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

Slarvax said:
potato_hamster said:

You do realize that you're creating work-arounds for what others consider to be annoyances, right? The fact that you can work around it, or tolerate it, doesn't mean it's that tolerable to others, or that the work arounds make it less annoying.

Imagine if someone but a giant boulder in front of your front door that allowed you to only open the door a foot. When you complain about it, they say, "welll you can still squeeze through the door, or you can take your door off it's hinges and hop over the boulder, or you could you could just use the door on the back of your house. It's really not a problem having that boulder there if you think about it" I'm pretty sure you'd still prefer to have the boulder removed so you can use the door the way you'd like without the work arounds.

You know what's annoying? Running out of ammo in shooters. Why can't I just have infinite ammo? It's much more fun not having to ever reload my weapon and alway be shooting. Where's the fun in stopping the action for 5 seconds just so I can't have unlimited power and be unstoppable?

Too much realism, hampers video games. Even now. some games don't even have ammo. They work under recharge. Healthpacks are basically gone.



Around the Network

We all knew that was gonna happen unfortunately, people take scores and reviews way too serious.



                                                                                     

potato_hamster said:

Howlongtobeat isn't accurate because the way YOU played it and YOUR expereince differs from others.  Of course. That's all it takes. I guess Metal Gear Solid V takes 120 hours to beat because that's how long I sunk into the game before finishing the final mission, right? Give me a fucking break.  It's not like I was taking the time of the speedrunner that beat the game in less than an hour. These are people self reporting their completion times, and I have no reason to expect that to be inaccurate. Besides, if you expect reviewers to get anywhere near even 80% completion of a game before posting a review, then I can guarantee there might be a handful of Breath of the Wild reviews that might meet your criteria, if any at all.

This entire post (both your opinion, and the redditor opinion you quoted can be summed up as "I have a different opinion than Jim, therefore Jim is factually inaccurate". The closest thing to a factual inaccuracy that anyone can appear to bring up is where Jim says:

"Yes, every shrine is technically optional in the same way not rocking up to Ganon’s front door and assaulting his forces with a tree branch is – you can do whatever you like, but if you want to have a solid chance of actually succeeding, there is a proper, preconstructed way of doing things, and the proper way of handling shrines is to complete them on sight lest lose track of them – finish as many of them as possible, as close to all 120 of the bloody things as you can."

The bolded can easily be interpreted as "easily forgotten", yet because they appear on your map after discovering them, are in fact "trackable" in a sense.

But apparently this is enough for some people to claim that Jim's review is "full of factual inaccuracies". Because you can interpret one sentence in a way that might be incorrect This is laughable.

My point is that people who are taking longer to beat the game haven't entered their values yet. It released March 3rd, and only 80 people polled, when HowLongToBeat tends to have thousands polled. That is why its innacurate, not because it took me longer to beat (even though I am one of the first dozen to beat the game on Vghchartz.)

Shrines show up as a different color on the map when they are not completed, they are very easily trackable. I don't know what to say to you. You obviously haven't played the game so you can't see where he gets the facts wrong, and you are so intent on defending his really badly substantiated review.  None of the things I have criticized him for nor the redditor are "subjective" they are critiques on his understanding of how the system works. He thinks one-shot kills are common. They aren't. He thinks the blood moon happens often and it is comparable to Castlevania II's message box. It doesn't and isn't. He compares the towers to ubisoft towers without realizing the crucial difference of why people dislike ubisoft towers does not follow into this game. He ignores certain items which are meant to remove many of the obstacles he complains about, as intentional gameplay devices. So on and so forth. These are positive claims about what the game is, not normative claims about how it feels. 

But please go on, defend a piss-poor review of a game you haven't played. 



potato_hamster said:
Mnementh said:

(1) Yeah, I remembered that after sending a post. I actually moved through a river one time this way. There are even more ways I left out: you could make something you can stand on float through the air and airsail to the destination or you could freeze an object in time and charge it with kinetic energy and at the last moment hop onto it to ride the cannonball.

(2) Yeah, was wondering too why it is annoying for running. I run until my stamina is nearly depleted and keep jogging while my stamina replenishes for another sprint.

You do realize that you're creating work-arounds for what others consider to be annoyances, right? The fact that you can work around it, or tolerate it, doesn't mean it's that tolerable to others, or that the work arounds make it less annoying.

Imagine if someone but a giant boulder in front of your front door that allowed you to only open the door a foot. When you complain about it, they say, "welll you can still squeeze through the door, or you can take your door off it's hinges and hop over the boulder, or you could you could just use the door on the back of your house. It's really not a problem having that boulder there if you think about it" I'm pretty sure you'd still prefer to have the boulder removed so you can use the door the way you'd like without the work arounds.

You realize that it's only an optimization for the gameplay I use. You can run as fast as you always could do in Zelda just by moving your stick completely to the border instead of just moving it a little from center. The option to run is actually added, so that you can even be faster than in earlier games. You also don't realize, that the main point of wonder is, that many people assume you have to stop and stand still to replenish stamina.

But you have all freedom to complain that you can be faster than in previous Zelda games, you can complain that you're too slow, you can complain that fast-running eats up a resource. If you dislike games with that mechanic, you shouldn't force yourself to Monster Hunter or Souls or BotW. It's free to you.

And you can keep on making fun of other peoples opinion by completely ridiculous comparisons. All that shows is that you're bitter some peeople are enjoying a game.



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]

onionberry said:

If there's people that I can't stand in the gaming community is Colin Moriarty and Jim Sterling, not because of their opinions, just the "I'm a dick you're stupid and I'm right" way of presenting their opinion. So I don't feel bad for him, when you're an ass people are going to be assholes too. so the guys doing the damage are dicks, just like the victim. I say, let them fight.

