Your review is a little forced in spots, Jim

[Super_Boom]

pokoko said:

In a nutshell, Sterling doesn't analyse the data and subtract the cons from the pros in order to get his scores.  He just marks down a number that represents how much he liked the game.  I can understand the argument that such a method doesn't fit with Metacritic but the idea that he's "wrong" about how much he enjoyed his time playing is absurd.  

Yeah, that's been takeaway so far. Personally, I didn't really care about the score much..but looking at some of his other scores, he just comes across as any other gamer on the internet. I don't care how much he personally likes the Warriors series, I just can't imagine anyone can objectively find a port of Hyrule Warriors as being better than Breath of the Wild. Subjetive opinions are fine...I know I have mine. I'd probably rate the worst Fire Emblem higher than anything in the Uncharted franchise. At the same time though...I would never want my opinion on Metacritic, because I don't think I'd be able to defend my reviews objectively. Which is how I feel when I look at this individual's reviews. The review is only trustworthy if you have the same exact same tastes as that reviewer.

Now...the counter-argument to that is that is that's plenty of reverse going on as well...which I can't speak to. Just looking at Jim Sterling alone though, I don't see a reason to hold his review in very high regard.