-> not unfairly subjective -> 1/10 for Senua -> overly low ratings for some (granted, not very good) games

He is very subjective, that is part of what makes him worth watching.

He is subjective, but not unfairly so as far as I'm concerned. Senua was the exception, and he corrected his mistake himself. 

I don't think that's how a review should be done at all. Imagine an art critic is going over a painting of elepahnts. Personally the art critic thinks that elephants are the ugliest animals on the face of the earth. But the art critic can see that the painting has good balance, lighting, and is painted from an interesting viewing angle. Should the critic give the painting a 4/10 because he doesn't like elephants? Or should he recognize the talent put into the work and give it a higher score? The purpose of a review is to give a recommendation to your audience. 

When a reviewer steps back and asks "How would my peers like this?", instead of "How do I like this?", that's about as close as you can get to being objective in a review. 

Which is generally why a single critic doesn't review every type of game. Jim doesn't do that either. He has for example hired other people to review certain types of games for his site if he himself doesn't feel confident in reviewing them. Fighting games for example are often reviewed by someone else for him.

You said it. That is why he gave it the score. If he came across a gamebreaking bug he couldnt get through, the game deserves a 1/10 and he is to be praised for coming out and informing his readers about the trap.

And don't bring up the Zelda BS please. He has every right to give it the score he deems right. You don't get to force your opinions on others.

Yes, he is terrible cause he uses the full breadth of the scale instead of giving everything 7+ and making all games ranked as crap unless they score 9+.

Jim is an old school reviewer and he is better than 98% of the other reviewers out there that are too afraid to be honest due to beeing blacklisted by publishers.

I apreciate Jim's honesty and i respect his opinion alot.I don't always agree but when he gives a bad score i know he had good reasons for it and the game is indeed lacking wether i manage to enjoy it regardless or not.

I can understand giving a low score when you're hit what I understand is a beyond terrible design flaw that made it impossible to progress and that also messed up the only save file. Still, a 1/10 should be given to games that are both broken and so awful to play your brain takes damage.

The new score sounds more fair given he enjoyed the game a whole lot up to that point and it's a good thing he manned up and admitted he wasn't being fair. Still, the fact that he completed and submitted a review while in rage mode does hurt his credibility somewhat as it begs the question if other reviews were done like that, and you'll most certainly have people jump on him in the future if he differs too much (or too little) from other reviewers.

I agree with Darashiva here. Critics and reviewers are valuable because of their expertise and perspective, not because they represent as many demographics as possible. It's up to readers to find the critic or publication that matches their tastes; it's not the critic's responsibility to take others' opinions into consideration. 

If you want a simple summary of the game you can watch a trailer or read a product description. If you want an artful, entertaining analysis of a game based on an individual's subjective tastes, read a review. If a single reviewer hates the games you love, find another reviewer.

Yep. And IGN don't fix their mistakes, they cover them up. I remember the controversy around the The Fight review, which is why I stopped going to their site entirely.  

Part of the reason the reviewer gave it a poor score was because he thought the motion tracking was shit.  And he thought it was weird you had to hit Circle to block, instead of just throwing up your arms.  The kicker? That is how you block. Circle is to recalibrate the controls.  So, the whole fight he had been constantly recalibrating the controls.

Now, what did IGN do when people pointed it out? Did they take the review down and make him do it again, this time playing it right? Nope. Just take out that silly little line about hitting Circle to block and keep the rest of the review up, including the part about the poor tracking and the final score given. Then they started erasing comments about him recalibrating the controls.  Never been back since.

Sadly, I think that's exactly it. Some of the same people bashing him for it. And seen more than a few comments say basically, "Oh, so this is as good as Zelda? Yea, whatever."

Can't understand people saying, "How dare you think this game is just good and not damn near perfect. Fuck you to hell."

Yeah, it's important that reviewers give their own opinions instead of trying (and failing) to be "objective". What one reviewer likes another might hate; what some reviewers write off as minor annoyances at worst might be dealbreakers for others. And it's obviously the same with gamers.

I feel like a lot of people have become so obsessed with metacritc scores that they don't (want to) understand the value in personal, subjective reviews.