| Ganoncrotch said:I'm not saying that he is wrong to criticize it, but I'm saying that the score was made not to review the game but instead to stir a reaction and ad revenue. |
I'm not in Jim's head so I can't definitively make this conclusion.
I do think reviewers do this sometimes though, because why wouldn't they?
Another positive review for a game a week after everyone else has already reviewed it won't drive as much traffic as a review that goes against the status quo.
Again, I have no idea if Jim did this or not, but it makes sense. You could say that it risks his credibility, but it doesn't really since
A.) The review is still generally positive
and
B.) I think people go to Jim for less for his critical eye and more for his firebrand personality and his hot takes. It's like calling Steven A. Smith out for having a bad sports opinion. It's not his job to predict the outcome of games or a player's career trajectory or provide in depth analysis. His job is to scream on TV and have wacky and exciting opinions.
There's no telling to what extent reviewers actually do this stuff, but I think it's helpful to try to read between the lines sometimes. A good example would be Arthur Gies's "non-review" of Star Fox Zero. Giving SFZ a low score probably doesn't drive traffic. Posting, "Star Fox Zero is not a good game, and I'm not going to play any more of it." does.
