By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - Your review is a little forced in spots, Jim

KLAMarine on 02 April 2017
LurkerJ said:
KLAMarine said:

For the record, I don't recall ever complaining about Jim giving the game a 7/10. If Jim feels the game deserves a 7/10, I stand behind him 100%. However, if in the meat of his review he's going to complain about a cutscene "disrespecting" player's time, I'm going to point out that Jim makes no mention that most cutscenes can be skipped.

 


I don't disagree with the point you are making. However, you'd be surprised by the amount of reviews that are filled with inaccuracies and factually wrong statements, be it positive or negative, it's just no one bothers to nitpick. Some FF fans were very upset by the Guardian's review, they supposedly gave FF15 a bad score for some BS reason, and fans nitpicked that one paragraph they didn't like, forgetting that The Guardian's review just balances out one of the undeserved perfect scores it got when it's obviously a flawed and imperfect game. 

 In the end, you have the clickbaiters and the generous reviews cancelling each other out, so chill out

I'm chill yo. I find good discussion fun.

NintendoPie said:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with Jim's review. He is the equivalent of a tabloid writer and so he writes what he feels, idiotic or not.

The only thing wrong with his reviews are that certain people treat them as real, objective reviews and that Metacritic acts as if his reviews should count towards some type of real "critic score." He is not that. That is fine, but that is all.

Has Jim described himself as a tabloid writer in more recent times? He describes himself to a degree as such in pokoko's link https://www.destructoid.com/screw-your-journalism-why-games-blogging-is-nothing-to-be-ashamed-of-68336.phtml but the article is almost ten years old...



Around the Network
Alkibiádēs on 02 April 2017
twintail said:
Alkibiádēs said:

I also find the blood moons annoying (although it's cool that enemies stay dead for a while), but they're pretty rare, so Jim Sterling is objectively wrong in the way he formed his opinion. If enemies didn't stay dead you could just grind for good weapons. So overall, it's a system that makes the game better, but there is a small downside with it (the short interuption). 

You just fabricated a complaint that he didnt make. You are the one wrong here.

He isn't complaining that the enemies stay dead for too long, or dont respawn fast enough. He clearly states that something that bugs him about the game are the:

Frequent interruptions when monsters respawn during a “blood moon”

His complaint is the manner in which they respawn because he thinks the blood moon cinematic sequence is an interuption to the flow of gameplay, and nothing else about it. 

Learn to read, I just said that blood moons are rare and not at all frequent like he claims. I think I know, I've played the game for over a 100 hours. 

I explained why the blood moons make the game overall better, despite some downsides. Jim Sterling doesn't have a lot of insight when it comes to game development, that much is sure. 



"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides

MTZehvor on 02 April 2017
spurgeonryan said:
Yeah I never give him or angry gamer any business.

Because of carp like that.

Same goes with game spot after a bad Zelda review, did not go to that site for a year. On purpose, by design.

Boy, you really showed them.



NintendoPie on 02 April 2017
KLAMarine said:

Has Jim described himself as a tabloid writer in more recent times? He describes himself to a degree as such in pokoko's link https://www.destructoid.com/screw-your-journalism-why-games-blogging-is-nothing-to-be-ashamed-of-68336.phtml but the article is almost ten years old...

I don't care if he describes himself as one or not, he is. He does little more than write opinion pieces. And no, to those thinking reviews are ultimately just opinion pieces, they are not. An actual reviewer researches their points and weights the score on more than feeling. Not Jim, but it's fine, because he's not a reviewer, he is there for entertainment and for some he hits the mark well.



DaveTheMinion13 on 02 April 2017

So hes not allowed to have an opposing opinion.........most his "gripes" are legit issues with the game. Theres nothing wrong with his review.....for its an opinion. He could have given it 8 and people would still be crying over another persons view



Preston Scott

Around the Network
KLAMarine on 02 April 2017
DaveTheMinion13 said:
So hes not allowed to have an opposing opinion.........most his "gripes" are legit issues with the game. Theres nothing wrong with his review.....for its an opinion. He could have given it 8 and people would still be crying over another persons view

Not saying he's not allowed to have an opinion. I'm just saying that portions of his opinion are not very well founded.



Platina on 02 April 2017

Only skimmed through the review before, though while those are issues, I feel they are more of nitpicks, but not that I really mind since I don't really agree with this reviewer's scoring overall with other games



NintenDomination [May 2015 - July 2017]
 

  - Official  VGChartz Tutorial Thread - 

NintenDomination [2015/05/19 - 2017/07/02]
 
          

 

 

Here lies the hidden threads. 

 | |

Nintendo Metascore | Official NintenDomination | VGC Tutorial Thread

| Best and Worst of Miiverse | Manga Discussion Thead |
[3DS] Winter Playtimes [Wii U]

AlphaOmegaSin on 02 April 2017

Is it really that hard to believe that the weapon stability system might be a turn off for some people? I mean, it's not like he did something like give the game a 4/10 for it or something. He gave it a 7. I could see why some people would cry fowl if he gave it a cripplingly low score like that, but he didn't. People are essentially complaining that he liked the game, just not as much as they did. 

 

But nah, far more likely that it's "bias" I guess. If Jim gave Horizon far lower than other critics, I bet the very same people would be saying that his review is the only honest/accurate one.



Super_Boom on 02 April 2017
pokoko said:

In a nutshell, Sterling doesn't analyse the data and subtract the cons from the pros in order to get his scores.  He just marks down a number that represents how much he liked the game.  I can understand the argument that such a method doesn't fit with Metacritic but the idea that he's "wrong" about how much he enjoyed his time playing is absurd.  

Yeah, that's been takeaway so far. Personally, I didn't really care about the score much..but looking at some of his other scores, he just comes across as any other gamer on the internet. I don't care how much he personally likes the Warriors series, I just can't imagine anyone can objectively find a port of Hyrule Warriors as being better than Breath of the Wild. Subjetive opinions are fine...I know I have mine. I'd probably rate the worst Fire Emblem higher than anything in the Uncharted franchise. At the same time though...I would never want my opinion on Metacritic, because I don't think I'd be able to defend my reviews objectively. Which is how I feel when I look at this individual's reviews. The review is only trustworthy if you have the same exact same tastes as that reviewer.

Now...the counter-argument to that is that is that's plenty of reverse going on as well...which I can't speak to. Just looking at Jim Sterling alone though, I don't see a reason to hold his review in very high regard.



NNID: Zephyr25 / PSN: Zephyr--25 / Switch: SW-4450-3680-7334

lasershow on 02 April 2017

Jim can be very good, but this video, was really weak.It actually dissapointed me, the 7/10 seemed like an attention grab and not a believable score based on his reasoning. Even if based on his complaints he said 8/10, it would have felt much more reasonable rather than coming off as someone who loves going against the grain and stirring the pot of trouble. His complaints for the game seem like he came in wanting to hate the game and was set on making it seem like a overrated average at best game.