Quarter To Three gives Lollipop Chainsaw a 2.0 out of 10

[targren]

Got home from work to my RDD copy waiting for me, and played it for 5 goddamn hours.

I'd give it a solid 7.5. It's very good for what it is (and I love the references. Anyone catch the Discworld reference in the cutscene at the end of the Junkyard?) It would have been an 8, but the controls are a little clunky, but not horrible (not as smooth as Bayonetta or Onechanbara), and I hate hate HATE the goddamn letter-grading system (which the other two mentioned games also did), but other than that? It was fun to play, had me laughing aloud several times, and I'd probably still be playing it if my damn fingers hadn't gone numb.

Well worth my $45 bucks.

 

[kingthrall]

I would of compared the humor to buffy the vampire slayer than anything. But meh who cares about reviews. In the end its who buys it that counts

 

[shintakie10]

I've always felt that there should be some sort of defense on metacritic from people like this or really any sort of review site that averages scores together. If a game is gettin a ton of solid 8's or 7's then some prick comes in and drops a 2 it should just be discounted from the average. Keep it there, sure, but come on. Some peoples bonuses are at stake and one or two jackasses with a website shouldn't be able to cost them that.

 

[VoidWanderer]

Oh noes, someone rated a video game with an arbitrary number which doesn't match with the arbitrary number I would rate it with. How rude.

Given that recently a company did not make the bonus they earned because of the Metacritic rating being too low...


Yeah, I'd probably make a thread about it too.

 

[random_bars]

You know, if this were other websites I'd be somewhat peeved, but Tom Chick is a great critic, he's not someone to dismiss something for not being simple or casual or accessible enough. And from what I can tell, he's someone who gives low scores to games he didn't like, high scores to games he liked. This whole concept of 'anything functional deserves at least 70%' is stupid, you don't see the same thing happening with movie reviews, or anything else, actually - just games.

So no, whether I'd agree with the guy's opinion or not, I don't see anything wrong with this review.

 

[Brad Shepard]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Who listens to reviews on the internet anymore? Try the game yourself.

 

[aba1]

So what? You're enjoying the game so why does it matter what some random dumbass on the internet thinks about it?

Because that reviewer ruined the whole precious metacritic score!

Oh noes, a score that doesn't matter has been spoilt?! How will we go on?!

you guys have to keep in mind this game is breaking a few molds and bad reviews convince people not to buy it which will discourage producers from putting any money on new titles that could be risky.

Basically if you like the game a bad review can mean the difference between more or nothing.

 

[aba1]

You know, if this were other websites I'd be somewhat peeved, but Tom Chick is a great critic, he's not someone to dismiss something for not being simple or casual or accessible enough. And from what I can tell, he's someone who gives low scores to games he didn't like, high scores to games he liked. This whole concept of 'anything functional deserves at least 70%' is stupid, you don't see the same thing happening with movie reviews, or anything else, actually - just games.

So no, whether I'd agree with the guy's opinion or not, I don't see anything wrong with this review.

I agree but a review should remain objective as well. Even if you like a game it does not make it a good game and same goes backwards as a reviewer you should rate a game based on the production quality above all else. Yes the amount of fun you had is important but it is a small part because fun is subjective while quality is not.

 

[random_bars]

You know, if this were other websites I'd be somewhat peeved, but Tom Chick is a great critic, he's not someone to dismiss something for not being simple or casual or accessible enough. And from what I can tell, he's someone who gives low scores to games he didn't like, high scores to games he liked. This whole concept of 'anything functional deserves at least 70%' is stupid, you don't see the same thing happening with movie reviews, or anything else, actually - just games.

So no, whether I'd agree with the guy's opinion or not, I don't see anything wrong with this review.

I agree but a review should remain objective as well. Even if you like a game it does not make it a good game and same goes backwards as a reviewer you should rate a game based on the production quality above all else. Yes the amount of fun you had is important but it is a small part because fun is subjective while quality is not.

On the contrary, I think one of the biggest problems with game reviews is that so many of them try to evaluate the game objectively when this really isn't something that can be done. You get varying enough opinions with movie reviews - but then game reviews, where not only do you have the reviewer's personal opinion but also the way they played the game affecting what they thought of it?

No, I don't think objectivity is something we can really do in video game reviews without spending a very long time sitting down, playing through the same game over and over again and thoroughly evaluating every aspect of what works and what doesn't. A few paragraphs about your experience with the game and what you thought of it, complete with a score from 0 - really didn't like it - to 10 - really did like it - while carefully omitting any overly-presumptuous statements about how good the game supposedly objectively "is" or "isn't" - that, I think, is the best we can hope for from game reviews.

And if you think a reviewer has got it wrong? Go and read their paragraphs about how the game played out for them, and see whether it's a case of them having played the game in a drastically different way than you, or just that you have differing opinions on the same thing.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I don't see any issue with the score. It's a combat heavy action game, so comparisons to Bayonetta (widely regarded as one of the best in the genre, if not the best in the genre) are going to happen. You can't review games in a vacuum. Also, as far as the humour goes, if much of the game's appeal is supposed to be built around clever humour and good writing, but the "humour" isn't funny and the writing is poor, why shouldn't it get a bad review?

