• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Tom Chick's (Quarter to Three) Top 10 Lists for 2016

Gurnlei

Member
A lot of his opinions are pretty much contradictions of mine - only one game from his top list (XCOM) would even come close to placing for me. Might have to read some of his reviews to see just what he likes in games.
 
Civ VI is decent if you use mods but you can't really grade a game based on the community fixing the game.

This is for multiplayer, the ai is useless in this game except for barbarians. They don't care about losing units unlike the civs. This makes them not useless.
 

StereoVsn

Gold Member
Civ VI is decent if you use mods but you can't really grade a game based on the community fixing the game.

This is for multiplayer, the ai is useless in this game except for barbarians. They don't care about losing units unlike the civs. This makes them not useless.
I thought Civ VI was very well received? Or is this the case for SP being alright but MO sucking?
 

coopolon

Member
I thought Civ VI was very well received? Or is this the case for SP being alright but MO sucking?

I've not played civ vi so can't speak about it nor have I read any reviews. But it's very typical for big name strategy games to wow the generalist enthusiast press while falling very flat with those who focus primarily on strategy games. The two groups are looking for very different things.
 
I should finish Quadrilateral Cowboy, but it didn't grab me so much when I first played it. I've played a couple hours of Oxenfree, and so far really loving the conversation/interrupt system, writing, radio, mystery, and voice acting.
 

Bronetta

Ask me about the moon landing or the temperature at which jet fuel burns. You may be surprised at what you learn.
Youre damn well right Blizzard does things better than anyone else.

They didnt invent RTS but became the kings of it

They didnt invent ARPGs but became the kings of it (with Diablo 2 that is)

They didnt invent MMOs but became the kings of it

They didnt invent card games but became the kings of it

They didnt invent hero shooters but became the kings of it

Blizzard stays slaying.
 
T
Maybe it only extends to games they developed, since Offworld Trading Company was published by Stardock.

Ah. I should admit I am an infrequent Quarter to Three reader (only check in when a big strategy game comes out), so I was unaware of his relationship with Stardock and actually don't know how he plays it on the site.

I thought Civ VI was very well received? Or is this the case for SP being alright but MO sucking?

Civ 6 did well with press and early adopters for several reasons. First, and perhaps most obviously, it's still a Civ game, so underneath all the controversial points it's got a super--addictive design that appeals to a broad sweep of players. Second, unlike Civ 5, it did not remove a bunch of popular features from the previous game. Third, the big new features--unpacked cities, splitting the tech tree, policy cards--either work or at least don't obviously ruin the game. So it was pretty well set up for a positive initial reception. Negative opinions were more likely to emerge once everyone had played a half-dozen games and really developed a feel for what systems were broken and how much it affected their enjoyment game-to-game.* But I don't think the consensus now is against the game or anything like that. People mostly seem pleased, hopeful that DLC will address big, systemic issues as it has with previous Civs.

And there were always going to be grumblers like Tom (and I) who hated a lot of Civ 5's mechanics and resent Civ 6 for retaining too many of them.
 

Johndoey

Banned
Don't really agree with too much of this, but his opinions are interesting. Also Oxenfree is fantastic, it makes a serious effort to have naturalistic flowing conversations between characters and I love it for that.
 
was considered a very good rts at the time, and nothing more. Do keep in mind that myth II: soulblighter came out in that very same year.

fwiw, you'd have a better argument with brood war. And even then, compared to what bungie was putting out... blizz was simply not up to the task.

Now, if the argument were "which made the most dosh"? sure. blizz. no question about it.

i mean, i feel that when people say that blizz did great at RTS's, it is with that image that "oh, it was mad popular in korea, so it mustve been big here too" and.. it wasn't. Partially because, back then, the RTS scene was absurdly competitive Like, seriously.. You have Total Annihilation the year before, AoEII the year after. Homeworld shortly after that. Dune 2000, Tiberian Sun, Battlezone, all around that same period. There was never a period where one could point to blizzard's game and say "that there is the best god damn rts out there". Certainly not in the same way one could with D2. Starcraft's boom was quite delayed.

Heck, i'd readily say that wc3 is a better product.
 

Mutagenic

Permanent Junior Member
was considered a very good rts at the time, and nothing more. Do keep in mind that myth II: soulblighter came out in that very same year.

fwiw, you'd have a better argument with brood war. And even then, compared to what bungie was putting out... blizz was simply not up to the task.

Now, if the argument were "which made the most dosh"? sure. blizz. no question about it.

You're kidding me with this.
 

HK-47

Oh, bitch bitch bitch.
Youre damn well right Blizzard does things better than anyone else.

They didnt invent RTS but became the kings of it

They didnt invent ARPGs but became the kings of it (with Diablo 2 that is)

They didnt invent MMOs but became the kings of it

They didnt invent card games but became the kings of it

They didnt invent hero shooters but became the kings of it

Blizzard stays slaying.

I noticed you tiptoed around MOBAs lol.
 
