Quarter To Three gives Lollipop Chainsaw a 2.0 out of 10

Recommended Videos

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
chadachada123 said:
random_bars said:
PsychedelicDiamond said:
Sneezeguard said:
It?s obviously attempting Kane and Lynch 2′s brilliant and subversive YouTube aesthetic without really having a reason to do it"
My god, he really wrote that? Unironically? In the words of the internet:

"Dafuq did i just read?"
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you've never played Kane and Lynch 2, you've just heard that it had a negative reception and have gone along with the idea that every single aspect of it is universally terrible.

I might be completely wrong, in which case I'm sorry. Just for the record, I've never played it either, but I looked up some footage of it on Youtube and the camera thing he talked about does indeed look pretty interesting, whether or not the rest of the game is any good.

Point being, what exactly do you think is particularly bad about K&L2's camera trick? Actually, for the record, have you played it or not?
He...didn't...even...mention...the...camera...in...his...post...

I've beaten the game, and while it was 'okay,' much of it was just boring as shit. Repetitive, unbalanced, etc.
The game's camera comes under its "YouTube aesthetic".
 

Xanthious

New member
Dec 25, 2008
1,273
0
0
As I said in a different thread but it's worth repeating. This game is getting the good reviews it's been getting solely based on Suda51's name being attached to the game. Sadly though, it doesn't hold up to his other games, like Killer7 and No More Heroes, in any way shape or form. The game plays like some kind of painfully repetitive button masher and if this were made by almost any other developer people would look at it and say "Yep it is exploitative poorly designed garbage pandering to the lowest common denominator". However, since it was made by Suda51 it's suddenly some kind of satirical commentary and critics are lining up to put on rose tinted glasses to look at this thing through.
 

LiquidGrape

New member
Sep 10, 2008
1,336
0
0
The fact that so many people don't know who Tom Chick is and calls him a "random person" strikes me as amusing.

He's only one of the most seasoned critics in gaming; one who won't shy away from savagery if he feels so inclined.
 

peruvianskys

New member
Jun 8, 2011
577
0
0
Am I the only one who thinks that this trend of overly stylized, aesthetics-before-gameplay spectacle fighters is getting scarier and scarier by the day? If you took the silly wrapper of this game, you'd get the worst hack and slash I've played in years. Games can't succeed solely on "that was weird!" moments - although, if we're honest, that's the only kind of art that Suda traffics in.

This game deserves a 2/10 because it's only about 20% substance and 80% style. Is this really the best example we have of "auteur" designers these days?
 

Ninjafire72

New member
Feb 27, 2011
158
0
0
peruvianskys said:
Am I the only one who thinks that this trend of overly stylized, aesthetics-before-gameplay spectacle fighters is getting scarier and scarier by the day? If you took the silly wrapper of this game, you'd get the worst hack and slash I've played in years. Games can't succeed solely on "that was weird!" moments - although, if we're honest, that's the only kind of art that Suda traffics in.

This game deserves a 2/10 because it's only about 20% substance and 80% style. Is this really the best example we have of "auteur" designers these days?
I wouldn't go that far, I've played a few hack/slash games and the gameplay for LPC is actually better than most. The controls are for the most part contextual, meaning they do something different based on the moment you press it; sorta like Batman AA. It really does flow together nicely, and overall I'd say it's a very smooth and intuitive experience.

And in case you don't realize, visual style is kind of important. COD and Halo, hell even L4D all have the same basic mechanics, but they are vastly different games because of their visual aesthetics. If you had the same visual aesthetics in every game you'll find that they would all be identically boring (Which is what's happening with FPS shooters). It's the visuals that make games good and interesting, not necessarily the mechanics.
 

targren

New member
May 13, 2009
1,314
0
0
Xanthious said:
As I said in a different thread but it's worth repeating.
..snip claim of name-dropping..
I don't think it is worth repeating, since the most glowing review for the game I've seen came from Jim Sterling (link in the first few posts) and the only time he mentions Suda is to compliment him on getting it right with this game, not vice-versa.
 

nu1mlock

New member
May 5, 2012
196
0
0
That site also gave Krater a 2/10. I agree that Krater isn't the best game out there but it sure is worth more than a 2.

I'm not going to take that site seriously, ever. Worst thing is that it, as OP said, lowered the score of Lollipop Chainsaw a lot, same as it gave Krater a really low "official" score.
 

Illyasviel

New member
Nov 14, 2010
115
0
0
I've read a bunch of Tom Chick reviews...

He's bashed Uncharted 3, Skyrim, Journey, Gears of War 3 all to hell and back. Sometimes he includes decent arguments. Sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes he hates on a game for one reason, then doesn't mention that reason at all in another game with the same 'fault.'

All in all, his reviews are all over the place which makes sense given his philosophy, which essentially boils down to being a gigantic egotist. He doesn't really review games from any point of view except his own knee jerk reaction point of view. For example, if he's playing a FPS game and he hates FPS games, he's not going to say, "well, I don't like FPS games, but there are a ton of gameplay modes, a lot of replayability, the controls are great, the graphics are pretty good, singleplayer AI seems good, the multiplayer is well put together and there's an active community, so I can totally see how a FPS gamer would get a lot of mileage from this game, so I'll give it a 8.7," he's going to say, "god, I HATE FPS games SO MUCH they want to make me punch brick walls, 1.0."

So in a way, his reviews are very true to the meaning of a review. He's not reviewing for anybody else but himself. And that is a review. But that also generally makes his reviews pretty crappy because he's not you, he doesn't care about you or your viewpoint at all, and the guy bizarrely seems to hate games.

Honestly, its not worth reading his reviews outside of entertainment value. A lot of them read like the dude actually hates games, but somebody is putting a gun to his head ( or knife to his throat ), and forcing him to play games and then write about them. That or he just wants to be sensationalist troll.

For the record, I thought his Dragon's Dogma 'review' did a pretty good juxtaposition that I appreciated.