Dissection of Aaron Thomas's review

you say "Get over it" and "its just a review".

If Rosa Parks (God rest her soul) just *accepted* that her race was forced to the back of the bus, and "got over it", that would have been fine, right?

If any person who's child/parent/friend/relative got murdered would just "Get over it" it would be fine right?

If anyone that ever made a change in this world just "got over" their feelings, then that would be fine, yeah? because lord knows, change should come naturally. Asking for change is too much in todays society.

Granted those are more or less extreme cases, but the point still stands. You guys who are trying to defend this, or shrug it off as "just a review" aren't going to help any matters. I seriously can't believe you find this lack of talent acceptable on such a (used to be) high-profile website with arguably hundreds of thousands of visitors, some of which PAY for special access etc.

The fact you guys shrug this off is perplexing. Would you guys read a book if it had horrible, improper grammar? Typos are one thing, but to have horrible grammar, and poor writing skills is grounds for dismissal IMO.

So stop trying to defend this guy's lack of talent. Yes it has to do with the score a bit, this IS a review. But it mainly has to do with the lack of explaination as to why he gave the game the score, and his lack of talent in writing the horrid review in the first place! I'd say the same thing had it been a poor review for the wii or the 360. A poor writer has no place on a professional site with paying customers.
0rin

to people taking digs at the TC, i feel sorry for you as you cant even spare 2 mins to read a properly created thread and a well written one at that, even if you dont agree with it. I agree with the TC on many points. i hoped for a proper discussion but seing as this wont happen on system wars i would recommend the TC to make this thread in the ps3 forum. at least that way you wont get as many blind fanboys dissing your mental health because they cant handle more 2 line threads which appeal to you lemmings so much.stefanlek

Now isnt that just SO much better?

to people taking digs at the TC, i feel sorry for you as you cant even spare 2 mins to read a properly created thread and a well written one at that, even if you dont agree with it. I agree with the TC on many points. i hoped for a proper discussion but seing as this wont happen on system wars i would recommend the TC to make this thread in the ps3 forum. at least that way you wont get as many blind fanboys dissing your mental health because they cant handle more 2 line threads which appeal to you lemmings so much.stefanlek

I think the point is...that it really doesn't matter.

It won't change the score here.

It won't change the score elsewhere.

Aaron's complaints are his complaints. Whether the game should have been penalized as much for its faults is in THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER. He has a set of eyes too, and is entitled to his feeling on the matter.

If you don't like it...well...he presented his reasons. If his reasons aren't big issues for you, then you have a AAA-caliber game to look forward to playing. To him those issues were large enough to warrant some penalties reflectd in the scoring.

It's not that hard to understand.

Crying over spilt milk is all this amounts to. You can't make someone else's OPINION illegitamate unless you can suppose that it lacks truth. Aaron's objections are based on real things. Whether or not they should be weighted as heavily as they were is subjective and not really debatable.

People are going to have to live with it. folks who continue to complain only make my sig more entertaining and apropoe.

You make some good points, but ultimately your fall apart when you start being so petty. "Very good? aren't you supposed to be a journalist?"

What do you want? Exceedingly satisfactory?

Also, switiching from 2nd to 3rd person is not a no-no. You get taught that when you're 10 years old. When you move on to higher grades and start writing essays, of course you can switch from one person to another. Have you never read Catch 22?

BEFORE YOU START READING/FLAMING:

This may see like a wall-of-text, but it is split up into quotes, bolded keywords, and the like. Feel free to skip around as much as you please.

Why I'm doing this: I enjoy it. I'm interested in gaming journalism, and appaled when people get paid to do garbage work in a field that I see as a dream career. I'm also bored =p.

What I believe: I believe that a game review should leave as much personal taste from the material as possible. For example. I dislike GeOW, I do not enjoy it as much as others do. However, I made myself write a full 3 page review on the game and i ended up giving it a 9.2/10.

Afterall, writing reviews is like recommending games to people. I'm not going to tell a friend to drop $40 on Final Fantasy Tactics, despite how awsome I may think it is -- I know that he probably won't enjoy it. So when writing the review, you have to make sure you let your audience know what this game is about, and who it would appeal to.

