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

golfgt170 on 14 March 2017
palou said:

I did complain about those as well. It's just a bad way of comparing a product, since people don't actually need to have the product to be able to express themselves. Better: Amazon reviews! Links provided in my last post.

I buy Zelda day1 from amazon, i give it a 100% the moment i get home. What happens then (assuming that i use amazon regularly)?



Around the Network
palou on 14 March 2017
golfgt170 said:
palou said:

I did complain about those as well. It's just a bad way of comparing a product, since people don't actually need to have the product to be able to express themselves. Better: Amazon reviews! Links provided in my last post.

I buy Zelda day1 from amazon, i give it a 100% the moment i get home. What happens then (assuming that i use amazon regularly)?

You can edit reviews on Amazon. 

 

In comparision to Metacritic, the Amazon reviews remove negative trolling, while probably keeping some of the positive fanboying. This makes them, in average, quite a bit higher than the metacritic scores. However, for a comparision, removing one falsifying factor makes the data more accurate. 



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.

golfgt170 on 14 March 2017
palou said:
golfgt170 said:

I buy Zelda day1 from amazon, i give it a 100% the moment i get home. What happens then (assuming that i use amazon regularly)?

You can edit reviews on Amazon. 

 

In comparision to Metacritic, the Amazon reviews remove negative trolling, while probably keeping some of the positive fanboying. This makes them, in average, quite a bit higher than the metacritic scores. However, for a comparision, removing one falsifying factor makes the data more accurate. 

So it keeps fans and buyers happy. Clever!



palou on 14 March 2017
golfgt170 said:
palou said:

You can edit reviews on Amazon. 

 

In comparision to Metacritic, the Amazon reviews remove negative trolling, while probably keeping some of the positive fanboying. This makes them, in average, quite a bit higher than the metacritic scores. However, for a comparision, removing one falsifying factor makes the data more accurate. 

So it keeps fans and buyers happy. Clever!

I did not mean that they remove reviews - that was poorly formulated, my apologies. That would be innacurate, they don't do that.

 

I simply meant that Amazon gives you the possibility to filter out reviews of only people that bought the game (the only people that should be reviewing in the first place), thus making it possible for you to ignore any negative trolling (since people won't spend 60 dollars just to give a negative review.) The score will be higher, because people like the type of game they buy, usually.

 

https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B01MS6MO77/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_paging_btm_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=HXV3ZCY0F6V7VCN77BEF&reviewerType=avp_only_reviews&pageNumber=3&filterByStar=five_star

 

https://www.amazon.com/Horizon-Zero-Dawn-PlayStation-4/product-reviews/B00ZQC73O8/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewopt_sr?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=avp_only_reviews&filterByStar=five_star&pageNumber=1

 

https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B0050SYILE/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewopt_sr?ie=UTF8&refRID=5QTMHRBJT060J0S0EC8F&filterByStar=five_star&pageNumber=1

 

 

If you look at only verified purchases, you get:

 

-235 people with a 5 star review; (Horizon: 282)

-9 people with a 4 star review; (Horizon: 12)

-2 people with a 3 star review; (Horizon: 4)

-1 person with a 2 star review; (Horizon: 2)

-3 people with a 1 star review. (Horizon: 8)

 

I think that this shows that people that played the game mostly enjoyed it quite a bit more than the Metacritic user score would imply.

Also, notice that the reviews are, in average, quite a bit further after release date. So people at least gave themselves the weekend before commenting.



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.

potato_hamster on 14 March 2017
Mnementh said:
potato_hamster said:

You're right. I should have posted reviews of tomb raider. Here it is on metacritic: http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/tomb-raider
Don't you find it strange that only one reviewer gave it a perfect score? As opposed to dozens for Breath of the Wild? It's like the negatives in Tomb Raider are affecting the review score more than they're affecting the review score in Breath of the Wild. Wait.... I think that was my point. Not quite sure how your article really applies when it's not giving Tomb Raider a near perfect rating despite the use of that trope. I'm also not sure why you're comparing things with PS4.

You think I haven't accepted that reviewers have opinions? That's strange considering you say "That's why you see the phenomenom, that people watching Youtube-videos of it dislike it, while people playing it mostly like it. " It seems to me you're having a hard time accepting that many people who think that these negatives detract from the overall experience might have actually played the game. Jim Sterling is one one them. You know, the guy who got attacked for giving his opinion of Zelda to a point where people question whether he actually played it because they can't possibly believe those negatives detracted from his experience as much as he said it did?