I get where you're coming from, but that's kinda his shtick. The cocky/arrogant way he presents everything? Hell, every jimquisition ends with him saying "and thank god for me." I can only hope he isn't actually like that in regular interactions and I haven't read his zelda review yet, but at least that's his general appeal, being a dick

Rogerioandrade said:
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

He's pretty damn popular on his own, way more than when he was in destructoid, he's had way more than just a few minutes of fame. And again, his revenue doesn't come from ads or clicks to his page, he's got like $11K in patreon. Based on all that, i'd say you don't know his work all that well, mate.  

I read his review and it had some legitimate points. Other criticts and players have expressed their disdain for the low durability of weapon, frame drops and somewhat limited stamina that is available early on, as well as the Amiibo exclusive content . He mentions a lot of other smaller annoyances (weather preventing traversal, one-hit opponents, short draw distance, etc) that, during his experience, affected his play through so it makes sense that in retrospect he would deduct points.  You may disagree with him on certain topics but I don't see where you can call him clickbaity or attention seeking as he laid out all the things he praised and disliked



"Trick shot? The trick is NOT to get shot." - Lucian

Around the Network
archer9234 said:
palou said:

The bloodmoon is rare enough (every few 3 hours, perhaps?) and short enough (20 seconds, if you don't skip) that it really shouldn't impact the experience in a significant manner.

 

 

what concerns durability: the goal of a short durability likely was, primarily, an attempt to keep the game balanced while still allowing players to tackle any quest in the order you like - a short durability forces you to use the tools in tge area, which makes sense, from a design perspective.

You're still did not answer my question. If the animation is repeated. Should it not be automatically skipped. That's the point. It's something that doesn't need to be done, in the first place. Take this: You're watching a movie. Say X-Men. And every movie must explain how everyone got their powers. Is this acceptable? Because there can be some new people, in the audiance. Or should the new people take responablity, that they didn't watch the first movie.

Zelda 1 functions the same way. And had no durability.

What I was saying is that that alone would not validate taking off points, since it is an absolutely insignificant par of the experience.

 

 

zelda 1 also has no diversity in the weapons. It is not inherintly wrong for devellopers to choose to force players into different playing styles. Take a mario game. It would be fully ridiculous to take off points because the devellopers decided to vary the mechanics ever so often. Forcing diversity of playstyle is positive.



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

palou said:
archer9234 said:

You're still did not answer my question. If the animation is repeated. Should it not be automatically skipped. That's the point. It's something that doesn't need to be done, in the first place. Take this: You're watching a movie. Say X-Men. And every movie must explain how everyone got their powers. Is this acceptable? Because there can be some new people, in the audiance. Or should the new people take responablity, that they didn't watch the first movie.

Zelda 1 functions the same way. And had no durability.

What I was saying is that that alone would not validate taking off points, since it is an absolutely insignificant par of the experience.

 

 

zelda 1 also has no diversity in the weapons. It is not inherintly wrong for devellopers to choose to force players into different playing styles. Take a mario game. It would be fully ridiculous to take off points because the devellopers decided to vary the mechanics ever so often. Forcing diversity of playstyle is positive.

Except reviews are opinions. So he has every right to take points off, on said areas. Because he found them annoying, or unaceptable. You didn't. I find the durability system crap. And a game that does it better, is Minecraft. I would dock points, because of this reason too.

It's not inherintly wrong. But, you have to also accept when you get hate for something like this. "Forcing diversity of playstyle is positive." Not all the time. Take fighting games. Characters usually share combo attack button layouts. Image if every attack, every finisher, every melee, was a different confugiration. IE: Chun Li's punches are on A. Ryu is on Y etc. That's where Forcing diversity of playstyle is wrong.



Slarvax said:
potato_hamster said:

You do realize that you're creating work-arounds for what others consider to be annoyances, right? The fact that you can work around it, or tolerate it, doesn't mean it's that tolerable to others, or that the work arounds make it less annoying.

Imagine if someone but a giant boulder in front of your front door that allowed you to only open the door a foot. When you complain about it, they say, "welll you can still squeeze through the door, or you can take your door off it's hinges and hop over the boulder, or you could you could just use the door on the back of your house. It's really not a problem having that boulder there if you think about it" I'm pretty sure you'd still prefer to have the boulder removed so you can use the door the way you'd like without the work arounds.

You know what's annoying? Running out of ammo in shooters. Why can't I just have infinite ammo? It's much more fun not having to ever reload my weapon and alway be shooting. Where's the fun in stopping the action for 5 seconds just so I can't have unlimited power and be unstoppable?


Of course. Because reloading your gun (something that's found in practically all shooters) is totally the same as a tedious, arbitrary stamina system that has plenty of work arounds that renders it more annoying than it does to offer a challnege. Nice false equivalence.




golfgt170 said:
Slarvax said:

You know what's annoying? Running out of ammo in shooters. Why can't I just have infinite ammo? It's much more fun not having to ever reload my weapon and alway be shooting. Where's the fun in stopping the action for 5 seconds just so I can't have unlimited power and be unstoppable?

Go and play DOOM already. Guns don't even reload :D  (no infinite ammo though)

Doom had even iddqd. That way you could get rid of the annoying health bar. Obviously Doom was the pinnacle of game design.



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]

To anyone thinking he was not doing it for the clicks, just look at there is another thread out that shows he has a new jimquisition already out talking about the backlash.

He is doing it solely for the clicks.