By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Torillian on 18 March 2010
Edit Thread
rocketpig said:
Torillian said:
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.

He rated what has been widely regarded as an epicly bad game with an ironic score. I don't see how that relates whatsoever on his ability to write a legitimate review of a game he isn't mocking tongue-in-cheek. I'm sorry but that's a pretty weak leg to stand on if you have to start defending an opinion based on comparing it to his Deadly Premonition review, which was riddled with sarcasm so thick it was almost impossible to miss.

Would you look down on Ebert's review and discount his ability to convey his thoughts about a movie if he wrote a sarcastic review of a Troma film and gave it six out of five stars? That's basically what you're saying here.

So he put up a joke review on his site, without any indication that the review should not be taken seriously and allowing it to go up on all of the aggregate sites.  How do you know which reviews of his are a joke and which aren't?  You're just going to assume this one is serious, I mean here he has given what is widely regarded as a good game an epically bad score.  Sounds pretty similar to the case with Deadly Premonition, so what makes you think this review is meant to be taken seriously?



...