I was laughing until I saw Civ 6, then I was like


tumblr_nins5yREAx1sgdbw4o1_500.gif
 

HK-47

Oh, bitch bitch bitch.
was considered a very good rts at the time, and nothing more. Do keep in mind that myth II: soulblighter came out in that very same year.

fwiw, you'd have a better argument with brood war. And even then, compared to what bungie was putting out... blizz was simply not up to the task.

Now, if the argument were "which made the most dosh"? sure. blizz. no question about it.

i mean, i feel that when people say that blizz did great at RTS's, it is with that image that "oh, it was mad popular in korea, so it mustve been big here too" and.. it wasn't. Partially because, back then, the RTS scene was absurdly competitive Like, seriously.. You have Total Annihilation the year before, AoEII the year after. Homeworld shortly after that. Dune 2000, Tiberian Sun, Battlezone, all around that same period. There was never a period where one could point to blizzard's game and say "that there is the best god damn rts out there". Starcraft's boom was quite delayed.

Heck, i'd readily say that wc3 is a better product.

Out of those games the only one that maintain its popularity as well is AoE II.
 
Out of those games the only one that maintain its popularity as well is AoE II.

evidently. And?

To speed up the argument: if your argument is that starcraft is king because it is popular, that would be a logical fallacy.

Id rather go by how much it impacted the industry it was a part of. Wow reshaped how mmos were made for years and years. Hearthstone provided a new model of CCG gaming. Diablo defined expectations for what a collectathon ARPG should be. Starcraft... had no such impact.
 

Maledict

Member
was considered a very good rts at the time, and nothing more. Do keep in mind that myth II: soulblighter came out in that very same year.

fwiw, you'd have a better argument with brood war. And even then, compared to what bungie was putting out... blizz was simply not up to the task.

Now, if the argument were "which made the most dosh"? sure. blizz. no question about it.

i mean, i feel that when people say that blizz did great at RTS's, it is with that image that "oh, it was mad popular in korea, so it mustve been big here too" and.. it wasn't. Partially because, back then, the RTS scene was absurdly competitive Like, seriously.. You have Total Annihilation the year before, AoEII the year after. Homeworld shortly after that. Dune 2000, Tiberian Sun, Battlezone, all around that same period. There was never a period where one could point to blizzard's game and say "that there is the best god damn rts out there". Certainly not in the same way one could with D2. Starcraft's boom was quite delayed.

Heck, i'd readily say that wc3 is a better product.

Yeah, sorry but no.

Starcraft was, from release, the strongest RTS there was. Sure, other games had their fans, but starcraft was so clearly ahead of the curve in so many, many ways.

1) It had an honest to go decent storyline, with varied missions and a cast people cared about.

2) Three totally asymmetrical races. Can't understate how big a thing that was at the time.

3) Easily the best online framework for games with battlenet.

Starcraft, and then Brood War, were undeniably the best RTs games made during the RTS heyday. I know that pisses a lot of people off, but the games durability, insane fanbase, massive steps forward for the genre and the fact it basically gave birth to modern esports are all huge things other games never offered.
 
Yeah, sorry but no.

Starcraft was, from release, the strongest RTS there was. Sure, other games had their fans, but starcraft was so clearly ahead of the curve in so many, many ways.

1) It had an honest to go decent storyline, with varied missions and a cast people cared about.

2) Three totally asymmetrical races. Can't understate how big a thing that was at the time.

3) Easily the best online framework for games with battlenet.

Starcraft, and then Brood War, were undeniably the best RTs games made during the RTS heyday. I know that pisses a lot of people off, but the games durability, insane fanbase, massive steps forward for the genre and the fact it basically gave birth to modern esports are all huge things other games never offered.
1. Command and Conquer, Dune II
2. Dune II (which came out in 92, mind). The idea that three-way asymmetry was something new in an rts in 98 is... interesting, i'll give you that.
3. Battle.net in 98 was many things, but the best online framework was not one of them.

Also, what steps forward?. What mechanics did it introduce that were widely adopted and emulated? (and by the gods, i hope you arent thinking of the zerg creep)

seriously, the clearest evidence that SC wasn't like the other blizzard hits is the fact that it wasn't massively copied. Every other blizzard hit certainly was. Starcraft wasn't. The groundwork was Dune 2, and it remained Dune 2.
 

CloudWolf

Member
His opinion about Stellaris is a bit harsh... that said, I agree that it's the most bland Paradox game right now.

If Civ 6 and stellaris are "casual", then what games aren't?

They are pretty casual. They are both entry-level games within their genres. Europa Universalis IV, Crusader Kings 2, Hearts of Iron, Endless Legend, Age of Wonders, etc. are all more complex and less 'casual' than Civ and Stellaris.
 
To speed up the argument: if your argument is that starcraft is king because it is popular, that would be a logical fallacy.

Why would that be a logical fallacy? This entire argument started with the claim that Blizzard didn't invent the RTS genre but became the king of it anyway. It's about Blizzard as refiners who made the games that reached the heights of popularity rather than about innovation.
 
Why would that be a logical fallacy? This entire argument started with the claim that Blizzard didn't invent the RTS genre but became the king of it anyway. It's about Blizzard as refiners who made the games that reached the heights of popularity rather than about innovation.

because that's what appeals to popularity are.

