinks of a piece of work.



yes i agrgree. i like ngc magazine cause they talks sense like psm2. read magazines, shows suck =/

[SJ]

I've found most people on shows that review games are complete dumbasses, I stick to magazines now lol

[Bradicus]

On 2004-06-20 21:08, Mixfortune wrote:
Maybe it was the fact that he thought it was a pretty good game, but the only reason he gave it a 3 out of 10 was because it was an rpg. Now, if he didn't care for the genre, maybe a point or two, but if it's something like genre favorites, what is the point of docking off 5 or more points on that alone? I tell you, there would be a lot lower averages if the same sort of thing was happening everywhere, whether there were reciprocating reviewers or not.

Tommy is not a good reviewer. That is possible...

If he wants rate games low based on genre, he should at least try and find some other reasons to lower the score, because all I really see him doing now is rating the genre, not the game.


Did he really say that he was taking off points because it was an RPG? If so, that is unlike any Tommy review i've seen. I am fairly sure that he ment "it seems decent, but i didn't have fun" that is what all of his questionable reviews have come down to for the past few years.

In magazines or the net, the company will usually choose someone who enjoys that specific genre. TV is slightly more limited.

Tommy will never enjoy a traditional RPG. Does that make him a bad reviewer? I don't know.

I'll restate my theory once more for good measure:
The games on EP/RotR are looked at by two different people. They tell you what they think. If your preferences are not similar to one of theirs, it may be best to look elsewere.





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bradicus on 2004-06-21 08:02 ]</font>

[KodiaX987]

On 2004-06-20 23:19, Dangerous55 wrote:
You guys are mad at Tommy because he is reviewing games how he likes them instead of how other people like them?

What the fuck?

Tommy gave Neverwinter Nights a low-score because he doesnt enjoy RPG's. So? If he didn't like the game then he shouldn't give it a good review or score.

Now that doesnt mean you don't have to like the game.


I like Judgment Day, I enjoy watching them review games. Maybe you guys should understand that a review is what ONE person thinks of a piece of work.



If I was to review a game, I wouldn't score it based on how I personally like it but based on how well it was done for its genre. Take Street Fighter for example. It has loads of characters, graphics are okay overall, music could use a bit of work to make it unique but it's otherwise okay too, system has enough depth to allow someone to become a master at it without any button mashing. I hate Street Fighter titles with a passion, yet right now my rating of the game would go around the lines of 7 or 8 out of ten. How can that be?

Simple: if I'm going to review a game, I'm not gonna stick my personal fun factor in there. Yes, I might plug in an estimate of how people in general might like the game, but I can't say "this game sucks because I didn't like it." I don't have godly powers and thus I can't make that statement. This is called being a fanboy and this is punishable by death.

Other example: Maken X for Sega Dreamcast. The voice acting is horrible, the graphics are great but there's some rushed parts, the music is awfully generic, concept's all right but the controls and the way of fighting are awkward, the choose-your-fate system is nifty on the surface but in the end leaves a lot to be desired since it doesn't really take you on a different path but rather changes who lives and who dies between two people. The game's getting a 5 out of ten score-wise... Yet, right now I'm playing this game and I'm having loads of fun at it.

18 Wheeler American Pro Trucker. Graphics are excellent, things look real, voice acting's excellent, realistic sound, music isn't anything to write home about, a bit too challenging for an arcade racer, not for hardcore fans of speed, concept is something we've never seen before and it's nice to see it coming around. Score would be something like a 7 out of ten, an okay title with places for improvement. And guess what: I played the game for two hours, enough time to try Aracade and Score Attack and the parking challenges a few times, and then it collected dust. I just didn't like the game, it wasn't for me.

I'm not an almighty guy who can proclaim what's right and what's wrong. There will be people who will try to look for games with great graphics. Others prefer something with great sound. Others will focus on the gameplay even if everything else in the game blows. I don't know who likes what, so I just say that: this is how they made the game, this is how each area scores in quality relative to other titles of its genre if any and/or other titles released during that time period. Here's the overall score I give it for how well or badly it was done, and based on that information, the screenshots and the videos shown throughout the program, it's up to you to decide if you will like this game or not.

