Hey theprof00, So I reread the interview for you, as promised, and looked for where he mentioned evolution and stagnance without specifying in what way. I found them in the intro and summary. The mentions of lack of evolution I marked with arrows, the mention of physics I marked in italics:
In the review's Intro:
|
Twisted Metal Review: After a long sabbatical, one of Sony’s most nostalgic franchises is back. Twisted Metal will be instantly familiar to the legion of gamers who spent hours orchestrating vehicular mayhem on their PSOnes. -> As it turns out, after so many years, very little has changed. Twisted Metal is a game that unabashedly services those old school gamers with its retro, arcade action, -> but it also unintentionally proves just how far action games in general and driving games in specific have come." |
In the review's summary:
|
A 1990’s Heavy Metal Party
Twisted Metal is a hard sell for those in search of a well-rounded driving game. -> The game play and physics feel almost as if they were ripped from the original PSOne game, and the genre has come a long way since then. While the single-player game is weak, the multiplayer is mostly fun and creative. ->It’s disappointing that after such a long wait, the game didn’t evolve more, but fans of the original are certain to enjoy this blast from the past."
|
How I see it:
I finally understand why a fan would be upset. A critique for a fan of a game is taken like a stab. A stab is a surged feeling/emotion. Suddenly, the stab is understood out of context from the whole of the review. Looking at it from my end, since I'm not a fan, I was able to read it as part of the whole article, in which he explains where the game lacked evolution, namely, the department of driving physics.
Having said that, if I were him:
After going through this, my recommendation would be to qualify the stabs with precision, so as to avoid confusing readers, in particular fans. Even though the blanket statements were used in the more generalizing summary and intro (as is their purpose), it would not have rendered the review so much more verbose with a qualifier or two.
Bottom line:
Even though I agree with the reviewer's POV, I now agree that his writing skills lack tact, and understand why fans would be upset. Their reaction in the comments section is not what I expect from the community. My hope is that some within the better communities can explain tactfully exactly what part or wording of the review they disagreed with, providing proactive and constructive criticism.
Addendum (added by edit):
I also notice he bundled gameplay with physics in some of the remarks, and that is conflicting with the rest of his review. You were right on that point.
I'm glad I went through this exercise.
