VGMW Responds: Variety Article
Video Game Media Watch – and more particularly, myself – caught a fair deal of heat from angry readers over our latest article entry on Tom Chick’s review of Metroid Prime 3: Corruption for Variety.com. First of all, I’d like to thank everyone for taking the time to respond and air out their opinions.
I understand the criticism, even if I don’t agree with it. I took Chick to task for what I considered to be some irresponsible writing, but in the process came off to many viewers as irresponsible myself. How can I not be familiar with Tom Chick if I work for a journalism watchdog site? Who am I, as one reader put it, to question a man who is a prolific writer in the industry, when I didn’t even care to inform myself about his pedigree prior to writing my piece?
Before I answer the above questions, let me make a few important clarifications that I deem necessary after reading over the original article’s comments. No, I am not angry at Mr. Chick because “he didn’t like Corruption, and I did”. I could care less whether Chick enjoyed the game or not – I am only interested in how he backed up his claims and if he acted appropriately within the context of his review. In other words, the issue of refined (or unrefined, as I postulated) journalism, and not purely his personal preference of a video game. Secondly, I never put forth that Chick was new to the scene, or that he was only a mainstream, unspecialized writer. I did however say that I was not sure of his past writing experience, and that because of the way he structured his review I could not hypothesize, sans research, whether he was new to the scene and/or an unspecialized mass media writer, or something quite the opposite. I made reference to Variety.com as a wider media outlet and not one intimately concerned with video games, but I never made the assertion that Chick necessarily was himself. Also, although I created a strongly worded story title, it was one that simply parodied the title of Dan Dormer’s previous VGMW entry on MTV. In the conclusion of my article, I never said Variety should dump video game reviews altogether – not in the least. In fact, I only recently talked up the importance of the mass media in promoting video games. I merely asked that Variety tread carefully in their selection of game journalists, and if Chick’s Metroid review is any indication, perhaps they should reconsider using him in the future and revamp their department.
Furthermore, I did indeed put forth that Chick’s past work was of no consequence to my critique… and I maintain that it is not. Contrary to what some gleaned from my article, I have no personal feud with Chick and neither was I calling into question his entire body of work – I merely examined the Variety article as a special case study. My angle in writing the piece was that Chick mishandled the Corruption review. As one reader questioned, yes, I indeed considered Chick’s target audience with his review, but while some pandering to one’s audience is necessary, I believe I clearly outlined how Chick went too far, to a point where his review suffered for it. Quips like saying it’s necessary to essentially carry a 13 year old boy in your back pocket to explain the basic tenets of a title may be witty and stylistically effective, but they do a disservice to many readers like those of Variety.com who are prone to taking such brash phrasing too seriously.
And finally, to the original questions I posed above, based upon reader interaction. Who am I to judge Tom Chick? What gives Billy Kirk the “right” to do so? (Bonus points to me for referring to myself in the third person.) Let me first explain that my neglect in researching Tom Chick was an intentional oversight. I wanted to critique his review from a fresh perspective, one which wasn’t tainted by anything he may have done in the past… something I’m now guessing is a perspective that hasn’t been afforded to any critique of Tom Chick’s work in quite some time, so I think the payoff in my technique was greater than I imagined. Video Game Media Watch is not, as long-time fans should realize, a part of some Good ‘ol Boys Club. We’re not a part of the game journalism media. We are a separate entity that lies outside of it. Only in doing so can VGMW retain the edge and objectivity our readers demand and our mantra champions. The reason I write for this site is because I am only semi-entrenched in the games industry and I can write intelligent (presumably!) articles of journalistic criticism. My method in the Variety article was risky, a bit unorthodox, and was one that would potentially open me up to a great deal of criticism, and it most certainly did. As it is, I would not change a thing, even if I could.
One reader’s response particularly struck me. In the conclusion of his comment, he accused me of holding an elitist view. However, in the body of his response, this viewer asked who I was and “what experience I had to judge someone’s critical thinking ability”. This is worth quoting because it strikes to the core of a paramount issue myself and the folks at VGMW are perpetually concerned with. Funnily enough, in asking this question the reader him/herself is holding an elitist view, and it’s one that damages our industry. It’s because of this view that I performed my critique in the manner I did. We cannot hold certain writers, and this includes Tom Chick, up on a pedestal as idols of their fields who are untouchable by all those except who are deemed their “equals”. The field of journalism should lay open for all those who are willing to engage in intelligent discussion… resumé not required. To ask “who I am” to judge Tom Chick gets us nowhere; I might as well ask “who anyone is” to tell me I’m wrong in writing such an article. Holding this ultimate elitist view only smothers vibrant journalism and serves to stagnate the waters of academic discussion – something VGMW is vehemently against.
