Jim Sterling Quits Traditional Reviewing

sXeth

Elite Member
Legacy
Nov 15, 2012
3,301
675
118
Phoenixmgs said:
I like Arkham Asylum myself but there's plenty to criticize about the game. I can easily see the complaint that the combat system is basically a series of quick-time events. And, even though the combat system was new and fresh at the time, I even recall it being rather limited in moves becoming repetitive as Arkham City really fleshed it out quite a bit more.
The bit I always found funny was that Arkham combat is just Assassins Creed (2 onward, 1 didn't have the button prompts/disarms/etc, though it did have the same basic counter move) combat. Maybe a bit more fluid in the animation department. Really, the whole game is just Batman Assassins Creed (which only became more of a descriptor with the proper sandbox iterations), which wasn't a terrible scathing remark at the time.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Seth Carter said:
Phoenixmgs said:
I like Arkham Asylum myself but there's plenty to criticize about the game. I can easily see the complaint that the combat system is basically a series of quick-time events. And, even though the combat system was new and fresh at the time, I even recall it being rather limited in moves becoming repetitive as Arkham City really fleshed it out quite a bit more.
The bit I always found funny was that Arkham combat is just Assassins Creed (2 onward, 1 didn't have the button prompts/disarms/etc, though it did have the same basic counter move) combat. Maybe a bit more fluid in the animation department. Really, the whole game is just Batman Assassins Creed (which only became more of a descriptor with the proper sandbox iterations), which wasn't a terrible scathing remark at the time.
I can see the similarities to the AssCreed combat system but there's also great differences. I only did play the 1st two AssCreeds but I recall the counter being basically a one-hit kill and the fact that your character was situated in the middle of goons waiting for one to come at you like a bad movie. Whereas in Arkham combat, you at least have to build up to your OPed attacks and the fact you're moving all over, going from one enemy to the other. Broken down on their most basic levels, they are pretty similar but Arkham combat definitely feels and flows so much better. Also, I recall Arkham Asylum being one of the first games that revealed/unlocked all the secrets by collecting maps, it was nice that you didn't need a guide to find everything like say the PS2 GTAs with their blasted hidden packages. Maybe the 1st AssCreed did it even earlier but I recall doing the "towers" to reveal the investigations in the 1st game vs revealing all the collectibles.
 

Buffoon1980

New member
Mar 9, 2013
136
0
0
Unpopular opinion, but... way too many of Jim's videos lately have been pandering, knee-jerk outrage over microtransactions. I actually unsubscribed, because it was getting so tedious. I could handle it if his analysis was actual insightful in any real sense, but he's really just started whining at great length about games he clearly hasn't played enough to reach an informed opinion.

On the topic of reviews in general, I will never, ever understand why people who aren't literally children care much about review scores. Just find a reviewer whose perspectives and opinions gel with yours, and even then don't take everything they say as gospel. And if people like stuff that you don't, or don't like stuff that you do... just... get over it. Seriously.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Buffoon1980 said:
Unpopular opinion, but... way too many of Jim's videos lately have been pandering, knee-jerk outrage over microtransactions. I actually unsubscribed, because it was getting so tedious. I could handle it if his analysis was actual insightful in any real sense, but he's really just started whining at great length about games he clearly hasn't played enough to reach an informed opinion.
I've noticed that too. Yeah, we get it that microtransactions suck but you don't have to do 3+ videos on Shadow of War alone. Jim should start making videos about games that don't do any of this bullshit because there are still plenty games (even AAA ones) that don't have any microtransaction bullshit. Basically bring the good stuff to everyone's attention. I couldn't even finish his $60 myth Jimquisition because there's plenty of games that are complete on release. The last 4 AAA games that I bought don't have any microtransactions and 2 have / will have DLC is definitely seems like legit post-release content with that being Dishonored 2 and Horizon.
 

wizzy555

New member
Oct 14, 2010
637
0
0
Buffoon1980 said:
Unpopular opinion, but... way too many of Jim's videos lately have been pandering, knee-jerk outrage over microtransactions. I actually unsubscribed, because it was getting so tedious. I could handle it if his analysis was actual insightful in any real sense, but he's really just started whining at great length about games he clearly hasn't played enough to reach an informed opinion.

On the topic of reviews in general, I will never, ever understand why people who aren't literally children care much about review scores. Just find a reviewer whose perspectives and opinions gel with yours, and even then don't take everything they say as gospel. And if people like stuff that you don't, or don't like stuff that you do... just... get over it. Seriously.
Not that unpopular, I stopped watching Sterling years ago.
 

Xorph

New member
Aug 24, 2010
295
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
-big snip-
Regarding story and score weight I agree with you 100%. As far as stuff like Arkham or MSG4 having 90+s go, I think there are games out there that legitimately deserve such high scores (Doom 2 comes to mind), but I see where you're coming from what with a disproportionate amount being that high.

In that regard, I think it may have at least partially to do with games being innovative. Ocarina of Time is another game with a laundry list of issues and something I'd personally rate like a 7-7.5, but when it came out it was an absolutely revolutionizing moment for the industry, and as a result it's one of the highest-rated games on metacritic and often makes it to #1 on GOAT lists.

Arkham and MGS4 were both in turn highly innovative and/or ambitious games, so while we look at them through a more critical lense now, back when they came out they were a huge deal and the reviews at the time reflect that perception.

Haven't played W3 myself but from what I've been told from friends the flaws seem to add up to something like 8-8.5/10, so while DD or Bayo may have 9+ grade combat, which may make W3 seem like a 7 by comparison, not many reviewers are going to score it as such. Its the same idea behind why a schoolteacher won't mark the rest of the class down just because one student's 10/10 essay is miles better than the other ones that still met the criteria to be 10s.