If your argument is that they refined the genre, please explain how. What were the improvements they introduced that were widely adopted? The mere fact that it (eventually) acquired a vast fanbase does not support that premisse.

That they made a very popular (or even *the* most popular) rts isn't being contested. What is being contested is that it had the same sort of impact in the industry as their other titles.
 

meerak

Member
Like most comedy this was about 30% funny to me, so, some laughs to be had in there. Not bad Tom!

Think some of these zingers just needed a little less text and a little more subtlety and the jokes would have landed better, just comes off across a little "my first funny list" in places; in others he sticks the landing real good. Maybe just bit off more than he could chew though? One less list and he could've polished up this set better I think.

Putting OTC maybe a bit of a no-no, being that he is close with the developer of that game, but I suppose this is like comedians getting away with racism?

Pretty bold making fun of that cancer game! :p
 

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
So where is his full opinion on FF15? I need to know the exact reasons why he didn't like it.
 
My thing with Tom Chick is that (to be frank) he has a huge conflict of interest which makes a lot of his commentary suspicious at best for strategy games, He is employed by Stardock, was credited in the GalCiv 2 manual and involved in Galciv3's development. He has a huge tendency (as you can see by these lists) to heavily, heavily criticise strategy games that compete with Stardock titles, whilst at the same time hugely underplaying the unmitigated piles of *crap* that Stardock has released over the last few years.

I mean, I fully get the criticism of Stellaris - look at the thread, you can see my own complaints there. But Galciv 3 was equally broken on release, with several non-working systems and an AI my cat could beat - and yet no mention in 2015. Equally, in 2015 he lists a bunch of "middling" minor RTS games in his "most disappointing games " list of the year, yet in 2016 the outright embarrassment that is Ashes of the Singularity doesn't get a mention.

When it comes to Stardock games, or games in competition with Stardock games, he seems to have a different set of standards.

He is not employed by Stardock.
 
Like most comedy this was about 30% funny to me, so, some laughs to be had in there. Not bad Tom!

Think some of these zingers just needed a little less text and a little more subtlety and the jokes would have landed better, just comes off across a little "my first funny list" in places; in others he sticks the landing real good. Maybe just bit off more than he could chew though? One less list and he could've polished up this set better I think.

Putting OTC maybe a bit of a no-no, being that he is close with the developer of that game, but I suppose this is like comedians getting away with racism?

Pretty bold making fun of that cancer game! :p

This post was bad comedy. Tom's lists are what they always are, his feelings on the games he played this year without any moronic plays at selecting the "objectively" best games of the year or influenced by ad dollars or community pressure. Disagree if you want, but the childish and dismissive attitudes towards his writing and picks is shameful. If his stuff is so "LOL obviously joke/clickbait" then it should be easy to refute and punch holes in it.

How you could read that as making fun of the "cancer" game is baffling. He clearly wasnt, and Chick having himself battled cancer in the past couple years would know first hand how tough a fight that is.
 

Miletius

Member
At the very least you can say his lists are comprehensive and highlight at least one or two games that people are unaware existed. Makes me interested to try Forced Showdown.

Grim Dawn being surprisingly good is also a good pick. Although I don't exactly agree with his reasoning, I do think that having a handcrafted world (or at least portions of it) does add something to GD that other hack & slashes miss lately. Now, if it could only stop taking itself so seriously it might actually be worth a second playthrough.
 

Gattsu25

Banned
Is this the Armond White of Video Games?

No. Tom Chick, unlike what I have seen from Mr. White, is able to write compelling reasons for why he feels the way he does about a game. It's why his reviews are always worth a read.

I don't agree with him at times but I always find his reasoning interesting.

Edit:

See this thread that someone linked is a perfect micro-example of what I mean:
Tom Chick said:
Scott L said:
the story doesn't sound like it's worth playing for, and I already don't like the look of combat, not for 30-50 hours at least. But it does seem like it will have enough enjoyable qualities I'm still planning on grabbing it 20% off with Prime
What's left after the story and the combat? The character development? There really isn't much and it certainly can't hold a candle to, say, the Obsidian stuff or even Bethesda games. The exploration? Hardly. This is a godawful example of an open world.

Given that story and combat are pretty much the two fundamental "verbs" an a computer RPG, I can't imagine why you'd pick one up if you were convinced those elements wouldn't appeal to you.

-Tom
You can see why he feels the way he does about the game and even if your opinion is at odds with his, his likes/dislikes are consistent and well reasoned. His full length reviews go into much more than this quick forum post, though.
 
Totally agree with him on Overwatch and Rise of the Tomb Raider.

Nice to know there is someone else out there who shares my unpopular opinion on those titles.
 
Totally agree with him on Overwatch and Rise of the Tomb Raider.

Nice to know there is someone else out there who shares my unpopular opinion on those titles.

They're not exactly unique feelings. Not liking a popular thing is anything but special on the internet, especially gaming forums. A quick search and you'll find the exact threads right here you're looking for if you're searching for like minded people.
 

Jimrpg

Member
He's right about stellaris. Though for different reasons to me. It's just not a very good strategy game. Full of micro management and standard 4X.
 
Top Bottom