sc94597 said:
| Nem said:
So, presented with evidence you attack the one presenting you the evidence? For shame!
Also, he didnt say it was the zelda fans that bombed Horizon's score. But that there were more that did it than the other way around.
See, thing about Jim is, he isn't attacking the game. He is attacking the fans (who attacked him first). And i applaud him for that. These reactions are shameful and we should be above them.
|
When presented with cherry-picked "evidence", certainly. Notice how he has to categorize the reviews by their score, as if a 0 is any worse than a 1 when neither reviewer played the game. Furthermore, he makes the assumption that none of the people who voted a zero for BoTW and did not vote anything for Horizon are Horizon (or Sony fans.) A positive review entails more work than a negative review, because you are actually reviewing the game and not pretending to. For most of the voters, the 0 for BOTW is their only review, likely newly created accounts for that sole purpose. You also can find plenty of people who gave 10's to Nioh, Bloodborne, Demon's Souls, etc are the ones doing the 0's in BoTW comments, and since you can't see all of their reviews/ratings on their page (only the most recently voted high one) , you don't know if they also voted 10 for Horizon or not.
"There were more that did it than the other way around." How can he make that conclusion from his cherry-picked examples? Here are a dozen links, including many Jim somehow skimmed over in his "investigation." And there are also the points I brought up about not all reviews are shown on a profile, yet they still affect the score. There are >7000 BOTW user reviews, but only a hundred or so show up on the Metacritic page.
http://www.metacritic.com/user/Caramelo
http://www.metacritic.com/user/skilly225
http://www.metacritic.com/user/Ytrerio
http://www.metacritic.com/user/Hunter2020
http://www.metacritic.com/user/Lampiaobr
http://www.metacritic.com/user/AmazedBunion
http://www.metacritic.com/user/GamingTV
http://www.metacritic.com/user/Kayno1 (Reviewed Mar 4th)
http://www.metacritic.com/user/Razv (Reviewed Mar 3rd)
http://www.metacritic.com/user/GK0
http://www.metacritic.com/user/Inanis
http://www.metacritic.com/user/Juhiz
Three of the links in Jim's article for Nintendo fans either have no reviews or there is no account, so he even inflated his "evidence" with false examples, but I am sure you didn't check that.
http://www.metacritic.com/user/JimmyRustle22
http://www.metacritic.com/user/ivand88
http://www.metacritic.com/user/skysayrain
What is "for shame" is that you didn't look into it yourself.
|
Alkibiádēs said:
sc94597 said:
When presented with cherry-picked "evidence", certainly. Notice how he has to categorize the reviews by their score, as if a 0 is any worse than a 1 when neither reviewer played the game. Furthermore, he makes the assumption that none of the people who voted a zero for BoTW and did not vote anything for Horizon are Horizon (or Sony fans.) A positive review entails more work than a negative review, because you are actually reviewing the game and not pretending to. For most of the voters, the 0 for BOTW is their only review, likely newly created accounts for that sole purpose. You also can find plenty of people who gave 10's to Nioh, Bloodborne, Demon's Souls, etc are the ones doing the 0's in BoTW comments, and since you can't see all of their reviews on their page (only the most recently voted high one) , you don't know if they also voted 10 for Horizon or not.
"There were more that did it than the other way around." How can he make that conclusion from his cherry-picked examples? Here are a dozen links, including many Jim somehow skimmed over in his "investigation." And there are also the points I brought up about not all reviews are shown on a profile, yet they still affect the score. There are >7000 BOTW user reviews, but only a hundred or so show up on the Metacritic page.
http://www.metacritic.com/user/Caramelo
http://www.metacritic.com/user/skilly225
http://www.metacritic.com/user/Ytrerio
http://www.metacritic.com/user/Hunter2020
http://www.metacritic.com/user/Lampiaobr
http://www.metacritic.com/user/AmazedBunion
http://www.metacritic.com/user/GamingTV
http://www.metacritic.com/user/Kayno1 (Reviewed Mar 4th)
http://www.metacritic.com/user/Razv (Reviewed Mar 3rd)
http://www.metacritic.com/user/GK0
http://www.metacritic.com/user/Inanis
http://www.metacritic.com/user/Juhiz
Three of the links in Jim's article for Nintendo fans either have no reviews or there is no account, so he even inflated his "evidence" with false examples, but I am sure you didn't check that.
http://www.metacritic.com/user/JimmyRustle22
http://www.metacritic.com/user/ivand88
http://www.metacritic.com/user/skysayrain
What is "for shame" is that you didn't look into it yourself.
|
Lol, Jim just got exposed as a desperate fraud.
|
Are you guys for real? Jim isn't at fault here, it's the Nintendo fans who Ddos'd his site just for a fucking 7/10. Of course he will try and make the butthurt people even more salty now, that's what he does and always did. He also did Uncharted 4, but that fanbase wasn't childish enough to ddos his site. Nintendo isn't a special company that needs protection from da evil Jim Sterling.
And those reviews were absolutely fucking real, I read the article a few hours after it got up and these users
http://www.metacritic.com/user/JimmyRustle22
http://www.metacritic.com/user/ivand88
http://www.metacritic.com/user/skysayrain
all had reviews in them. Also lol at you for including users who give Zeruda a 7/10, only further proving Jim's point.
And yeah he's right when he says Zeruda fans are targeting Horizon. With posts like these what do you expect
To sum up:
-Jim has every right to give it a 7/10
-You need to respect his score and opinion, he thinks it's a good game but not perfect
-You have no right to ddos people for their opinion and for bringing da 98 to a 97, holy shit