Don't you think it's a bit disingenious to tell others that they should just accept all of those "near perfect" review scores when you're having a hard time accepting that the people that are criticizing this game have played the game as well? How do you actually know that the people who gave these near perfect scores even played the game as much as the people who are criticizing it?

I don't accept that this is a 10/10 game to the vast majority of video game reviewers if they're holding Nintendo to the same standards as they do every other game any more than I accepted it for Metal Gear Solid V or Grand Theft Auto V. I feel certain series get special treatment and its not right. Nothing you've said has invalidated that premise.

So you say breath of the Wild and Tomb Raider are of the same quality? Oh look, Family Party got NO positive review, surely it is treated unfairly because it isn't from Nintendo. It should get the same score as BotW.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii-u/family-party-30-great-games-obstacle-arcade

You seem to have a hard time to accept that the reviewers really mostly felt that the game was THAT good, instead seeing a sinister Nintendo-conspiracy.

"Don't you think it's a bit disingenious to tell others that they should just accept all of those "near perfect" review scores when you're having a hard time accepting that the people that are criticizing this game have played the game as well? How do you actually know that the people who gave these near perfect scores even played the game as much as the people who are criticizing it?"

Because many of the zero scores in Metacritic actually wrote: I haven't played the game, but ...

But yes, let's instead believe in the big Nintendo-conspiracy.

Why does PS4 has more well scored games than WiiU metacritic then? Ah, well ...

No of course Tomb Raider isn't as good as Breath of the Wild, but that's not the point is it? Breath of the Wild is not a near perfect game, and has been let off the hook for criticisms that other games (like Tomb Raider) also feature and were appropriately deducted for. I do not believe that BotW (or any other game for that matter) is SO GOOD that it's flaws can be totally ignored when scoring the game.

And many of the 10 scores in Metacritic actually wrote: I haven't played the game, but...

What does PS4 have to do with a consistent theme that some series (like Metal Gear Solid, Grand Theft Auto, the Witch, Zelda,  etc) tend to have their criticisms overlooked when scoring those series? That has nothing to do with the platforms themselves.



Around the Network
palou on 14 March 2017
potato_hamster said:
Mnementh said:

So you say breath of the Wild and Tomb Raider are of the same quality? Oh look, Family Party got NO positive review, surely it is treated unfairly because it isn't from Nintendo. It should get the same score as BotW.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii-u/family-party-30-great-games-obstacle-arcade

You seem to have a hard time to accept that the reviewers really mostly felt that the game was THAT good, instead seeing a sinister Nintendo-conspiracy.

"Don't you think it's a bit disingenious to tell others that they should just accept all of those "near perfect" review scores when you're having a hard time accepting that the people that are criticizing this game have played the game as well? How do you actually know that the people who gave these near perfect scores even played the game as much as the people who are criticizing it?"

Because many of the zero scores in Metacritic actually wrote: I haven't played the game, but ...

But yes, let's instead believe in the big Nintendo-conspiracy.

Why does PS4 has more well scored games than WiiU metacritic then? Ah, well ...

No of course Tomb Raider isn't as good as Breath of the Wild, but that's not the point is it? Breath of the Wild is not a near perfect game, and has been let off the hook for criticisms that other games (like Tomb Raider) also feature and were appropriately deducted for. I do not believe that BotW (or any other game for that matter) is SO GOOD that it's flaws can be totally ignored when scoring the game.

And many of the 10 scores in Metacritic actually wrote: I haven't played the game, but...

What does PS4 have to do with a consistent theme that some series (like Metal Gear Solid, Grand Theft Auto, the Witch, Zelda,  etc) tend to have their criticisms overlooked when scoring those series? That has nothing to do with the platforms themselves.

True enough.

 

I genereally don't believe that perfect scores should be given at all, really. Even if a game has no mentionable flaws. As in all art, the quality of a game is something that is open above, and there always should be room for more. 



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.

naruball on 14 March 2017
irstupid said:
naruball said:

Just a thought but out of those playing Zelda at the moment, what percentage do you think is non-hardcore nintendo fans?

We have a console that just launched so those buying it day one are probably huge fans, and those who bought it on wiiu, a console that flopped hard and was bought mostly by the most loyal nintendo fans.

