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

Johnw1104 on 14 March 2017

lol north of 500 replies? I don't know if his intention was to make a headline and build some recognition for himself, but that's certainly been the result one way or the other.

Meanwhile, that poor fool from Slant who rated Dragonball Fusions higher than Zelda remains "that fool from Slant" lol



Around the Network
sc94597 on 15 March 2017
potato_hamster said:
tokilamockingbrd said:

Statistically speaking a 70 score for a game that had a 98 meta with many reviews is an extreme statistical outlier. His taste or motives should be questioned.

Harassasment should never be tolerated, but this should harm whatever standing he did have.

 

Personally I dont like meta for this reason. They should not count extreme statistical outliers.

I tell you what. I'll wait for you to question the taste and motives of reviewer who gave a Nintendo game with a  70 meta score a 95-100 the next time that happens. I won't hold my breath.

You mean like Jim Sterling's 95% for the 70% Metacritic game with horrible framerate that was Hyrule Warriors (3DS)? Yeah plenty of Nintendo fans were criticisizing him for this crappy score, and his excuse is "I like the genre."

Somehow Hyrule Warriors with its repetitive gameplay, and crap framerate (on the 3DS) is a 95% yet BOTW is a 70%. Right.

 

I doubt you'll find any Nintendo fan who would care if Jim's 95% for Hyrule Warriors (3DS) were removed with his 70% for BOTW because they are outliers. 



MTZehvor on 15 March 2017
zero129 said:
potato_hamster said:

Have you considered that perhaps, like many of the people here who do accept that BotW has many flaws, that perhaps Jim gave Skyrim a 10/10 because he believes it deserves it. Whereas with BotW, he found the flaws hampering his expereince in a way he never found with Skyrim, that overally caused him to dock points and give it a 7/10. Maybe it's because the stamina meter is right next to your face all of the time in BotW and thus it's constantly reminding you of how irritating this feature is

I don't know. I'm not Jim Sterling. I'm not even a fan. This is the first review of his I've ever read. I have no idea how he grades these things. All I do know is that his criticisms are valid. I found many of the same things when I played it for the few hours I did. As far as I'm concerned it's a 7.5-8.5/10 game from my experience, but again, I only played it for a few hours.

Funny enough the only people here who i see agree with the flaws that jim seems to have of BOTW are mostly Sony gamers and people who didnt play the game. I wonder why that is??.

I seriously doubt that's the case, but if it somehow was up until this point, I own a Wii U and an XBO, have played BotW through to the end, and I would wholeheartedly agree with the majority of his complaints. Particularly weapons durability and stamina. It's not that stamina itself is a flawed mechanic, it's just how little stamina Link starts out with.



potato_hamster on 15 March 2017
sc94597 said:
potato_hamster said:

I tell you what. I'll wait for you to question the taste and motives of reviewer who gave a Nintendo game with a  70 meta score a 95-100 the next time that happens. I won't hold my breath.

You mean like Jim Sterling's 95% for the 70% Metacritic game with horrible framerate that was Hyrule Warriors (3DS)? Yeah plenty of Nintendo fans were criticisizing him for this crappy score, and his excuse is "I like the genre."

Somehow Hyrule Warriors with its repetitive gameplay, and crap framerate (on the 3DS) is a 95% yet BOTW is a 70%. Right.

 

I doubt you'll find any Nintendo fan who would care if Jim's 95% for Hyrule Warriors (3DS) were removed with his 70% for BOTW because they are outliers. 

So when you don't like a game as much as Jim, the score is unjustified, and when you Jim doesn't like a game as much as you, it's also unjustified.

Okay. Have you considered that perhaps Jim decided to give Hyrule Warriors a 95 despite it's flaws the same way many reviewers have decided to give Breath of the Wild 100 scores despite it's flaws? It seems to me that your biggest problem with Jim is that his reasoning for what games do and do not deserve "free passes" are different than yours.

Perhaps you should take the time to learn that opinions are subjective, and your opinion isn't inherently better than anyone else's, including Jim Sterling's.



sc94597 on 15 March 2017
potato_hamster said:
sc94597 said:

You mean like Jim Sterling's 95% for the 70% Metacritic game with horrible framerate that was Hyrule Warriors (3DS)? Yeah plenty of Nintendo fans were criticisizing him for this crappy score, and his excuse is "I like the genre."

