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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Jim Sterling’s site under attack after Zelda: BotW review

Mnementh on 13 March 2017
potato_hamster said:
Mnementh said:

Sorry, I gave vivster multiple times the hand declaring his opinion his opinion and that other people do have other opinions. vivster decided he know the gold standard of defining what fun is for everyone. And you spin it so hard that seemingly now other people that allow for different opinions are the single-minded ones. My head hurts about that much spinning.


This all started with you giving viv shit for having an opinion that differs from yours, not vice versa. You're the one showing the lack of respect for Viv's point of view.

Well, let's jog your memory:

Mnementh said:

I disagree on stamina.

 

Mnementh said:
vivster said:

If it was designed with it but would increase my fun immensely if it was gone, I'd say it was a pretty bad design.

Well, if gone it would reduce my fun (as endlessly being able to climb or swim would be no challenge). And seemingly more are with me than you. So you have no fun with this mechanic, well, so be it. Not your cup of tea. Play something else.

I found the Tomb Raider reboot bad everyone was raving about. Still I can accept that others thought differently and let it be.

 

specialk said:

tl;dr I guess different people find different things fun.

 

Mnementh said:
vivster said:

The fun would be not having to waste time on arbitrary bars in a game that is already very time consuming. So far I have seen nothing that these systems elevate other than making me wait, use longer routes and spend more time in menus. Those things are not fun.

Games are like all forms of entertainment a way to spend time. If a game entertains you for 20 hours instead of 10, it is a good thing. Bad would it be, if the additional time is boring. Seemingly it is for you. Seemingly not for most others.

 

Mnementh said:

You seem to hate that other people have different opinions than you do and draw enjoyment out of different sources than you.

 

As you can see, I and others told vivster that we have a different opinion, but his is an opinion. Vivster instead opted into ridiculing our opinion. How can you ask for respect for vivster, while not asking vivster to have respect for other peoples opinion? How strange is that?



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Around the Network
bonzobanana on 13 March 2017

I've bought games with stellar reviews and hated them and I've bought games dirt cheap from bargain buckets only to find I'm really enjoying them and would have been happy to pay full price for them. I've read reviews where the actual criticisms of the game were actually features I would like and its made me buy the game.



Toxicspikes on 13 March 2017

It's only his opinion right? I mean, not everyone is going to like the same games, of course some reviewers are not going to like it as well... No need to attack anyone



FallingTitan on 13 March 2017

hehe as a huge zelda fan I understand the passion but still too far!

I actually disliked the game for the first time ever for reasons I dont quite no. maybe outgrew it? maybe i got spoiled by games like witcher 3 etc. but yeah zelda fans are passionate for or against.

I guess im passionate about the direction nintendo took zelda and how much i disagree with messing up with the formula i used to LOVE LOVE LOVE. but its fine i can move on but will miss zelda. at least the 2D ones in the future will still be my zelda. L2P and LBW are some of my favs ever.



potato_hamster on 13 March 2017
Mar1217 said:
sc94597 said:

He tested the game a bit here and there between other games before the 9th, but he did not dedicate any real play time until about March 9th, rushing through the story between the 9th and the 11th (when he beat it.) Hence his complaint about shrines makes sense. He wanted to rush through the game so that he could give its predetermined review, but having to do shrines made that harder. 

 

As others have said, they saw all of this coming before the actual review -- he telegraphed it on twitter and in his podcast.

Well, as I said in my first post, I knew he would do something along these lines but even not giving this game a proper amount of time without rushing it is pretty absurd.

He's still someone that I'm able to trust when it comes to being more realistic than others but I guess he's probably going for his ''saddic'' pulsion of contradictarian hidden under a good well thoughtout speech.