Had it been on 3ds which has a userbase consisting of all sorts of people, I, personally, would trust those reviews just a bit more.

What do you think? Is it possible/likely that the people who are currently playing it are bound to like it being such huge fans of nintendo or perhaps of Zelda?

May or may not be true, but is ones opinion not more valid if they have played a game versus not having played it?

Regardless if biased or not, their thoughts on the matter should hold more weight than another who has never played the game.

But that has nothing to do with I said. Why are you changing the subject. Obviously we can all agree on what you just said just like we can agree that the creators of Zelda know more about Zelda than my neighbour. But that's not the point I was discussing.



naruball on 14 March 2017
Mnementh said:
naruball said:

Just a thought but out of those playing Zelda at the moment, what percentage do you think is non-hardcore nintendo fans?

We have a console that just launched so those buying it day one are probably huge fans, and those who bought it on wiiu, a console that flopped hard and was bought mostly by the most loyal nintendo fans.

Had it been on 3ds which has a userbase consisting of all sorts of people, I, personally, would trust those reviews just a bit more.

What do you think? Is it possible/likely that the people who are currently playing it are bound to like it being such huge fans of nintendo or perhaps of Zelda?

You always have people bickering. Think about Skyward Sword. Played also by the hardcore Nintendo fans, but they bickered about the game. But this time it's mostly from people who haven't played the game.

And again: do you really think the reviewers are all Nintendo-fans? I have linked before the list Metacritics highest scored WiiU and PS4-games. That list says me, that reviewers don't treat Nintendo especially better. But seemingly BotW got to them. This post you answer on was my answer to the conspiracy that Nintendo gets treated better by reviewers. I really doubt that.

Wait a second. Didn't Skyward Sword launch in the middle (or towards the end) of wii's generation? When a lot of people had wii's, including non hardcore fans? And that one had advanced motion controls that a lot of people hated anyway? I don't think it's a very good example.

As for the reviewers, I do believe they're too lenient on the game, just like they weren't strict enough with The Last of Us. Especially the latter has too many problems to have gotten so many 10s yet it got insanely high scores by too many reviewers (imo). I didn't agree with them then, I don't agree with them now with Zelda. I think they get too caught up in the hype and with Zelda they gave higher points because it tried new things for the franchise. I don't think it would have gotten such high scores if it were made by EA/Ubisoft/MS even Ninty under a different name of a non established franchise. I do realize that I could be wrong, of course. That's just the impression I got. I also don't think that any game ever made can be something that every single reviewer/gamer/etc can absolutely love and award with a perfect score. Same with music, movies and every other type of entertainment. So for a game to get almost only 10's I think it's a case of bias.



irstupid on 14 March 2017
naruball said:
irstupid said:

May or may not be true, but is ones opinion not more valid if they have played a game versus not having played it?

Regardless if biased or not, their thoughts on the matter should hold more weight than another who has never played the game.

But that has nothing to do with I said. Why are you changing the subject. Obviously we can all agree on what you just said just like we can agree that the creators of Zelda know more about Zelda than my neighbour. But that's not the point I was discussing.

You brought up the fact that we should not take what people praising the game are saying cause all those that are playing it are die hard fans and thus biased.

So if we can't listen to those who have the game because they are biased hard-core fans, then who are we to listen to?

The people who haven't played the game? The 99 reviewers who gave the game a 10/10? Or the 1 reviewer (Jim) who gave the game a 7/10?



golfgt170 on 14 March 2017
irstupid said:
naruball said:

But that has nothing to do with I said. Why are you changing the subject. Obviously we can all agree on what you just said just like we can agree that the creators of Zelda know more about Zelda than my neighbour. But that's not the point I was discussing.

You brought up the fact that we should not take what people praising the game are saying cause all those that are playing it are die hard fans and thus biased.

So if we can't listen to those who have the game because they are biased hard-core fans, then who are we to listen to?

The people who haven't played the game? The 99 reviewers who gave the game a 10/10? Or the 1 reviewer (Jim) who gave the game a 7/10?

NONE. The only judge is yourself. If a game gets 100 or 0 for you, none of this matters. The point of this thread was to show that die hard fans cannot accept other ppl's opinions and all must go with the flow. Which is wrong ofc. Especcially when we have this kind of actions that hamper our work or even insult oneself in a personal matter.