Somehow Hyrule Warriors with its repetitive gameplay, and crap framerate (on the 3DS) is a 95% yet BOTW is a 70%. Right.

 

I doubt you'll find any Nintendo fan who would care if Jim's 95% for Hyrule Warriors (3DS) were removed with his 70% for BOTW because they are outliers. 

So when you don't like a game as much as Jim, the score is unjustified, and when you Jim doesn't like a game as much as you, it's also unjustified.

Okay. Have you considered that perhaps Jim decided to give Hyrule Warriors a 95 despite it's flaws the same way many reviewers have decided to give Breath of the Wild 100 scores despite it's flaws? It seems to me that your biggest problem with Jim is that his reasoning for what games do and do not deserve "free passes" are different than yours.

Perhaps you should take the time to learn that opinions are subjective, and your opinion isn't inherently better than anyone else's, including Jim Sterling's.

The conversation was about outliers and metacritic scores. Don't try to deflect now (like you have done countless times in this thread.) You made a point about consistency and I countered it with an example. Address that rather than deflecting to a different discussion entirely. 



Around the Network
Azuren on 15 March 2017
zero129 said:
naruball said:

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.

What i find amazing is how many Sony gamers in this thread has problems with a game they never played.

50+ hours in.

 

1. Motion puzzles are garbage.

2. I wish I could keep track of my weapons' durability. 

3. Button placements for sprint and jump are trash.

4. Locking content (Epona, Hero Tunic, etc) behind difficult to find IRL toys is bullshit.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

NightDragon83 on 15 March 2017

You know Jim is just doing this for the clicks. One score doesn't ruin a game's reputation you know lol.



On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.

golfgt170 on 15 March 2017
NightDragon83 said:
You know Jim is just doing this for the clicks. One score doesn't ruin a game's reputation you know lol.

This is already answered numerous times before. 

On the matter at hand, still ppl can't accept the fact that ok the game scored 97 so far but no one can give it a 7 or a 6 as long as it is not a troll review. And ofc the personal attacking on the site. Which is an extreme action.



MTZehvor on 15 March 2017
Dyllyo said:

And if you follow Jim at all, you know he already dislikes Zelda and Nintendo. So his review was biased before he even started playing it.

9.5 for Hyrule Warriors

8.5 for Sun/Moon

9 for Super Mario Maker

8 for Splatoon

Yeah that's some real strong dislike for both Zelda and Nintendo as a whole.



Mummelmann on 15 March 2017
naruball said:
irstupid said:

The sum of what you were saying is that majority if not all BotW players right now are diehard fans, thus to the average consumer not the most reliable source. Correct?

So then the only people we can trust are reveiwers, whom 97 of them basically rate this game a 9.8/10 and 3 of them give it a 6.5/10. Or else there are people who have not played the game.

Take your pick I guess on who to trust. I would go with the majority of the reviewers and the biased fans over the 3 reviewers and the people who have not played the game.

I'm now at a point that I think you're not actually reading what I type. I truly believe that.

How do you go from "What I'm saying is that both critics and fans could be right but for the reasons I mentioned it's best to be extra cautious" to what you typed? Where did I mention the three negative reviews? Where did I say that we should trust those instead? Or the people who didn't play it?

I said, and I repeat it in case you read more carefully this time around, that we should take what people say with a pinch of salt. That the user reviews (not those on meta) of games with a wider audience are more reliable than those of what appears to (me to) be die hard fans. Nothing more, nothing less.

If someone is undecided, they can read the reviews, read the comments from people who have played it, watch a video or two and decide if that's something they would enjoy. From what I have seen it's not the kind of game I would enjoy to the point that I would buy a new console for. I would probably pay for it up to 20 euro if it was available on ps4.

I agree with this, there is some way heavy praise being flung around at Horizon: Zero Dawn as well, that it clearly doesn't deserve (and I say that as someone who has finished the whole thing and actually found it to exceed my expectations). Die-hard fans should not be the bar for how one goes into expectations of any entertainment product.