As for Aaron, I don't think he should insult a game for things that only he found as negatives. Now, of course, a review is an opinion -- just as this dissection of his review is nothing but my opinion. I understand R&C isn't for everyone. That's why I use gamerankings when researching games. When you find something that all the reviews agree on, you can get a better picture in your head of what the game will be like. However, when there is one great review of out many (i.e IGN's folklore 9.0) or one sour review out of many (Aaron's 7.5), than you have to dig deeper and draw your own opinions.

Well I dug deeper, and this is my opinion:

First Paragraph:

"Over the course of five games the Ratchet & Clank franchise has crafted its own identity and a large following as well. It's odd, then, that the duo's first outing on the PlayStation 3 finds them facing an identity crisis of sorts. The game just can't decide what it wants to be. The story tries to be epic in its scope and appeal to an older audience, but the game is extremely easy and the story's premise is thin and the ending disappointing. The core gameplay of shooting and platforming is as solid as ever, but it's diluted by too many uninteresting minigames and unnecessary gameplay mechanics. Although these issues prevent the game from achieving the same high level as previous entries in the series, it's still a very good game."

So let's get this straight Aaron. The R&C franchise has a, what you call an identity of some sort, that it has built through its previous installments. But you say that because it adds so many new mechanics, it doesn't feel like Ratchet and Clank anymore.

Well anyone who's played the R&C games can tell you that they add quite a bit of new, if not ridiculous content with every game.The first game had gameplay elements like hoverboard racing. The second introduced the ability to level up weapons, space ship combat, and the ability to purchase armor. The third combined all of the 2nd's elements, and mixed in missions and the Captain Quark mini games.

I am clearly skipping a lot of features that all of these games offer (like cystal collecting and playing as Clank, both big and giant), but then isn't it obvious that the R&C games have always featured a plethora of gameplay mechanics and is arguably the reason they are so fun to begin with? It seems all you wanted to do was shoot things, even though R&C as a franchise has offered so much more than that -- and is the reason for its previous positive feedback. And while you may not enjoy this variety, arn't you supposed to review a game based on what others will enjoy?

So Aaron, R&C ToD has everything BUT an "identity crysis", if anything it has lived up to what it has become known for.

And Aaron, sweetheart, why did you put a conclusion paragraph in the beggining of your review? And what's up with your word choice: "a very good game." I thought you were a journalist?

2nd paragraph:

"A good story would have been nice, but this sort of game is really all about gameplay, so it doesn't hurt too much that one of Tools of Destruction's weakest aspects is its story. You play as Ratchet, the last of the lombax, which are a race of catlike creatures. Apparently one living lombax is one too many for the game's villain, a feisty, diminutive, big-headed alien named Emperor Percival Tachyon. He has a bit of a Napoleonic complex, and his goal is to finish off the lombax once and for all, so of course you've got to deal with that. But that's not your only goal. Ratchet knows very little about his race, but he learns that the lombax have some sort of secret, so he makes it his mission to discover it. Clank, Ratchet's robot sidekick, has his own issues to deal with. He's been interacting with some cute little aliens called zoni that only he can see. Naturally, everyone thinks he's nuts every time he brings them up. The game's script is well written and the dialogue is quite funny, but the story is barely fleshed out enough to give you reason to go from one level to the next. It's not helped by a cliffhanger ending that does everything but plaster "Find out the exciting conclusion in the sequel!" across the screen."

"A good story would have been nice, but this sort of game is really all about gameplay, so it doesn't hurt too much that one of Tools of Destruction's weakest aspects is its story."

Again, word choice. You really like the word "good", and "nice" isn't much better. Now you say this game is all about the gameplay, however you clearly called the gameplay mechanics "diluted" in your previous paragraph.

You also changed from speaking in 2nd person to 3rd person. That's a No No.

As for the story, I honestly don't know what you were expecting. Again, you say this game suffers from an identity crysis, but R&C has never been a story orientated game. All of the stories have been downright silly and their stupidity is part of the game's humour. Not to mention, other reviewers claimed this story was the best in the series 0_o.

