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

thismeintiel on 14 March 2017
sc94597 said:
thismeintiel said:

Maybe he felt they did it better in Skyrim?  Or maybe because he doesn't like the new changes to Zelda?  It's not law to like them. 

They shouldn't care that it dropped one point.  That's the freaking point.  It's still FUCKING 97!!  Jesus Christ.  I wish it was an 89, just to see heads explode over a great rating.  Even some of the more sane Nintendo fans are trying to defend all this BS.  Why not just move on.

The example you gave me was No Man's Sky, which he gave a 5.  I was asking for the even more insane thing of going apeshit over a 7.  Can you give it to me?  Has a fanbase done so before?  Granted, going nuts over a 5 is fucking stupid, too, as he finds the game just average, which is fine. Still, I really want to see what other fanbase went nuts over a GOOD.

Maybe the reviewers felt they did towers better in Zelda than Horizon? All of the arguments you can use to justify inconsistency in his reviews can be used with respect to Horizon and Zelda. Ask yourself why it is the case that you didn't see that. 

I am sure you do wish it were an 89. 

You mentioned a 5 for a game that otherwise got 9's or 10's. No Man's Sky has a 71% Metacritic. A 5 is about as far from 71% as a 7 is from 98% (or now 97%.) 

Also a 7 is not good on Metacritic. They label that as "mixed", which is obviously not "positive". 

Except, going by that thread, they are pratically the same.  Only the ones in Horizon are moving creatures.  Of course, that ignores my 2nd guess.  Maybe he just doesn't like the new additions to this Zelda, which is his right to not like.

Yes, I do wish it got an 89, not because I think it deserves that, but it would be hilarious to see how apeshit some fans would be for it getting a great score. I mean if they are going this nuts over a 7 lowering it to 97, I'm guessing the internet would blow up if they got an 89.  Hell, a 94 may have the same reaction.

And I don't care what Metacritic lists a 7 as.  It matters what the reviewer lists it as, which to many is just plain good.  Of course, that doesn't really matter, since the Metacritic is still 97. 



 

Around the Network
SWORDF1SH on 14 March 2017

As far as I'm aware, Jim is pretty honest. He gave it a 7, accept it and move on. Some arguments why they feel he's wrong seem like legit counter-arguments but some responses to his review don't really make sense.
Bottom line, it's his opinion based on his experience. Agree or disagree, it's his opinion.



sc94597 on 14 March 2017
thismeintiel said:

Except, going by that thread, they are pratically the same.  Only the ones in Horizon are moving creatures.  Of course, that ignores my 2nd guess.  Maybe he just doesn't like the new additions to this Zelda, which is his right to not like.

Yes, I do wish it got an 89, not because I think it deserves that, but it would be hilarious to see how apeshit some fans would be for it getting a great score. I mean if they are going this nuts over a 7 lowering it to 97, I'm guessing the internet would blow up if they got an 89.  Hell, a 94 may have the same reaction.

And I don't care what Metacritic lists a 7 as.  It matters what the reviewer lists it as, which to many is just plain good.  Of course, that doesn't really matter, since the Metacritic is still 97. 

Well the bigger argument is that in BoTW unlocking a tower does not reveal secrets, so the game does not become a checklist simulator, which is the problem people had with Ubisoft towers in the first place. I don't know how Horizon's towers work, so I can't and didn't comment on them, but from what others in the thread said they do reveal world secrets. That is a difference to be had. I don't understand what you are saying here "doesn't like the new additions to this Zelda" versus Skyrim or previous Zeldas? Skyward Sword had a stamina meter. 

I predicted the game would get a 95%. I am fine with anything above that. My distaste for his review has very little to do with the Metacritic score drop. Many people in the prediction thread predicted lower than a 97%, and then they played the game. 

It does matter when the review is recorded on Metacritic. If a reviewer has an atypical reviewing rubric, then it makes the Metacritic results skewed and therefore it should either be contextualized or not counted. 



sc94597 on 14 March 2017
SWORDF1SH said:
As far as I'm aware, Jim is pretty honest. He gave it a 7, accept it and move on. Some arguments why they feel he's wrong seem like legit counter-arguments but some responses to his review don't really make sense.
Bottom line, it's his opinion based on his experience. Agree or disagree, it's his opinion.

And nobody is disputing that it is his opinion. We are disputing some of the facts or positive claims about the game are innaccurate or hyperbolic and therefore his opinions are justified on shaky premises. 



SamLeheny on 14 March 2017

And the result? I now really wanna read this review when it comes back online.
Streisand effect baby!



Around the Network
AZWification on 14 March 2017

People freaked out over GS' 8.6 score for TP back in 2006, this was bound to happen sadly.



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

Qwark on 14 March 2017
AZWification said:
People freaked out over GS' 8.6 score for TP back in 2006, this was bound to happen sadly.

That's really pathetic a 8.6 is generally a good score.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

Boberkun on 14 March 2017

97 score for BotW too high anyway.



Enemy on 14 March 2017

This reminds me when Uncharted 4 dropped from a 94 to a 93 on metacritic all because of a click bait fake review.

The difference to me is that Jim's review of BOTW seems legit.



naruball on 14 March 2017
zero129 said:
naruball said:

Hpw about you let people like what they like and not like what they don't? No one is forcing you to like things you don't no matter how much sense it makes to them and not to you.

People really think they're the centre of the universe. If something goes against their opinion, it's wrong and it goes against common sense. In reality, far from it. I already explained why for me it's not about how long the loading times are, but whether they make sense (for me) in the game.

Feel free to have your own opinion but don't act like it's anything more than it is, i.e. your opinion.

Ok so for you it makes sense to wait over a minute and go back to the very start of a level if you die in a souls game. But it doesnt make sense to wait like 10 secs when entering a shine in Zelda?. Well i guess i shouldnt really be listening to your opinion on what makes sense or not in zelda anyways sence you have not even played it...

Yes, no one is forcing you listen to my opinion. Feel free to keep believing what you do. I gave context, you ignored it.

The point of responding to me in the first place is beyond me if you're gonna disregard what I said because I haven't played it. But the way you've responded to everyone on this thread makes your intentions more than clear.