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

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

KLucifer on 18 March 2010
Kasz216 said:
Boutros said:
Kasz216 said:
Boutros said:
Most reviewers claim Final Fantasy XIII is linear and stuff like that during the first half of the game but it gets better after that.

And yes I believe a game needs to be completed in order to review it. I think it's quite normal really.

It looks like he got pretty far based on the achivements.  It's not like he stopped during the first half of the game.

But let me get this straight.  Lets say you start playing a game, where the controls are so bad... you can barely chohesivly control your character.  Do you believe it's the reviewers duty to play through that to complete a game, when he KNOWS the game is going to get a shit review anyway?

After a while if a game is bad enough there is NOTHING that is going to save it.

Some people hated The Sixth Sense until they saw the end.

 

I still think it's an obligation for a reviewer to complete the game he's reviewing no matter how bad it is.

 

Edit: Yeah like Werekitten said, he should then mention what he's reviewing if he didn't complete it.

If it takes the last minute to make a movie good... it's not really a good movie.

you must hate movies with a twisted ending...



Around the Network
rocketpig on 18 March 2010

Steven, I think the main problem lies with the aggregation sites themselves, not with reviewers like Sterling.

Though your points on how well he explained his dislikes in this particular article are spot-on. He didn't do a very good job of explaining the things that dragged the game down in his eyes.




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

steven787 on 18 March 2010
rocketpig said:
Steven, I think the main problem lies with the aggregation sites themselves, not with reviewers like Sterling.

Though your points on how well he explained his dislikes in this particular article are spot-on. He didn't do a very good job of explaining the things that dragged the game down in his eyes.

You're right, it is mostly with aggegation but they do have a purpose.  I like having one place to look for all the reviews.  I tend to ignore the total scores, but they are interesting.  It's just like tracking sales, it doesn't really matter but it's fun.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

rocketpig on 18 March 2010
steven787 said:
rocketpig said:
Steven, I think the main problem lies with the aggregation sites themselves, not with reviewers like Sterling.

Though your points on how well he explained his dislikes in this particular article are spot-on. He didn't do a very good job of explaining the things that dragged the game down in his eyes.

You're right, it is mostly with aggegation but they do have a purpose.  I like having one place to look for all the reviews.  I tend to ignore the total scores, but they are interesting.  It's just like tracking sales, it doesn't really matter but it's fun.

I like Metacritic because it puts all those reviewers in one place. It's a great tool to get an overall feel of a game or movie within minutes by reading 3-4 reviews about it.

On the other hand, I think the score is entirely useless. In fact, I think it's worse than useless. It's misleading and seems to manipulate people into group-think because they don't want to appear to be the odd duck of the aggregate group.

Actually, this thread inspired me to write an editorial. It should be up some time between now and Saturday.




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

Profcrab on 18 March 2010

I find Kotaku's reviews to be the most quick and to the point. No score, just what they liked and didn't like. Simple, but it doesn't have a number, therefore it isn't on metacritic. It requires reading, which goes against what many people seem to expect from a review.

I give this thread a 9.4.



Thank god for the disable signatures option.

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 19 March 2010
rocketpig said:
steven787 said:
rocketpig said:
Steven, I think the main problem lies with the aggregation sites themselves, not with reviewers like Sterling.

Though your points on how well he explained his dislikes in this particular article are spot-on. He didn't do a very good job of explaining the things that dragged the game down in his eyes.

You're right, it is mostly with aggegation but they do have a purpose.  I like having one place to look for all the reviews.  I tend to ignore the total scores, but they are interesting.  It's just like tracking sales, it doesn't really matter but it's fun.

I like Metacritic because it puts all those reviewers in one place. It's a great tool to get an overall feel of a game or movie within minutes by reading 3-4 reviews about it.

On the other hand, I think the score is entirely useless. In fact, I think it's worse than useless. It's misleading and seems to manipulate people into group-think because they don't want to appear to be the odd duck of the aggregate group.

Actually, this thread inspired me to write an editorial. It should be up some time between now and Saturday.

Yep, pretty much what i do before buying a game is i read the top 2-3 reviews... and the bottom 2-3 reviews.

 

Whats funny is, despite the difference in SCORE 9 times out of 10 they tell you the same thing.  It's just a matter of if you care about the weaknesses and strengths.



Kilzoned82 on 19 March 2010
Euphoria14 said:

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.


How long did it take you to reach Pulse? I have heard that it takes some where between 15 to 20 hours+ to reach Pulse. But that all depends on how good you are at RPGs and skipping those FMV cut scenes would save time.



Kilzoned82 on 19 March 2010

People get upset about reviews of 4's or 5's on games that they like. No one cares about the high reviews of 9's and 10's given to these same games which clearly do not deserve it. FFXIII is a seriously flawed game and Jim Sterling and Edge have the right to give their opinions on the games. They stand out of from the crowd and do not give out soft 9's or 10's.

Every Final Fantasy game deserves praise regardless of its quality? Anyone who dares to speak out against any Final Fantasy game needs to be burnt at the stake? Square Enix need to wake up and make better games.



Euphoria14 on 19 March 2010
Kilzoned82 said:
Euphoria14 said:

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.


How long did it take you to reach Pulse? I have heard that it takes some where between 15 to 20 hours+ to reach Pulse. But that all depends on how good you are at RPGs and skipping those FMV cut scenes would save time.

Well I take my time in everything that I play and this game was no exception.

I was clocked in at around 30 hours before I hit Pulse. This area though can get you lost for easily another 30.



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!

rocketpig on 19 March 2010
Kasz216 said:
rocketpig said:
steven787 said:
rocketpig said:
Steven, I think the main problem lies with the aggregation sites themselves, not with reviewers like Sterling.

Though your points on how well he explained his dislikes in this particular article are spot-on. He didn't do a very good job of explaining the things that dragged the game down in his eyes.

You're right, it is mostly with aggegation but they do have a purpose.  I like having one place to look for all the reviews.  I tend to ignore the total scores, but they are interesting.  It's just like tracking sales, it doesn't really matter but it's fun.

I like Metacritic because it puts all those reviewers in one place. It's a great tool to get an overall feel of a game or movie within minutes by reading 3-4 reviews about it.

On the other hand, I think the score is entirely useless. In fact, I think it's worse than useless. It's misleading and seems to manipulate people into group-think because they don't want to appear to be the odd duck of the aggregate group.

Actually, this thread inspired me to write an editorial. It should be up some time between now and Saturday.

Yep, pretty much what i do before buying a game is i read the top 2-3 reviews... and the bottom 2-3 reviews.

 

Whats funny is, despite the difference in SCORE 9 times out of 10 they tell you the same thing.  It's just a matter of if you care about the weaknesses and strengths.

Which happens to be the point of my editorial. :) I think I'll post it in an hour or so.




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