3rd paragraph:

"Thankfully there's some really good gameplay along the way. Like in the previous games, the action is viewed from a third-person perspective and is primarily a mix of platforming and shooting, with an emphasis on the shooting. One of the game's best aspects is the controls, which are simple and very responsive. You'll be jumping around and blowing bad guys away in a matter of seconds. As always, Ratchet has a large arsenal available to him, but he starts off with only a blaster, grenades, and his trusty wrench, the latter of which he uses to pummel foes. He'll have to purchase the good weapons and armor with the game's currency: bolts. These can be collected from fallen enemies or found by smashing crates. The weapons Ratchet can use are extremely varied: There are grenades, rockets, spikes, blasters, a whip, bouncing saw blades, and a whole lot more. The game does a nice job of encouraging you to use different armaments. Not only are certain weapons more useful against specific creatures, but as you use a weapon, its level will increase and it will get more powerful. You can also improve weapons' range, ammo-carrying capacity, rate of fire, and more by collecting crystals that some enemies drop."

This is arguably the most poorly wrriten part of the entire article. The amount of useless information in this paragraph makes up about 80% of the text.

"Thankfully there's some really good gameplay along the way." -- You just don't get it do you Aaron?

"Like in the previous games, the action is viewed from a third-person perspective" -- Useless info

You'll be jumping around and blowing bad guys away in a matter of seconds -- if you are trying to make yourself sound more amusing -- you fail miserably.

"...but he starts off with only a blaster, grenades, and his trusty wrench" -- Useless info

"He'll have to purchase the good weapons and armor with the game's currency: bolts." -- how exactly did you get your job here on GS Aaron? I know kids who are trick-or-treating right now that have better English skills than you.

"You can also improve weapons' range, ammo-carrying capacity, rate of fire, and more by collecting crystals that some enemies drop".

-- that concluding sentence made me gag. You are being way to wordy.

And again, Aaron, you change from 2nd person to 3rd person in your writing almost randomly.

4th paragraph:

"Ratchet also has a lot of gadgets at his disposal. These can be purchased from a vendor or found throughout the game in crates. He can release a swarm of nano bees that will attack anything that gets near; toss up a disco ball and blast his enemies as they dance; use a leech to steal their health; turn foes into penguins; and even break out a holographic pirate outfit for those occasions when he needs to be all piratelike. Switching from one weapon or item to another is done by pressing the triangle button and then selecting a different item from one of three screens. It's possible to fill all three screens, and the game lets you switch out items, but the mechanic for doing so is poorly implemented. Although the game does a good job of encouraging you to use different weapons, devices, and gadgets (there are over 30 total), you'll find that there are a handful that work extremely well (and some that are useless), so it's possible to get into a rut of using the same attack patterns over and over because they're so effective. This makes an already easy game even easier."

"Switching from one weapon or item to another is done by pressing the triangle button and then selecting a different item from one of three screens." -- useless info

"Although the game does a good job..". -- *sigh*

Not much else to say here, Aaron writes in a very dull matter-of-fact way, and I find his entire tone quite boring.

5th-6th paragraph:

"There's a lot more to Tools of Destruction than platform jumping and shooting--perhaps too much. There are so many different gameplay mechanics that you get the sense that the developer didn't say "no" to any idea that was presented during the design process. Some of these mechanics add to the experience, but others feel as if they're here just because they could be. On a few occasions, Ratchet will roll around in a gyroball similar to the Super Monkey Ball series. To open certain doors, he'll have to dress as a pirate and do a brief dancing minigame. There are two or three times when you'll have to jump into the water and swim through mine-laden tunnels to get somewhere. Sometimes Ratchet will hop on rails and grind his way across a level while jumping gaps, and dodging trains and missiles as he goes. Every now and then, when you're flying to another planet, you'll actually have to fly your spaceship and shoot down enemies in brief, not-all-that-fun on-rails Star Fox-like sequences.

All of this, and we haven't even gotten to the Sixaxis stuff yet. Early on in the game, Clank learns he can sprout wings, so there are a few times when you'll fly around levels while tilting the controller to steer. It's kind of fun, but ultimately pointless. Ratchet can also cut through some surfaces with a laser that you control by twisting the controller, and he can even hack security systems with motion controls by rolling a ball around and conducting electricity. Lest we forget, there are a few times when Clank goes solo. These situations are more puzzle- and platforming-oriented than Ratchet's, and you'll have to use the zoni aliens to help repair items and manipulate bridges. They say variety is the spice of life, but there's such a thing as too much spice."