 

[aba1]

You know, if this were other websites I'd be somewhat peeved, but Tom Chick is a great critic, he's not someone to dismiss something for not being simple or casual or accessible enough. And from what I can tell, he's someone who gives low scores to games he didn't like, high scores to games he liked. This whole concept of 'anything functional deserves at least 70%' is stupid, you don't see the same thing happening with movie reviews, or anything else, actually - just games.

So no, whether I'd agree with the guy's opinion or not, I don't see anything wrong with this review.

I agree but a review should remain objective as well. Even if you like a game it does not make it a good game and same goes backwards as a reviewer you should rate a game based on the production quality above all else. Yes the amount of fun you had is important but it is a small part because fun is subjective while quality is not.

On the contrary, I think one of the biggest problems with game reviews is that so many of them try to evaluate the game objectively when this really isn't something that can be done. You get varying enough opinions with movie reviews - but then game reviews, where not only do you have the reviewer's personal opinion but also the way they played the game affecting what they thought of it?

No, I don't think objectivity is something we can really do in video game reviews without spending a very long time sitting down, playing through the same game over and over again and thoroughly evaluating every aspect of what works and what doesn't. A few paragraphs about your experience with the game and what you thought of it, complete with a score from 0 - really didn't like it - to 10 - really did like it - while carefully omitting any overly-presumptuous statements about how good the game supposedly objectively "is" or "isn't" - that, I think, is the best we can hope for from game reviews.

And if you think a reviewer has got it wrong? Go and read their paragraphs about how the game played out for them, and see whether it's a case of them having played the game in a drastically different way than you, or just that you have differing opinions on the same thing.

I still disagree with you but I get what you are saying and it certainly holds merit.

 

[Sexy Devil]

So what? You're enjoying the game so why does it matter what some random dumbass on the internet thinks about it?

Because that reviewer ruined the whole precious metacritic score!

To be fair that is kind of a big deal; a lot of (stupid) developers check the metacritic scores of some games people have worked on while hiring. If people are rating a game like shit for petty reason then that's going to bite the developer on the ass at some point.

 

[Dryk]

So no, whether I'd agree with the guy's opinion or not, I don't see anything wrong with this review.

My problem with it is that it barely even tells me anything about the game or how it plays. If I disagree with how he feels about the humour and set-up, I have nothing to give me an indication of whether I'd like it or not.

I know he has these opinions, and the time to write them because of seen them. There is the makings of a decent review of the game in his responses to the comments, but in the actual part labelled "review" there's barely anything to go on.

 

[ThriKreen]

If anything, I like how they make numerous 4th wall references and pokes fun at the genre.

We've got vampires and zombies down, I'm waiting for a werewolf slayer game next.

Also, I am currently chopping up zombie cows.

 

[PrototypeC]

I'm more mad that even a single person on this earth thought, "if my arbitrary deadlines and pushy quantity-over-quality system doesn't get this game a X score on MetaCritic, my employees get no bonus". If some reviewer wants to dump on the game because he finds it juvenile without taking the whole picture into account, what difference does it make to OP?

If anything, I like how they make numerous 4th wall references and pokes fun at the genre. We've got vampires and zombies down, I'm waiting for a werewolf slayer game next. Also, I am currently chopping up zombie cows.

Not really related to the post, but what on earth is that avatar? I've seen that thing before... somewhere... a golden ant holding what looks to be a dual-sided axe or bladed staff... so... familiar!

 

[godofslack]

2/10 is an insanely low rating, even if you are going off the base 5 system (which is frankly stupid to do when almost the entire industry uses the base 7 (or higher) system). Reviews aren't made in a vacuum, you can't go around posting amateur reviews as a professional, and if you do keep it personal. Frankly that was an incredibly pretentious review, something you'd expect from some kid just out of high school. He spends half of the time criticizing the art style on a purely subjective level and the other half of it brow-beating anyone who found it funny. Almost all his criticisms are subjective, and the comparison to Bayonetta is weak a best. You know you can be a spectacle fighter with a hyper-sexualized female character and not be Bayonetta. That's like saying every game with chest high walls and hulking marines is Gears of War.

I've not played it so I can't say if it's good or not, but this review offers nothing but the opinions of the reviewer, as pseudo-intellectual as they are, and sells them as a fair assessment of the game. It's sheer tripe and something I'd expect to see on some guy's blog rather than a site even in metacritic's pool.

 

[ThriKreen]

Not really related to the post, but what on earth is that avatar? I've seen that thing before... somewhere... a golden ant holding what looks to be a dual-sided axe or bladed staff... so... familiar!

It's a cutesy, super-deformed toon version of a thri-kreen from D&D, taken from Paizo's forums.

 

[Sean Steele]

That guy just talked shit about Scooby Doo, he can go to hell.

 

[DustyDrB]

That guy just talked shit about Scooby Doo, he can go to hell.

Huh?
Wait a minute, let me read thi-

Spoiler

This cannot stand! We must find this fellow and ruin him! Stand with me! In the name of BLTs, pizza, and Scooby Snacks, stand with me!!!

 

[lapan]

While i would probably like the humor, i'm scared off by the length of the game. 4-6 hours is not worth 50? to me.