If we here at VGMW stop surprising our readers and quit pushing the boundaries of how game journalism is handled, then we’ve stopped doing our job. I personally thank all of you who took the time to comment, and look forward to your further thoughts.
on October 1st, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Billy, your criticism of Tom Chick’s approach to the Metroid Prime 3 review is valid and worth noting.
I also respect the desire to evaluate an individual piece like Tom Chick’s Variety work in a vacuum without clouding your judgment by looking up past movies or followings he may have on the Internet.
Of course, if you dare criticize work from individuals in the good ol’ boy club of long time game journalists you’re going to get obligatory wagon circling from diehard fans. But I think the larger audience at hand applauds attempts to improve the quality of game reviews published for the masses to consume.
on October 1st, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Woah… You are totally off base here:
“We cannot hold certain writers, and this includes Tom Chick, up on a pedestal as idols of their fields who are untouchable by all those except who are deemed their “equals”.
No one is saying that you can’t criticize Tom Chick, if you want to criticize him go ahead, but you better be sure that you did research on what he has written, who he has written for, and why he writes the way he does. To come to the conclusion that you can’t criticize him from the comments people have left is to completely miss the point.
“f we here at VGMW stop surprising our readers and quit pushing the boundaries of how game journalism is handled, then we’ve stopped doing our job.”
The only boundary you are pushing is laziness. To write a critique you need to do research by which you are able to critique with facts to back it up. To say:
Let me first explain that my neglect in researching Tom Chick was an intentional oversight. I wanted to critique his review from a fresh perspective, one which wasn’t tainted by anything he may have done in the past… something I’m now guessing is a perspective that hasn’t been afforded to any critique of Tom Chick’s work in quite some time, so I think the payoff in my technique was greater than I imagined. Video Game Media Watch is not, as long-time fans should realize, a part of some Good ‘ol Boys Club.
Means that you won’t bother to do research and take pot shots when you deem necessary. If you had done research you would see that Tom Chick is in fact one of the harshest reviewers out there. To fabricate a mythic ‘Game Journalism’ elitism is a weak argument and justification. Please if there is a Good Ol’ Boys club in game journalism expose it, name names, show us the practices and how they discriminate. There is a real story, non some lame ass character assassination justifying post.
“Holding this ultimate elitist view only smothers vibrant journalism and serves to stagnate the waters of academic discussion – something VGMW is vehemently against.”
Please reference the academic discussions you are working to promote. Seriously game journalism has its serious flaws. Previews are always glowing, there is review bias, Game Informer trades review scores for exclusive covers. Cover that story.
I guess if you bothered to take any journalism classes you would know that:
My method in the Variety article was risky, a bit unorthodox, and was one that would potentially open me up to a great deal of criticism.
Translation: An F in journalism class. Stick to the facts, conjecture, slander, and opinion does not equal journalism.
on October 1st, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Wait. Anyone who tries to correct you for not doing your homework is part of a good ol’ boys network?
Now I know why I took this place off my blogroll.
There is no virtue in not doing your homework. You’re the one who raised the “Who does this guy think he is?” question. You’re the one who suggested that Variety didn’t have any business reviewing games if they couldn’t get someone competent to review them.
Then, when it is pointed out that, in fact, Variety got one of the most respected freelancers in the game to do it, you say “Who cares. That’s not my point.”
VGMWatch may not be part of the establishment and that’s fine. It does not absolve you from basic journalistic standards if that is what you purport to talk about. And looking someone up before questioning their experience is pretty rudimentary stuff.
on October 1st, 2007 at 5:48 pm
You are obviously very confused.
You are trying to say two things:
1) Tom Chick’s article sucked.
2) Variety has no business reviewing games (that’s the title of the piece!) and shouldn’t hire people who don’t know what they’re doing.