This is where Aaron really confused me.

He lists several examples of different gameplay instances during the game. However, he claimed earlier that R&C had an identity, that it supposedly lost because of this installment.

Can anyone who's played R&C games, hoenstly say, that none of the things he listed sound remotley like a R&C game?

Everything he stated is what makes R&C...--R&C!! The clank sequences, the new security bypass gameplay, the flying, the spaceships, the mini games, the rails, fooling around with guards -- most of it has been done in previous R&C games and the new additions are only appropiate and expected.

So Aaron, your going to sit there and tell me honestly that you've played previous R&C games and find this game as an identity crysis for the series? And do so by repeating the word"good", using words like "stuff", and phrases like,"kind of fun" -- all in the syntax structure of a Honor's English Freshman highschool student?

I'll dismiss the next few paragraphs because they basically cover graphics, sound and enviroments in the usual Aaron dribble. Not to mention I'm getting kind of tired of writing this.

So let's look at the conclusion:

"Try as it might, Tools of Destruction doesn't achieve the same level of greatness as its predecessors. It's too easy, the story falls flat, and the "throw everything in including the kitchen sink" ****of gameplay takes too much of the focus off the tight platforming and fun combat. That said, the gorgeous visuals and generally fun gameplay are enough to make Tools of Destruction worthwhile for the series' fans and newcomers alike."

A.) All Ratchet games were easy. It's the amount of things you could do in the game that made it so fun

B.) You said the story didn't matter in a game like this, yet you include it as a main point to bring it down in the conclusion?

C.) You say it doesn't live up to its predecessor's name, when it did exactly what made its predecessors successful 0_o.

D.) You say all of this as if your going to give this game a 2.0/10, but you throw in that last sentence because you think the game is "generally fun."

Oh, and Aaron, your review score disagrees with nearly all other professional media outlets by a whole 20%.

Koalakommander

^^^

LOL MeGa QuOtE

People are aloud to have their own opinions,if you don't like it you should move to China or somethingblacktorn

NO.

If you don't agree with the masses, you will be punished.

Thank you, TC, for doing the legwork in analyzing this guy's shoddy writing and quality. Unfortunately, you picked the wrong review and the wrong forum to post this analysis, but at least it guarantees you a lot of comments.

To everybody else, I don't think the TC even mentioned the score in his analysis, and the "7.5" and "get over it" posts really point to the broken system where so-called "readers" gloss over the material and focus on the one thing they can use for comparison, the score. Gaming journalism is pretty crappy in general, but this one is even more offensive than most; it's inconsistent, barely a summary of the game's features with one-line opinions, worded poorly (you really don't need a dictionary or thesaurus to use terms beyond "good" and "stuff"), and sadly passed by the rigorious editing standards obviously set here at Gamespot. It's appealing no matter which game on which system it was written for.

And sadly, until readers start taking this stuff seriously and demand review systems be changed for the better, in-depth analyses like this one will remain ignored or mocked.

this reminds me of the sheep when the Twilight Princess flopped...

Get over it. It flopped on Gamespot, sure ppl on the internets will say LOL FLOP vut that wont stop you from enjoying the game

[QUOTE="flintgijoe"]

I'm going to dissect Koalakommander's above post.

Why I am doing this: I like doing this. I really like posting in forums, and posting in general. I really don't like seeing crappy posts. I dream of being a professional poster one day so I'll start by criticising posts on an Internet forum. I also like color.

Don't think: That I am just doing this because I think that this kind of posting takes things out of context and generally fails to keep in line with the original text's meaning. No, why would i think something like that? This is clearly the only way to analyze a post effectively. I also clearly don't think that this kind of over-analysis is pointless and should be done away with.

Ok, here we go.

"The ..."What the Hell? Who start a post with "The"? Can you say overused? Seriously. "The" is like for first graders. I mean what? Who can understand what the heck is trying to be said here. Totally useless information.

