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

SWORDF1SH on 14 March 2017
sc94597 said:
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. 

Again, some people have reasonable arguments against his opinion and some people don't.

For example, I find it silly that some people bring up the weapon degradation system in The Witcher when it's vastly different to what we have in BotW. 



Around the Network
AlfredoTurkey on 14 March 2017
Acevil said:
Bad form, best way to deal with it would have been just to ignore it.

And that's exactly what metacritic should do... ignore him. It's not hard to weed out the bullshit reviewers looking for attention and ban them. I promise you he'd move on to something else in a heartbeat if his "scores" didn't matter anymore because that's all the guy wants... clicks.



Mnementh on 14 March 2017
SWORDF1SH said:
Mnementh said:

Did you look at the actual scores? A lot of tens and nines and a lot of zeros. And if you read the zeros, you often read: "I didn't play the game, but ...". That is the result of a hate-train. A reason why I say the average is useless for such stuff, you should take the median. The median for Zelda:BotW userscores on Meta is nine.

Never look at user reviews for exclusives. Fanboys will rate it 0 to bring the score down and fanboys will rate it 10 to bring the score up. 

Yep. And we have a statistical tool to manage that: it is called Median.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median

But seemingly nobody heard of that when creating user-based scores. That's why the user meta scores are basically worthless. And many pointed this out in this very forums at the time Nintendo used Meta critics AND user scores for painting it's own games in a good light.



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]

The Fury on 14 March 2017
AlfredoTurkey said:

And that's exactly what metacritic should do... ignore him. It's not hard to weed out the bullshit reviewers looking for attention and ban them. I promise you he'd move on to something else in a heartbeat if his "scores" didn't matter anymore because that's all the guy wants... clicks.

Then they should also remove any questionably bias reviewers, like say 'Nintendo Enthusiast'. I question their validity on reviewing a Zelda game without bias.

Or, you could accept all reviews as opinions based on the reviews thoughts about the subject. Jim liked the game, it just had a few things he didn't like which means the score wasn't a perfect 10/10 like all the other reviewers.



Hmm, pie.

SWORDF1SH on 14 March 2017
Mnementh said:
SWORDF1SH said:

Never look at user reviews for exclusives. Fanboys will rate it 0 to bring the score down and fanboys will rate it 10 to bring the score up. 

Yep. And we have a statistical tool to manage that: it is called Median.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median

But seemingly nobody heard of that when creating user-based scores. That's why the user meta scores are basically worthless. And many pointed this out in this very forums at the time Nintendo used Meta critics AND user scores for painting it's own games in a good light.

Or you could still use the mean average but eliminate all the extreme data.



Around the Network
specialk on 14 March 2017

Meta-bombing punishes good games and helps bad games. If five honest players play the game and rate it an 8, and fanboys bomb it in equal numbers with 0s and 10s, the zeros will drag more than the 10s prop it up. And it's the other way around for bad games.

No real commentary here, just an observation.



potato_hamster on 14 March 2017
Intrinsic said:
Jaicee said:

I've not yet finished the game myself, but up to where I am now in it, my impression is that it is indeed imperfect. I'd personally score it an 8 out of 10, as I feel the shift into the survival genre makes Breath of the Wild an above-average adventure game, but that it's nonetheless bogged down by tired, sexist tropes (Nintendo's continued dependence on damsel in distress scenarios feels more than a little dated at this point), a weak, self-serving pro-tech theme, and indeed, as Jim has suggested, far too many arbitrary irritations that serve to remind you that you're definitely playing a game, preventing the full immersion into the experience that the new survival elements otherwise help to foster. Whatever you think of the game though, this kind of over-the-top fan behavior (the cyber mobbing stuff) needs to stop because it disincentivizes game critics from even trying to give you their honest opinions.

But thats nintendo for you. And maybe even traditional japanese developer thing..... you may se it is dated and weak and a constant reminder that "you are playing a game" (a sentiment which I to an extent agree with) but a lot of others see stuff like that and call it charm.

Nintendo hardly ever bother s with story depth and complexity. There usually always is a very very simple premise to their stories (almost as if designed for an 8yr old to grasp) and whatever depth to be found kinda justtethers around that core story.

And those arbitary irritations you talk about... well thats also a nintendo thing too. They never kinda hide or try to hide the fact that "this is a game". If anything they seem to tak pride in it. From its presentation, mechanics and down to the sound effects they use within the game. They seriously try to seem like they aren't taking themselves or the game seriously. And that is also  what makes their games "charming" (for those into stuff like that.

Look I get what you're saying. But can you also see that also seems to indicate that gamers in general tend to hold Nintendo to a different standard?

Can you imagine a IP being launched by MS that featured a damsel in distress trope, minimal story, and constant visual reminders poping up in the middle of the screen not being scrutinized heavily for it no matter how great the gameplay is or how polished it is? Maybe in 1995, but I personally can't in this day and age.

Sure it's a Nintendo thing, but that shouldn't mean they should get a free pass for it.



Mnementh on 14 March 2017
SWORDF1SH said:
Mnementh said:

Yep. And we have a statistical tool to manage that: it is called Median.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median

But seemingly nobody heard of that when creating user-based scores. That's why the user meta scores are basically worthless. And many pointed this out in this very forums at the time Nintendo used Meta critics AND user scores for painting it's own games in a good light.

Or you could still use the mean average but eliminate all the extreme data.

Well, basically the media is only an extreme form of it, with all but 1 of the datasets declared as extreme and removed.

But yeah, removing 10-20% of the lowest and highest votes would have an similar effect.



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]

Mnementh on 14 March 2017
specialk said:
Meta-bombing punishes good games and helps bad games. If five honest players play the game and rate it an 8, and fanboys bomb it in equal numbers with 0s and 10s, the zeros will drag more than the 10s prop it up. And it's the other way around for bad games.

No real commentary here, just an observation.

Yes, that's why averages are the wrong tool for such things.



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]

Mnementh on 14 March 2017
potato_hamster said:

Look I get what you're saying. But can you also see that also seems to indicate that gamers in general tend to hold Nintendo to a different standard?

Can you imagine a IP being launched by MS that featured a damsel in distress trope, minimal story, and constant visual reminders poping up in the middle of the screen not being scrutinized heavily for it no matter how great the gameplay is or how polished it is? Maybe in 1995, but I personally can't in this day and age.

Sure it's a Nintendo thing, but that shouldn't mean they should get a free pass for it.

The Tomb Raider reboot was Damsel in Distress, you were going to save Sam from a cult of cannibalistic worshippers of an ancient deity. It good reviews. Given, it wasn't Microsoft, but Square-Enix isn't Nintendo.



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]