I bet dollars to donuts that if Jim gave this game a 10/10 you wouldn't begin to question his playtime. The fact of the matter is that we don't actually know how much he played this game other than that he sunk an indeterminant amount of time in the days leading up to a 2-3 day period where he sunk the majority of his time.  That could still result in 40-50 hours of play time overall. Ironically, Jim could have played the game more than the majority of reviewers that gave the game a 10/10 for all we know.



Around the Network
golfgt170 on 13 March 2017
Toxicspikes said:
It's only his opinion right? I mean, not everyone is going to like the same games, of course some reviewers are not going to like it as well... No need to attack anyone

And that was the reason for this thread. That obsession leads to these kind of behaviour and personal attacks are made. Which ofc is unreasonable since EVERYONE is entitled to an opinion. Even reviewers.



sc94597 on 13 March 2017
potato_hamster said:
Mar1217 said:

Well, as I said in my first post, I knew he would do something along these lines but even not giving this game a proper amount of time without rushing it is pretty absurd.

He's still someone that I'm able to trust when it comes to being more realistic than others but I guess he's probably going for his ''saddic'' pulsion of contradictarian hidden under a good well thoughtout speech.

I bet dollars to donuts that if Jim gave this game a 10/10 you wouldn't begin to question his playtime. The fact of the matter is that we don't actually know how much he played this game other than that he sunk an indeterminant amount of time in the days leading up to a 2-3 day period where he sunk the majority of his time.  That could still result in 40-50 hours of play time overall. Ironically, Jim could have played the game more than the majority of reviewers that gave the game a 10/10 for all we know.

Probably, but I would be instead wondering why he would slap a 10/10 on his critical review. 

 

I don't see how it is relevant to the actual reality we live in where he did rush through the game, he is misinformed of its mechanics (if we are to be generous -- because he rushed through it) and he writes a review where his opinions are based on falsehoods about the state of the game. Now post something fruitful about my criticisms of his review, rather than try to obfuscate things by imagining a world where his review was something else.



potato_hamster on 13 March 2017
Mnementh said:
potato_hamster said:


This all started with you giving viv shit for having an opinion that differs from yours, not vice versa. You're the one showing the lack of respect for Viv's point of view.

Well, let's jog your memory:

Mnementh said:

Well, if gone it would reduce my fun (as endlessly being able to climb or swim would be no challenge). And seemingly more are with me than you. So you have no fun with this mechanic, well, so be it. Not your cup of tea. Play something else.

I found the Tomb Raider reboot bad everyone was raving about. Still I can accept that others thought differently and let it be.

 

As you can see, I and others told vivster that we have a different opinion, but his is an opinion. Vivster instead opted into ridiculing our opinion. How can you ask for respect for vivster, while not asking vivster to have respect for other peoples opinion? How strange is that?

I mean you're quite literally telling Viv to go play something else if he doesn't like this mechanic, but if you don't see that as "giving him shit for having a different opinion", then that's on you I guess.



Rogerioandrade on 13 March 2017

Well... that was Jim´s intention since he started writing that review. Got what he wanted. Clicks and more clicks and a few minutes of fame. After all, people forgot about him since he left IGN



potato_hamster on 13 March 2017
sc94597 said:
potato_hamster said:

I bet dollars to donuts that if Jim gave this game a 10/10 you wouldn't begin to question his playtime. The fact of the matter is that we don't actually know how much he played this game other than that he sunk an indeterminant amount of time in the days leading up to a 2-3 day period where he sunk the majority of his time.  That could still result in 40-50 hours of play time overall. Ironically, Jim could have played the game more than the majority of reviewers that gave the game a 10/10 for all we know.

Probably, but I would be instead wondering why he would slap a 10/10 on his critical review. 

 

I don't see how it is relevant to the actual reality we live in where he did rush through the game, he is misinformed of its mechanics (if we are to be generous -- because he rushed through it) and he writes a review where his opinions are based on falsehoods about the state of the game. Now post something fruitful about my criticisms of his review, rather than try to obfuscate things by imagining a world where his review was something else.

We haven't actually established that he did rush through the game though.