"...first sentence...''OK. You lost everyone. Sentence? As in prison sentence? And why first? Are you implying that we are all noobs of some sort? Grow up man. Oh yeah, useless information.

"...buddy..."So now you are coming on to him? Are you like a stalker? OMG court order NOW. Seriosly, how can you say something as baseless as that... OMG. Wait, who is that knocking at the door, ohh yeah... Mr. USELESS INFORMATION.

","Useless.

"The..."Useless.

"...first..."Useless.

"...sentence."Useless. And dude, you are repeating yourself. That is a No-No.

nintendoman562

this post made me lol.

Still, instead of just posting that, I guess it is more fun to do it in an interesting way. I hope my point wasn't lost.

Thank you, TC, for doing the legwork in analyzing this guy's shoddy writing and quality. Unfortunately, you picked the wrong review and the wrong forum to post this analysis, but at least it guarantees you a lot of comments.

To everybody else, I don't think the TC even mentioned the score in his analysis, and the "7.5" and "get over it" posts really point to the broken system where so-called "readers" gloss over the material and focus on the one thing they can use for comparison, the score.

Datheron

I'm surprised. You actually think this is not about the score? You think this has anything to do with Aaron and his editor's writing ability? I know the thred creator insists that this is an exercise of journalistic integrety fueled by his love of the purity of the art form of reveiwing video games.

That isn't what the post is about.

Wow, lot's of work. I read that whole thing. So I will pat you on the back for sitting there typing that up.

But I got tons of issues with your points.

1.)Gaming review outlets.. no one really cares, it's just to give everyone a rough idea of how the game was for THEM.

2.)You have no idea what 2nd and 3rd person are.

3.)His writing might not be the best, but that has nothing to do with the score. If you define the difference between good and nice again I will flop right here.

4.)There is no useless information there. Some people have not played a Ratchet game before. So, he nicely lays out the information for everyone of what the game encompasses. So, that information... not useless.

5.)Gamespot's new review system leaves a lotto the imagination. A 7.5 here, may be a 7.9 somewhere else. And a 7 review score is still considered good.

6.)Are you that supportive of a game or console that you need to do this? I mean, a lot of us were choked at the reviews for Zelda: Twilight Princess and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption. Which, on other sites, were a lot higher compared to GS (e.g full points or half points on other sites.) But, none of us cared and still got those games anyways.

It's admirable that you support a game so much, but I mean you like the game... write a review, put it in your sig, and maybe even make a topic in the PS3 forum. Otherwise, Aaron's grammar really is not a reason to bash his review.

Wow, lot's of work. I read that whole thing. So I will pat you on the back for sitting there typing that up.

But I got tons of issues with your points.

1.)Gaming review outlets.. no one really cares, it's just to give everyone a rough idea of how the game was for THEM.

2.)You have no idea what 2nd and 3rd person are.

3.)His writing might not be the best, but that has nothing to do with the score. If you define the difference between good and nice again I will flop right here.

4.)There is no useless information there. Some people have not played a Ratchet game before. So, he nicely lays out the information for everyone of what the game encompasses. So, that information... not useless.

5.)Gamespot's new review system leaves a lotto the imagination. A 7.5 here, may be a 7.9 somewhere else. And a 7 review score is still considered good.

6.)Are you that supportive of a game or console that you need to do this? I mean, a lot of us were choked at the reviews for Zelda: Twilight Princess and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption. Which, on other sites, were a lot higher compared to GS (e.g full points or half points on other sites.) But, none of us cared and still got those games anyways.

It's admirable that you support a game so much, but I mean you like the game... write a review, put it in your sig, and maybe even make a topic in the PS3 forum. Otherwise, Aaron's grammar really is not a reason to bash his review.

sonic_spark

Translation

:cry:

[QUOTE="Datheron"]

Thank you, TC, for doing the legwork in analyzing this guy's shoddy writing and quality. Unfortunately, you picked the wrong review and the wrong forum to post this analysis, but at least it guarantees you a lot of comments.