Regarding #1, ok sure. I’m not sure what it has to do with VGMWatch and I don’t agree with you, but you’re at least entitled to that opinion and I’ll grant you that knowing about Chick’s prior work isn’t really relevant.
With #2, you lose whatever credibility you had by not at least googling “Tom Chick”. If you did you’d see that he’s very respected and has written a lot of very well-received reviews and a few very contentious ones (I don’t even know Tom myself but that’s what I found out with about 10 minutes of searching).
And you are being elitist. You’re just shifting the point to make it seem like you’re the “good guy” being yelled at by a bunch of fan boys. You seem incapable of understanding that an article is written to a specific audience. Your criticism of both the article and of Variety boils down to an unwillingness to let the unwashed, non-hardcore players talk about games. I’m not sure how you could not be aware that the Wii has garnered legions of new gamers and casual gamers for whom things like double-jumping are in fact quite abstract and inaccessible. Rather than simply debating this point on its merits you want to wave it all away as irrelevant and unprofessional simply because it doesn’t cater to where you are at as a gamer. Your contention with Variety publishing this article seems to only be that you think it unconscionable for there to be non-hardcore game reviews.
on October 1st, 2007 at 5:53 pm
To respond briefly to both of the above… to the first post, actually, yes, there were remarks that didn’t just ask who I was, but put forth that and asked specifically “who are YOU to judge his critical thinking ability”. Such comments weren’t concerned with whether I did any “homework” or not - they blatantly said that I had no business criticizing Tom Chick, because of who he was.
To Mr. Goodfellow - Sorry you took us off your blogroll. In any case, no, I never remotely said “anyone who tries to correct me for not doing my homework is part of a good ol boys network”. I said that VGMW is not part of a Good ‘ol Boys Network, that we are not entrenched as a publication in the game journalism network, because to be in that realm and to consort on a regular basis with writers like Chick would remove some of our credibility through a decrease in objectivity. I in no way alluded to the fact that individual readers who come to our site and criticize me are part of a network themselves. In fact, I twice thanked everyone for their comments, no matter how harsh.
And you’re correct. My point wasn’t that Chick may be admired by some as a great game journalist. Again, my purpose in writing my story was to outline the ways in which I believe Chick did his readers a disservice with his Metroid review for Variety.com. It doesn’t matter if Chick were the most prolific writer in game journalism history; that in no way affects my commentary on the structuring and content of his Metroid review.
on October 1st, 2007 at 6:07 pm
I think you’re just trying to backpedal your complete and utter lack of doing any research about the reviewer you critiqued. Your critique of his review may be correct, but implying that he was some kind of unknown reviewer hired by Variety showed your ignorance. At least just admit you were wrong, because now all you’re doing it making yourself look foolish.
on October 1st, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Athryn, I think you’ll notice that in both my original article and in my response that I said I was ignorant as to Chick’s status as a writer (and explained why). I said I could not be positive either way whether he was a new-to-the-scene fellow or someone more experienced. How, in both articles, is my blatant admission of ignorance in this respect any sort of “backpeddling”?
on October 1st, 2007 at 6:30 pm
* How, in both articles, is my blatant admission of ignorance in this respect any sort of “backpeddling”?
In so much as your article is titled “Variety, Please don’t Rate Games” and not “here’s a game article that I don’t like”. You are now backpedaling (”pedal” not “peddle”) in so much as you are trying to make the conversation about your objectivity as a writer with respect to the critique you give Chick’s article AFTER making your point about Variety.
Honestly though, you’re just showing yourself to be working for the wrong website. Your original article and subsequent replies show a rather sweeping inability to understand people who don’t think like you or to admit that you yourself are fallible. Not exactly qualities that you expect in a “watchdog”.
on October 1st, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Thanks for clarifying.
This is an interesting point you make, about the titling of my piece. “Here’s a Game Article I Don’t Like”, or any variant of that title, lacks the necessary pop for a title. It also wouldn’t go in hand with my parody of Dan Dormer’s article, which I’ve already mentioned. Further and more importantly, the reason the title focused on Variety was because, as I said, I was unaware of Chick’s significance prior to writing the piece. I was not, however, unaware of Variety’s significance. If I didn’t know of Chick’s import, why would I write as a title, “Here is what I think about Chick’s Metroid Review”.
