rocketpig said:
It amazes me that people will accuse Jim Sterling of having an agenda when he gives a high-profile big-budget game a 4/10 and states his opinion bluntly in his review but all those reviewers who sugar-coat FFXIII and automatically reward every high-profile game with an 8.5 or higher have no agenda whatsoever.
Yeah, that TOTALLY makes sense.
Some of you need to stop confusing "I don't like this guy's opinion" (which is totally valid) with "he's not an honest journalist". If anything, we should RESPECT the guys like Sterling and Edge for blasting big-budget games despite the prospect of losing advertising revenue and severing relationships, not taking them to task for punishing a game they didn't like. In the game review world, THESE ARE THE GOOD GUYS. Stop cheering for the black hats.
Gamers really need to grow up. Check out reviews on some past Oscar nominees. Their scores usually vary anywhere from 50-95% on Metacritic, yet no one in the movie business gives a damn because they understand that not everyone else is going to like what they like.
Shit, Inglourious Basterds Metacriticed at 68 and was nominated for Best Picture. It received a 38 from one reviewer and 7 (!) scores of 50.
Really, grow up, people.
|
This is all well and good, but in this same thread you said people shouldn't bring up Sterling's review of Deadly Premonition and lamented how people don't get sarcasm. So basically Sterling made an entire review just to be sarcastic, gave it a 10 it didn't deserve to continue with the hoax, and he's one of the good guys? To me that cements the idea that he's one reviewer that should never be listened to.
