3D Mario games tend to avoid getting low scores though from much of anyone. Of the 4 true 3D Mario games, Sunshine is the only with scores below 90. A 3D Mario game is probably the only real possibility for a 98 in this day and age. 

With the amount of attention you can garner on the internet with controversy I'd say we'll never see a 98 in this day and age.

Also wouldn't rule out Jim Sterling walking back his 'over reviews' skit just to swoop in with a 5/10 after a few days.

And I honestly don't put as much blame on the certain reviewers as I do on Metacritic, who don't do a good enough job vetting the publications they allow to have official scores on their site. There needs to be a universal standard, considering how much importance people place on Metacritic nowadays.

At the very least, the reviewer should be capable of getting past the tutorial.

(I know this discussion is about Jim Sterling and other publications like that one that gave BOTW a 5/10, but I extended this comment to bigger sites like IGN as well)

Lol, all these people acting like review publications can only give a game a lower score than the norm for the sake of controversy ...

Wow. People want outlets like IGN to have actual criticism for games like Call of Duty but then don't want unique opinions to be shared or criticism to be given to games that "deserve" the high score people expect. The definition of confirmation bias.

As bad as IGN, other outlets and at times Jim Sterling can be, to expect game reviews to fundamentally echo similar opinions is asking nothing but for your ideals to be reverberated over and over again. The first step to expecting more out of shitty publications is giving them some liberty and allowing them to exercise their potential by tackling games that are harder to critique. If controversial shithead reviewer #2307 gives Mario a 7/10, I'm going to hear him out and say if his arguments are valid or not. Perhaps the best example is IGN's surprisingly great review for Uncharted : The Lost Legacy, in which the response was basically "but but butttttttttt Call of Duty!" - nevermind the fact that people have biases, objectivity doesn't exist, and a majority of commentors probably don't even know if the reviewer ever reviewed a Call of Duty game(He didn't, he never has. yeah yeah Dunkey's video).

Sorry but I like my reviews to be unique and not just chamber pop.

You know, as much as I disliked Jim's Zelda review, this idea he critic bombs popular games is just dumb so drop that narrative.  There's just no basis for it.  He didn't enjoy Zelda as much, he wrote a poorly written review, move on.  He gave Mario Kart 8 Deluxe a 9, Hyrule Warriors a 9 (and Legends a 9.5), Xenoblade Chronicles X a 9, Smash Bros 9.5.  And I'm only focusing on Nintdndo cause that's where people seem to think he fixates. His exit was distasteful and unprofessional but this vendetta/clickbait/reviewbomb narrative is bogus. 

Few sites just lie, the day's traffic isn't worth the damage.  Some do though, I've seen it.

And when they do, by all means put all the blame on them.  Metacritic should filter, but dishonest publications should fold.

^^^

My main problem with Jim and why I think he shouldn't have an official score on Metacritic, is because he holds to the ideal that reviews should be based around people's personal opinion, whereas I feel it is the job of a reviewer to give as close to an objective view as possible.

When people are dropping the scores of certain games just cause they had a personal grievance of a particular mechanic, it doesn't give an objective view of the game because most people are unlikely to share that opinion. So when reviewers are just allowed to base everything around their own personal ideals of what they want in the title, the majority or readers probably aren't going to get an objective perspective of what the game will actually offer them. And so what the hell is the point of even having the reviews?

If they want to write their own opinion articles over which games they personally favour, then they can do that in a different and space and I would have no problem with it. But when it comes to reviews there should be a certain standard of professionalism.

There is no objectivity. Objectivity is just a way of saying "Many people love this game critically, and I believe this, so this is the merit at which I judge reviews". The irony is that if you yourself believed BOTW was a 5, you'd probably be here saying that people weren't being objective enough.

I myself think it's close to a 9/10, so it's not like I'm coming from a place of agreeing with Jim. I just can't stand people that fundamentally want to lesser reviews because they don't like the opinion expressed. No, Jim doesn't need to make it an "article", he can make it a review, because it is a review. The problem with reviews is the writing quality, not the opinion expressed.

At the time Jim Sterling gave his BOTW review no one else had even given a review lower than 90. The only reason he thought it was ok to give an outlier score of 70(a whole 20 points less than anyone), is because his ego is out of control. Seeing the rest of the scores should have at least given him pause for thought, and maybe a chance to re-evaluate how objective he was actually being.

Whether he conciously believed he was giving the game a score he felt it deserved based on his opinion or not, there is no standard of professionalism to his work. It's all just about him.

No one can be perfectly objective, that's obvious, but it is their job to try and be as close as possible. For Jim to be that far off the mark from everyone else, it should be pretty obvious what he's doing.

None of this matters though because there isn't an objective merit ...

There is the concept of objectivity, and striving for that is fine, but ultimately what makes a good review is how compelling your arguments are. Is arguments weren't the most compelling, so he got shit. He should get shit for his arguments, not for a lack of objectivity.

See, here I disagree.  Perfect objectivity is impossible.  But having a good bit of analytical distance is not.

Example:  I love Mount and Blade.  Poured hundreds of hours into it, recommended it to a lot of people.  But I'll tell you now, anyone who gave it a fraction over 7 is out of their mind.  Because even though I love it, I have the distance to be able to pick it apart and enumerate and explain his flaws.  You can love something and still be analytical and express that analysis with a *degree* objectivity.

I don't dislike Jim's review cause of his opinions or tone.  I dislike it because he failed to do the above.  

This all takes us to the concept of opinion quality: some opinions can stand stronger than others cause you can make a better case for them.  The opinion of "world politics is highly complex and there is no easy resolution for world peace to be found in liberal or conservative politicy" has far more value than "if everyone could just have 3 pieces of chocolate  day, the whole world could be friends!"  Because the former has logical foundations and you can make a compelling case for it while the latter is silly nonsense.

A reviewer's statements should be made on sure footing and they should be able to make a compelling case for where they stand.  If they are too close to the subject matter, too entrenched in their own tastes to do that, there's a problem.