And I still maintain that I am not backpedaling away from my original intent, just because the title focused on Variety. I not only critiqued Chick’s article in an objective manner within my post, I spoke on Variety and how they should reconsider Chick in the future, and how I believed he did not do their readers a service.
If I were so uncaring of other’s opinions, I would not openly encourage them - even the most negative - and take the time to attempt to respond. Furthermore, if you had been reading my article carefully, I was not taking issue with Chick’s opinions of Metroid Corruption, but rather how he conveyed those opinions and how I believe he mismanaged his review. I’ve made that very clear. I do not care what Chick thought of the game, I care how his review appears to be a sort of offhand and weak critique that can lead Variety’s viewers astray - even if most of them are “casual” gamers.
on October 1st, 2007 at 6:55 pm
I do agree with Billy that the article wasn’t all that well-written. I think Chick really missed the mark when he wrote about Metroid’s style of exploration. That is hardly anything new by Metroid standards. They’ve been doing this since 1986 and they’ll continue to do so. Chick made one too many generalizations regarding the Metroid series and the Wii owners in general.
on October 1st, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Guys, I don’t see what the big deal is. Billy’s original point that the article was poorly written was correct. It was, in fact, downright unprofessional. But Billy’s previous knowledge of Tom is irrelevant. In fact, as he points out in this article, had he researched Tom before writing it would only have swayed his opinion on the matter. Tom’s earlier work has no bearing on the quality of his current work. Whether Variety had picked any random author to write a videogame review, or whether they had picked a well-respected industry author, they should still have had the same quality standards for the article they eventually published. In fact, Tom should have been held to even higher standards than he was. If the Metroid review is an indication of how Variety sets their bar for quality, then Billy is absolutely correct: they have no business publishing game reviews.
on October 1st, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Tom Chick fans are trying to drag people down a rabbit trail over the grave sin of not providing a biographical context for an otherwise piss-poor review job.
on October 1st, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Gussy it up in whatever rhetoric you like, neither your original story nor its follow up here amount to anything more than a poorly substantiated difference of opinion. You call the Variety review unprofessional, inaccurate, unaccomplished, and unintelligent, in part because:
Where the reviewer sees borderline nonsense in phazon and Chozos, you find a rich backdrop and mythology. Note that while you point to the presence of information and plot points available via visor scans, you fail to offer specific examples of the threads in your allegedly rich tapestry. I suspect that, In the Variety reader’s mind, the burden of proof is yours. What is the precise nature of this vivid mythology the “unintelligent” reader is missing? Are you confident in your ability to convince your readers of this game’s dramatic and narrative accomplishment? (And aren’t these readers seeming more and more like dime-a-dozen board-going gamer elitists? Certainly, those who turn to Variety for videogame reviews aren’t visiting Video Game Media Watch)
Your other point of contention zeroes in on the reviewer’s assumptions about impediments to mainstream access–again with a similar lack of substantiation. Considering that nothing short of a serious study can prove either of you correct in this matter (read put the game in as many players’ hands as possible and see who struggles with what), I’d say it’s pretty irresponsible to suggest that Variety should revamp its game review department on the basis of your argument.
Where you trumpet your “risky and unorthodox” method, all I see is more of the same old messageboard dick fencing (pardon the language) in a pretentious costume.
on October 1st, 2007 at 7:27 pm
I feel many are caught up with this individual’s reputation. Yes, research should have been conducted to ascertain Mr. Chick’s record if that was to be included in the story, however that wasn’t the point. Billy was critiquing the article in Variety. Whether you agreed with his points or not should have been the real topic at hand.
As for the title of the critique, I agree it was inappropriate for the subject matter considering Billy’s final stance, but that’s the way of sensationalist titles.
on October 1st, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Sure, I frequent Tom Chick’s site. Does that predispose me to drag people down the rabbit path? Hyperbole like that will get you somewhere, but probably not where you want to go.
Whether you agree or disagree with Tom Chick is immaterial at this point. However, I find it absurd to suggest that he is any more misrepresentative of the games industry than Billy Kirk.
There’s also the question of intended audience. Variety doesn’t cater to hardcore gamers. Sure, we all know the terminology and lore, but it’s completely possible that the review in question is the first that the readers have heard of Samus Aran.