To everybody else, I don't think the TC even mentioned the score in his analysis, and the "7.5" and "get over it" posts really point to the broken system where so-called "readers" gloss over the material and focus on the one thing they can use for comparison, the score.

flintgijoe

I'm surprised. You actually think this is not about the score? You think this has anything to do with Aaron and his editor's writing ability? I know the thred creator insists that this is an exercise of journalistic integrety fueled by his love of the purity of the art form of reveiwing video games.

That isn't what the post is about.

Well, this is what pretty much fanboy on this post and the majority of posters want to turn it into - just about the score. How many people actually care to read reviews beyond saying "lol game flopped" and "overrated"? It kind of illustrates my point when the opening post, mentioning nothing about the score, is shoehorned time and time again back into looking back at a lifeless numeric value when the accompanying text is equally bad if not worse.

You don't see people complaining and dissecting Yahtzee's video reviews (e.g., trashing of Halo 3) because they're well written. Just because this piece of journalism has a giant red target ripe for bashing doesn't mean there aren't other things wrong with it.

Its been nearly two weeks,

Is PS3 in such a sad state that this is all I will hear about till Christmas?

Its one review, who cares?

Dogpile on Aaron Thomas! Sheesh, I hope he doesn't take all this negativity seriously. I am not a fan, but then again, there are few reviewers I like.

Boy, I sure miss Greg Kasavin. Remember him? He was my all time favorite.

Wow. Words cannot describe how amazed I am at the mental state of Cow Nation. "It is not about the score, it is about Thomas not being a good writer and not making sense. It is just poorly written." This is about the millionth threat of indignity about the score from fans of this franchise and console. I am amazed.

But I also feel I need to help you Cows out. Read the review guidelines. Every review is carefully handed out to the person in the best position on staff to assess the game. Every review goes through an editorial review process with other editors. Everyone on the site knew this was a big game so I am positive this score was run by others. This review is the product of a writer but signed off on by the editors of the site from the very beginning when they chose Aaron to the end when they approved it for posting.

So please, Cow Nation, quit picking on poor Aaron Thomas. He is just the dupe, the front man for a much larger conspiracy to attack your poor console and its games. They don't hate Sony really. They just hate YOU. They can hear you through your fillings in your teeth and watch you through the TV when you play Lair all night. They hate you and are out to get you, Cows. I understand wearing aluminum foil hats helps keep out the mind rays that Gerstman is directing at you through the computer as directed by Bill Gates. Save yourselves, before it is too late.

You criticize Aaron for using words like good and nice, yet you fail to realize that in journalism, in the US at least, you are taught to write mainstream pieces (such as reviews, newspapers, mainstream mag articles) at a 3rd to 5th grade level so as to appeal to the majority.

You criticize Aaron for using words like good and nice, yet you fail to realize that in journalism, in the US at least, you are taught to write mainstream pieces (such as reviews, newspapers, mainstream mag articles) at a 3rd to 5th grade level so as to appeal to the majority.

SpruceCaboose

I certainly hope you moved beyond "nice" and "stuff" by 5th grade, otherwise our education system is even more worthless than the little credit I've been giving it.

But I also feel I need to help you Cows out. Read the review guidelines. Every review is carefully handed out to the person in the best position on staff to assess the game. Every review goes through an editorial review process with other editors. Everyone on the site knew this was a big game so I am positive this score was run by others. This review is the product of a writer but signed off on by the editors of the site from the very beginning when they chose Aaron to the end when they approved it for posting.SergeStorms

Well, the main problem is that this piece, along with a bunch of other pieces on this site, don't seem to follow those guidelines at all and nobody here cares about them either. They picked someone who doesn't review games of the genre to write on this game, does so with poor writing and gives it the totality of one page (for "a big game", that's quite a shame), seems to get a rubber-stamped approval from the editor (complete with choice adjectives like "good"), and slaps on a score that's in no way indicative of the written review or of the score guidelines (e.g., comparing it to other games of its own genre on its own platform).

So yea, had they chose to follow their own guidelines and had other SW fanboys chose to respect them ("omg, PDZ>>>>R&C") then your point would stand.

I haven't seen damage control this much since Bill Clinton after he got some Lewinsky back in the 90's..

It depends on what you mean by the word "flop". :lol: