By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
MDMAlliance on 29 April 2014
Edit Thread
oniyide said:
MDMAlliance said:
oniyide said:

this, they dont seem bias or less so than anyone else. Nothing on the chart was really shocking


Jim Sterling (used to be at Destructoid) definitely gave really low scores.  Kid Icarus: Uprising and Mario Kart 7 from Destructoid are his reviews.  They are much lower than just 10 points lower than the average.  

If I didn't already know about that, I would say that those scores are surprising, especially since the reason MK7 got a 5 from Jim is because he thinks the formula didn't change much (as if it ever had with any of the other Mario Kart games).  The reason KI: U got a 5 from Jim is because he didn't like the controls, therefore it's suddenly a bad game.

In my opinion, this just shows how bad ratings are in general, but Jim Sterlings reviews are definitely outliers.


Ok and...? Jim Sterling doesnt have a Ninty bias. He likes that company. Maybe score wise you can argue that they are too low. But IMHO his is dead on about the actually words. MK7 didnt change the formula too much. THat wasnt a lie. KI U IMO had crap controls so i agree with him there. Wasnt a lie. So where is the bias?


Let me say one thing first... I didn't use the word bias anywhere in my post. 
What I'm saying is that kart racers (especially Mario Kart) follows a rather strict formula, because it's not exactly the same kind of racer as Need For Speed.  Jim Sterlings review of the game is as vague as ever when he complains about the formula and why he thinks it's so bad.  He tries to cover it up saying he doesn't think changing is always necessary, but it also seems like he doesn't even understand the game either.  In fact, I don't exactly get why they let him review it if he in general doesn't even like these games (kart racers).

As for KI: U, it is pretty obvious how melodramatic his review of the game is.  Even all of those things considered, it doesn't make sense to give the game a 5/10.  The only review that appears lower than that on Metacritic isn't even on a numerical scale and was removed even (most likely due to how poorly the review was).  

I wasn't saying Jim was lying, I am saying his scoring is quite obviously outliers in the grand scheme of things.  The controls were not as bad as he makes them out to be, and he assumes he has a higher understanding of something he clearly does not have.  Then, he goes on to count the negative points as if they are the most fundamental part of the scoring for the game.  That was my problem with Jim.  If he gave the games 7/10's, that would make more sense given the descriptions he came up for each rating.