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-06-21 06:51, KodiaX987 wrote:


If I was to review a game, I wouldn't score it based on how I personally like it but based on how well it was done for its genre. Take Street Fighter for example. It has loads of characters, graphics are okay overall, music could use a bit of work to make it unique but it's otherwise okay too, system has enough depth to allow someone to become a master at it without any button mashing. I hate Street Fighter titles with a passion, yet right now my rating of the game would go around the lines of 7 or 8 out of ten. How can that be?

Simple: if I'm going to review a game, I'm not gonna stick my personal fun factor in there. Yes, I might plug in an estimate of how people in general might like the game, but I can't say "this game sucks because I didn't like it." I don't have godly powers and thus I can't make that statement. This is called being a fanboy and this is punishable by death.

Other example: Maken X for Sega Dreamcast. The voice acting is horrible, the graphics are great but there's some rushed parts, the music is awfully generic, concept's all right but the controls and the way of fighting are awkward, the choose-your-fate system is nifty on the surface but in the end leaves a lot to be desired since it doesn't really take you on a different path but rather changes who lives and who dies between two people. The game's getting a 5 out of ten score-wise... Yet, right now I'm playing this game and I'm having loads of fun at it.

18 Wheeler American Pro Trucker. Graphics are excellent, things look real, voice acting's excellent, realistic sound, music isn't anything to write home about, a bit too challenging for an arcade racer, not for hardcore fans of speed, concept is something we've never seen before and it's nice to see it coming around. Score would be something like a 7 out of ten, an okay title with places for improvement. And guess what: I played the game for two hours, enough time to try Aracade and Score Attack and the parking challenges a few times, and then it collected dust. I just didn't like the game, it wasn't for me.

I'm not an almighty guy who can proclaim what's right and what's wrong. There will be people who will try to look for games with great graphics. Others prefer something with great sound. Others will focus on the gameplay even if everything else in the game blows. I don't know who likes what, so I just say that: this is how they made the game, this is how each area scores in quality relative to other titles of its genre if any and/or other titles released during that time period. Here's the overall score I give it for how well or badly it was done, and based on that information, the screenshots and the videos shown throughout the program, it's up to you to decide if you will like this game or not.




The entire point of playing a game is to have fun.

If I have fun playing any game, could have horrible voice acting or something like that, I will give it my thumbs up when people ask about it. Likewise, if I hated a game that had great sound, graphics, and control I would not give it my thumbs up.

But, I would tell whoever asked that it had those good or bad features. I would tell them why I didn't like it. In the end I would base it on how much I enjoyed it.

And on JD they do tell you all the features about it and you get screenshots and video. Nobody should listen to what the guys say and strictly follow them. You have your own opinion, and the reviewer shouldnt cater to how you might but to how he liked it.

[KodiaX987]

That's basically how I take Vic and Tommy's words as well. They're not doing a perfect job in my opinion but it's at least better than what's out there right now like X-Play or some popular gaming websites.

[Mixfortune]

Yes, it's definitely better for the viewers to listen to the various points rather than the actual score (not sarcasm), and that's the case with many reviews. I usually look at the points made, not the score, necessarily.

It just seems a little pointless to base 80% of your score on what the genre of the game is. If I liked sports games and not adventures, it will probably not go well for me to rate every sports game a 9-10 and every adventure a 1-3... because then scores sort of lose their meaning. As I said before, it's okay if the reviewer doesn't have as much of a taste in the genre, and rates accordingly, but really, is basing 80%+ of your score on it really necessary?

Bradicus, I'm only speaking from what I've seen. I don't claim to know all of Tommy's patterns and flukes in some of the games, but from the episodes I've seen he seemed to do quite a bit of it.

Either way, best to stick to the factors and make your own decision, rather than take the score into consideration. It just seemed a bit extreme for something that had no reason (from Tommy at least) to be rated as such instead of just the genre. There may have been other reasons, but he didn't make them clear to the audience... perhaps due to editting for time... who knows?