Truer words were never spoken.

That said, Jim Sterling's got a talent for getting himself in trouble: No Man's Sky, Digital Homicide, and now this.

Even PSN and XBL has gotten DDOS'd....... you think they are running it off a rasberry too?

This is just silly nonsense from a certain subset of users. Yet you somehow try and turn it into something the site owner is plotting as opposed to focus on the lowlifes that did it to begin with?

He's lucky he didnt give the game a 5/10. Probably would have been getting death threats. And I thought sony fans were bad.

Then he shouldn't review open-world games. This is literally what everyone was asking for when skyward Sword came out.

Oh, we gamers can be so damn childish, whether its horizon, zelda, etc. It's just sad.

This is kind of why I stopped following Jim's work closely. 

I mean, he's right. DH and all the other "developers" trying to make a quick buck of Steam Greenlight suck.

I don't need to hear about it or see him pick fights with them every week though. Just don't use Steam Greenlight. Point taken. Let's move on.

Way too much of his content seems to be built around, "Jim vs. XYZ Entity". 

This BS again. Where is the point of reviews when only people allowed to review are the ones who like the game?

Reviews are a service to the consumer, which includes all consumers. Yes, also people who are more weary of open world games. How would they be properly informed if not someone like them reviews the game? They would actually think the game is worth their time because no one would've pointed out the general flaws this and other open world games have.

He is probably mistaking Traffic flow into his site as a DDoS attack.

It's a review to get attention to the site, this was known to be the outcome before it was published on their, if anyone thinks that the owners of the website are surprised by the attention this review is getting their website there might actually be something the matter with you.

I'm not saying that he is wrong to criticize it, but I'm saying that the score was made not to review the game but instead to stir a reaction and ad revenue.

All I'm saying is that if you don't normally visit Jim Sterlings website, please don't change that fact before of this review, if it's to go there and give support for the site or to go out there and give out. Please. Don't fall for clickbait reviews one way or the other.

This is true ofc but then there is the genre that has to be considered. For instance, i don't like sports games in general, hence i cannot review them properly. I think the reviewer has to be reviewing games, that he generaly likes to play and then give a better and more subjective opinion on the matter.

And Jimquisitions critique is mostly OK, the question is how much it does take away from the fun. For Jim it seems to be a bit more than for others.

The Slant magazine review was strange. Nitpicking about details on one hand and adding to that strange play decisions. So he commented, that he took down the same Bobklin-camp (not moblins) multiple times in the *tutorial-area*:

"You cannot leave the plateau until you follow the orders of a mysterious old man, and as you explore this area, ransacking the same type of Moblin camp can get old fast."

Well, I ran away from the fights except a few this early in the game and I didn't saw any reason to get back to a fight I already fought multiple times. I can't even get why anyone would do that? I wanted to get the glider, so I did what the old man wanted. And even if I wouldn't had run from the fights, there was no reason to get back to it. So personal decision of the reviewer, but marked as a bad point for the game.

Also I laughed, because he criticizes that Link has to save Zelda and fight Ganon. Same old, same old. Yes, this Slant review was strange.

I'm not in Jim's head so I can't definitively make this conclusion. 

I do think reviewers do this sometimes though, because why wouldn't they?

Another positive review for a game a week after everyone else has already reviewed it won't drive as much traffic as a review that goes against the status quo.

Again, I have no idea if Jim did this or not, but it makes sense. You could say that it risks his credibility, but it doesn't really since 

A.) The review is still generally positive

and 

B.) I think people go to Jim for less for his critical eye and more for his firebrand personality and his hot takes. It's like calling Steven A. Smith out for having a bad sports opinion. It's not his job to predict the outcome of games or a player's career trajectory or provide in depth analysis. His job is to scream on TV and have wacky and exciting opinions.

There's no telling to what extent reviewers actually do this stuff, but I think it's helpful to try to read between the lines sometimes. A good example would be Arthur Gies's "non-review" of Star Fox Zero. Giving SFZ a low score probably doesn't drive traffic. Posting, "Star Fox Zero is not a good game, and I'm not going to play any more of it." does.