By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What Exactly Is Jim Sterling Reviewing? Not Much Apparently

Oh no, a review on the internet I disagree with. A review process I disagree with. What's happened, where has it all gone wrong? Listen, these so called reviewers have agendas. They're not on the side of the consumer. Stop giving them a soapbox.



the2bears - the indie shmup blog
Around the Network
Euphoria14 said:
Garcian Smith said:
epicurean said:


Does that not make sense to anyone else?

He complained that the battles require some minimum amount of involvement, such that you can't just watch the game play itself for you. But only barely.

It's in the review. Read it.

Don't learn to set your paradigms correctly and when to switch during battles and you're toast.

The battle system gives you the option for auto-battle but it isn't necessary. You can play this game entirely manual if you wish.

FFXII was a game where you can sit back and watch it play for you but it didn't get criticism like this.

 

 

I also wonder why everyone says the story is hard to understand. I have no problems following it and I haven't touched the datalog.

I hear people complaining about that every single time FFXII is mentioned in a thread.


Infact... pulled from reviews...

 

The presentation, sound, and much of the story create a very lush, vibrant world that is waiting to be explored. However, the monotony of the battles, and how the story falls apart near the end make it more difficult to enjoy the game in the long run.

Despite the massive size of its world and seemingly endless optional content, Final Fantasy XII feels like an unfinished, conflicted game. In the end, Square Enix’s developers seem to have fallen into the same trap the game’s waiting fans did - while the overall scope and ambition has gotten plenty of attention, the minute-to-minute play experience has been all but ignored.

 

 



Yes I know some reviews criticized it and that many people outside of reviewers are very vocal about it, but for some of the things FFXIII gets heavily criticized for to the point that it deflates it's score so much was even more present in FFXII.

Weak characters.
Battles play themselves.
Weak storyline.


The only big difference here is linearity for the first couple dozen hours.


Reviewers didn't attack FFXII nearly as much for these flaws like they are doing right now with FFXIII. No biggy though since I still love this game and I just reached Pulse and this area is so wide open and gigantic.



iPhone = Great gaming device. Don't agree? Who cares, because you're wrong.

Currently playing:

Final Fantasy VI (iOS), Final Fantasy: Record Keeper (iOS) & Dragon Quest V (iOS)     

    

Got a retro room? Post it here!

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.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

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.



...

Around the Network
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.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Another good quote by Ebert.

"I have quoted countless times a sentence by the critic Robert Warshow (1917-1955), who wrote: "A man goes to the movies. The critic must be honest enough to admit that he is that man." If my admiration for a movie is inspired by populism, politics, personal experience, generic conventions or even lust, I must say so. I cannot walk out of a movie that engaged me and deny that it did. I must certainly never lower it from three to 2.5 so I can look better on the Metacritic scale.

I cringe when people say, "How could you give that movie four stars?" I reply, "What in my review did you disagree with?" Invariably, they're stuck for an answer. One thing I try to do is provide an accurate account of what you will see, and how I feel about it. I cannot speak for you. Any worthwhile review is subjective. If we completely disagree, my words might nevertheless be useful or provocative. If you disagree with what I write, be my guest. If you disagree with how many stars I gave it, you can mail your opinion to where the sun don't shine."



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?



...

Wasn't Destructoid the same people who didn't review Demon's Souls because they didn't finish it?



Black Women Are The Most Beautiful Women On The Planet.

"In video game terms, RPGs are games that involve a form of separate battles taking place with a specialized battle system and the use of a system that increases your power through a form of points.

Sure, what you say is the definition, but the connotation of RPGs is what they are in video games." - dtewi

Torillian said:
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?

Really, you're reaching here. When a game is heavily mentioned in an editorial by the same guy in which he completely lampoons the game and then finishes up his review with this paragraph:

"Deadly Premonition is beautiful. No, not graphically. Graphically it's atrocious. It's a beautiful trainwreck, and it's well aware of the fact. Despite this game being quite like everything ever made, there's nothing quite like the game itself. There is absolutely nothing in this industry that can compare to how weird and wonderful the whole experience is. Judged as a piece of entertainment, as a game that consistently surprises and amazes and leaves jaws hanging, I have no choice but to say that Deadly Premonition goes above and beyond. This game is so bad, it's not just become good. It's pretty close to perfect."

It's pretty obvious that the review is entirely in jest. He calls the game "a trainwreck", "so bad", and "graphically atrocious". Come on.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/