The same issue of intended audience applies to VGMWatch. That said, it’s possible we’re making a big deal over nothing; the people most likely to read VGMWatch are industry insiders, exactly the people who already know about Tom Chick.
The thing that I find most amusing is the claim that VGMWatch is not part of the games industry media. Media is media.
on October 1st, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Regardless of what he’s done in the past, the variety metroid prime 3 review was lousy. Tom Chick really dropped the ball on fair and accurate coverage.
on October 1st, 2007 at 10:19 pm
>> “Whether you agreed with his points or not should have been the real topic at hand.”
Well as has been discussed, his primary point was about Variety and that seems to have been pretty ineptly made given that he didn’t research the reviewer at all. He is asking Variety to go out and get a qualified/experienced reviewer and it turns out that they did. Saying that’s all just sensationalism isn’t really helping. How credible is a games media watchdog site that is worried more about sensational titles than getting the ir content right?
That said, I think that Mr. Kirk has consistently avoided talking about a number of critiques of his article. He’s spending an awful lot of time focusing on a small portion of the responses (especially those that seem most vitriolic or extreme). I’ve yet to see him address, as has been mentioned by many, that Chick’s article is merely targeted to a different audience than traditional games media and that, in this context, eschewing double-jumping and comparing to Halo is in fact quite relevant.
While lots of shots are being taken at Chick’s professionalism what’s really on paper seems to say more that Kirk is critiquing the article for not targeting him as a primary audience or agreeing with his opinions. Kirk’s article abounds with poorly-executed logic and nitpicks and nothing the least bit substantive that calls into question the professionalism of the review. I’ll lay in with a point-by-point if anyone’s ready to go at it but so far I still think there’s plenty left on the table that Kirk hasn’t really responded to.
on October 2nd, 2007 at 9:33 am
“I could care less whether Chick enjoyed the game or not – I am only interested in how he backed up his”
It’s COULDN’T care less.
on October 2nd, 2007 at 9:49 am
Sidestepping the argument and stating the obvious, I can’t help but think when Kyle was running the site, if he made an obvious mistake like this, he’d have just apologised and corrected it.
Carrying on arguing when you’ve made a mistake like this just annihilates your credibility. You’re a watchdog site. That means you have to be hardest with yourself, or you’re just laughable. How can anyone take your judgments seriously when you let yourself off?
KG
on October 2nd, 2007 at 4:53 pm
That has got to be Chick’s sloppiest review to date. Look at all the panties in a wad over their hero who can do no wrong. Stay in school, kids.
on October 2nd, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Is there anyone other than Billy at VGMW who would care to respond? The title of this post is “VGMW Responds,” but the response is really just that of an author who’s been criticized/attacked, not a more objective 3rd party like an editor. I see an editor on the masthead - would he care to weigh in?
Personally, I think criticism of Chick’s argument is valid, but the reviewer did himself a disservice by not doing his homework and by formulating a weak larger argument that Variety shouldn’t be reviewing games at all. And he is continuing to make matters worse by being highly defensive and tone-deaf to criticism, pretty much making a mockery of the idea that there’s any “watchdogging” going on around here anymore.
Lastly - and somewhat besides the point - I think Chick is an excellent *writer*, and Billy would do himself a favor to study the way Chick puts words together. Being less of a stylist doesn’t invalidate Billy’s criticism, but it does diminish it given that both Billy and Chick are ultimately doing the same thing - reviewing the work of others - and stylistically Chick is doing it at an entirely different level.
on October 2nd, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Look Chris, this has *nothing* to do with the quality of Tom’s article, and everything to do with the strange defensiveness of the follow up.
If there’s any religious worship going on here it’s encapsulated in the idea that Billy has captured some kind of higher “truth” in his article. He voiced an opinion and the tried to inflate it by backing it up with conjecture that turned out to be inaccurate and uninformed.
Defending the “logic” of that is ludicrous.
on October 2nd, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Hi SR. I’m sorry if my tone has come off the wrong way, but I don’t believe I’ve been overly defensive - I’ve merely stood my ground and responded the best I could to the criticism. Constantly thanking viewers for all their comments, no matter how harsh, hardly seems overly defensive to me.
