"The Video Game Critic"

[ExedExes]

He does credit the images he uses for his reviews.

Yes, at the very bottom of a random page I just visited there, he does say screen shots courtesy of ign.com. I wasn't trying to pick on him. If I was, I would have mentioned how cheesy it is that the ability to select text on his site seems to be disabled to prevent people from copying it.

He's had issues with people trying to copy in the past. I remember one incident a year or two ago. When you're one of the most popular independent review sites online, I can see why he's got to do that.

[Menegrothx]

I agree with most comments so far.

Pros
Short and to the point reviews
Great for getting a some kind of overall picture of a systems game library
Reviews for really old and more obscure systems like Odyssey 2, Vectrex, Atari 8 bit etc. We need to get this guy an Amiga, Amiga CD32, Wonderswan color, N Gage etc systems that he lacks!
At times he can be sarcastic and funny

Cons
No PC reviews, seriously?
I think he generally does not review RPG games at all. Or is it just JRPGs?
Shit ton of sports game reviews. Although Im sure retro sports gamers can appreciate this, knowing which annual version of NHL/NFL/NBA to go for etc.
Understandably it seems that he doesnt always play the games till the end or only plays them for a short perioid of time, does not do enough research on them and so on
The grading system seems illogical and he also seems to contradict himself at times. At worst it almost feels like watching an Irate Gamer Neo review.

The Orange Box: C+

FPS lovers should probably bump the grade up by one letter

Black ops: A+

Im a pretty tough critic, but it was hard for me to find fault with this gritty, realistic first person shooter

Modern warfare 2: A

In the crowded field of Xbox 360 first-person shooters, Modern Warfare 2 leads the pack when it comes to realism

Ok, Xbox 360 might lack realistic shooters but if he played Americas Army, or any other PC exclusive hardcore FPS, for 2 minutes he wouldnt have to embarrass himself with statements like that.


I may sound awfully critical but I really do like his site a lot and its natural that if he reviews all those games by himself for free, he probably does not have enough time to reach the level of expertise required for reviewing certain games. Its the same thing with movies, music, books, science etc... you need to be able to make a big time investment and educate yourself if you want to truly understand a certain genre/subject, otherwise you cant really make comments about it.

[RyaNtheSlayA]

His inconsistency in ratings is one of my biggest beefs with him. He should just drop the ratings all together.

[BoringSupreez]

His inconsistency in ratings is one of my biggest beefs with him. He should just drop the ratings all together.

His inconsitency with ratings bugs me as well, and adding that to the fact that I very often flat-out disagree with his opinions, I find his site useless for me. I prefer long, in-depth reviews anyhow.

And anyone who spends a lot of time playing PC games isn't going to find his site helpful. He's apparently one of those people who never games outside of consoles.

[Erik_Twice]

At the end of the day, I don't think he's a critic at all. When I read his reviews I don't understand the game, I'm just told through a string of adjectives or a list of features with no regards to implementation. Similarly his writting seems stale and generic with common phrasings and turns chocking any creativity or nuance.


If we take, say, his Castlevania review we see it's 13 lines long.

The first one simply says Castlevania is well-known. Nothing interesting.

The second one says the soundtrack is impressive, but doesn't argue why.

The third to eight lines explain the premise of the game and lists some features like being able to throw knifes .But he never explains why that is interesting or not.

The next four lines say that the gameplay is "compelling" but that it has cheap parts. This is the only argument of his review and not specially revealing, specially since the writting is the same you would see anywhere else.

The last lines talk about the graphics, saying they are "better than you might expect", and stating some obvious stuff you can see from the screeshot.


He never once mentions level design which, to me, is the only reason Castlevania is a good game. He could be talking about any clone and his words would be the same because he never explores the soul of the game.

When I read his reviews I gained no insight on the games. Everyone can tell you Castlevania is a platformer, that's not why you read a review! His page seems like fluff to me not like criticism.

[Menegrothx]

At the end of the day, I don't think he's a critic at all.

I got to agree with this, which is why I underlined that quote from him "Im a pretty tough critic". Its more like him telling about the first impression he got from a game. Theres not much analyzing or proper criticism involved.