You’re right, Chick’s writing is more entertaining and more stylistic than mine is…. in this piece. My point is that Chick actually focuses too much on stylistic quips and not enough on making substantive claims in his Metroid review. If he had done the latter, my criticism would likely not exist. He should have kept in mind that this his was not a regular editorial, but that he needed to convey important information about the game to the potential buyer without delving into silly stylistic hyperbole.
And while I certainly always have more to learn about writing - as does everyone - I’m afraid that I’ve been plenty stylistic in previous pieces I’ve written in my career… but most generally when I write regular editorials. This however is a critique, a piece of literary criticism. It is meant to be academic. To write more stylistically, as Chick does, in this piece would be to damage its efficacy and thus make me a hypocrite. Many from Chick’s camp have accused me of “forgetting” the audience he was pandering to, but another important consideration to always hold is what kind of piece you are writing and what the objective should be… and then stylize your piece accordingly. While I have given readers here no reason to believe I am capable of great wit and “entertainment”, the truth is I am more than capable. Obviously though, I do not begrudge anyone for assuming that I’m not.
on October 2nd, 2007 at 7:59 pm
SR, the editor already responded in the first comment. Despite what the header of the site would have you believe, Dan Dormer is not the editor here. As for the editor’s comments, they’re just as defensive and lashing out at “wagon circling” and a good ol’ boy club of “established” media as Kirk’s comments. I was accused of being part of the club when I criticized the editor for accusing Doug Perry of lapses in ethical judgment without even asking him for explanation or comment first. So yeah, this appears to be the site’s standard response to criticism.
on October 2nd, 2007 at 8:14 pm
I personally do not feel that it is required to know one’s past work to criticize it. If Steven Speilberg released a movie that was total crap, the critics have the right to say so without having to take his past successes into consideration when reviewing it. If this dude writes a crap review, Billy has the right to call him on it regardless of what he has written in the past. I haven’t read Billy’s article yet, but some of these comments just seem way too defensive with little justification as to why.
“You’re a watchdog site. That means you have to be hardest with yourself, or you’re just laughable. How can anyone take your judgments seriously when you let yourself off?”
So being a watchdog site means that you immediately have to succumb to any and all criticism regardless of however unjustified it may be? I’m failing to see the logic here…
on October 2nd, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Let me simplify.
No-one really objects to Kirk not liking the review. If anyone did, they’d pick apart his piece in the same way that Kirk did Chick’s. They aren’t - and people could - because that’s not the point.
1) Kirk says that Variety should hire qualified reviewers who know stuff about games.
2) People point out that Chick - whether you agree with him or not - knows a lot about games and is about as qualified a game reviewer as you can find.
3) Kirk denies that him missing point 2 changes anything.
You’re correct that anyone can critique any review, with no knowledge of the backhistory of the writer. That’s great. The problem here is that’s not what he did. He threw an insult not just at the writing itself but the *writer* and that’s what people are eye rolling at.
As they should.
KG
on October 3rd, 2007 at 1:35 am
“I haven’t read Billy’s article yet”
-Some moron
Is it standard amongst the writers/readers of this site to simply shit out opinions without actually looking anything up? How quaint.
“This however is a critique, a piece of literary criticism.”
-Kirk
Maybe you missed the memo, but New Criticism died (unmourned) back in the mid 20th century. The current rage is New Historicism, which requires that you, I dunno, develop an idea of the background of the author and the text. Perhaps you should take a peek at someone who knows their ass from their elbows in the field, like Greenblatt.
Just because T. S. Eliot could pull off the New Critical style doesn’t mean a hack like you can (or should).
on October 3rd, 2007 at 4:25 pm
I think the real problem is that Billy is drawing the wrong conclusion from his assessment of the Variety review. It’s not the source of the review that’s at fault, but the format. One of the limitations that print journalists deal with that web journalists can usually ignore is a word count limit.
Almost every print review with a 500-600 word limit is going to be mostly vague and uninformative. This has nothing to do with it being a “mainstream media” review. The same is true for those single-column reviews usually reserved for non-AAA titles you see in dedicated gaming magazines. If Tom Chick was given 2000 words, I’m sure he could have given some more concrete details about the game and backed up his arguments better.
Mini-reviews that tell you “this game is great”, or “this game sucks” are easy to parse, but the ones that tell you “you may like this or you may not”, like Tom’s, never give you enough information to determine which side of that fence you’ll fall on.