I do think thats another thing worth noting, that while its possible for a game to have many flaws, if they're all comparitively small (example, Quake 1's two bosses are utter garbo, but they're just a teeny tiny part of the game as compared to the other 36 or so levels), then it may not have much of an impact on the score, especially if its something optional such as the Riddler trophys where the impact on the game's "core" experience can be easily ignored if not practically nonexistant.

With Yahtzee, I feel like the fact that he doesn't score the games leads to an inherently different review dynamic that leads to it being easier to point out more commonly-ignored/accepted flaws not only within a given game, but flaws more intrinsic to that game's genre.

As a personal example I could write entire essays about all the problems I have with JRPGs that use RPG Maker style gameplay, but if I was actually scoring a game from that family I'd likely be ignoring said issues as they're more inherent to the genre than to the individual games.

On a final note I think maninahat's post a couple posts above your response to me brings up a great point in his main paragraph, so def read it if you skipped it over.
 

DaCosta

New member
Aug 11, 2016
184
0
0
Buffoon1980 said:
Unpopular opinion, but... way too many of Jim's videos lately have been pandering, knee-jerk outrage over microtransactions. I actually unsubscribed, because it was getting so tedious. I could handle it if his analysis was actual insightful in any real sense, but he's really just started whining at great length about games he clearly hasn't played enough to reach an informed opinion.
Yeah, I'm another one who dropped him years ago.

He has always been single-minded and boring. I got fed up with him when his hate boner for Konami was at an all time high (up to where I watched at least). He would make video after video saying the same exact complaints about Konami, and would take the smallest and most insignificant development as an excuse to tack on 2 or 3 min of complaining about Konami on the videos that weren't about them.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Xorph said:
Arkham and MGS4 were both in turn highly innovative and/or ambitious games, so while we look at them through a more critical lense now, back when they came out they were a huge deal and the reviews at the time reflect that perception.

Haven't played W3 myself but from what I've been told from friends the flaws seem to add up to something like 8-8.5/10, so while DD or Bayo may have 9+ grade combat, which may make W3 seem like a 7 by comparison, not many reviewers are going to score it as such. Its the same idea behind why a schoolteacher won't mark the rest of the class down just because one student's 10/10 essay is miles better than the other ones that still met the criteria to be 10s.

I do think thats another thing worth noting, that while its possible for a game to have many flaws, if they're all comparitively small (example, Quake 1's two bosses are utter garbo, but they're just a teeny tiny part of the game as compared to the other 36 or so levels), then it may not have much of an impact on the score, especially if its something optional such as the Riddler trophys where the impact on the game's "core" experience can be easily ignored if not practically nonexistant.

As a personal example I could write entire essays about all the problems I have with JRPGs that use RPG Maker style gameplay, but if I was actually scoring a game from that family I'd likely be ignoring said issues as they're more inherent to the genre than to the individual games.
I think you can easily look at a game at release and see its flaws regardless of how innovative/ambitious it was. When I played Uncharted 1 on Day 1, I knew it wasn't a good game. It was such an average game that it took the beta/demo of the 2nd game to convince me to buy it. I remember playing 3rd-person shooters like Syphon Filter and Winback back in the day and just knowing we can do better in time. It wasn't until RE4 where 3rd-person aiming started to actually feel good and didn't require lock-on/auto-aim to aim effectively. That's actually the reason why the MGS games have aged so well because they never tried being "shooters" from a control scheme perspective while Syphon Filter did. Then, MGS4 did actually get shooter controls when the industry figured it all out.

The one thing MGS4 did amazingly well you probably won't even find in any review, it still has the most mechanically sound 3rd-person shooter controls ever. MGS4's online component MGO2 was actually the most innovative online shooter of probably ever, something you won't find in any review either.

The main problem with RPGs is that combat takes up far too much of the experience. RPGs are about ROLE-PLAYING, which just about every reviewer doesn't get. Greg Tito formerly at the Escapist got it. Errant Signal gets it as he has a great video on how Fallout 4 is just about devoid of any RPing. That criticism is basically completely absent from "professional" reviewers. Witcher 3 has a lot of dialogue and story but barely any actual RPing; player agency. Then, just about every quest entails combat, which combat isn't good. When combat (or any element) is such a major element, it shouldn't be just passable. Combat in RPGs is far more than just a minor/small element, it's a major element. There's only one skill/ability/magic/etc in Witcher 3 that doesn't revolve around combat. RPGs are mainly just bad action games nowadays with more story than the average game. XCOM basically has better "RPG" combat than RPGs because it's literally just DnD's combat system but with guns and aliens instead of swords and monsters.

What is that you don't like about JRPGs as I don't know what you mean by RPG Maker style gameplay? My issue with the "classic" JRPG like Final Fantasy 10 and below is that the combat system was always been inherently flawed. Having heroes and enemies stand across from each other trading blows eliminates the main component that actually makes turn-based combat good and strategic, which is positioning. The whole point of turn-based combat is that it shouldn't be "fast". Final Fantasy XII actually perfectly proves that past combat systems were bad. Under-the-hood FFXII is literally the same system as FFX, FFXII just allowed for the player to program in all the common sense attacks/actions without forcing the player into a menu for every single action. I remember playing FFVI on SNES and not being able to get through it just due to boredom of the combat system, then I try FFX on PS2 and outside of graphics, it was the same fucking game with regards to mechanics. There's no reason random battles should've ever made it to PS2 gen. I understand way back they were implemented because of hardware limitations on NES, by PS1/N64 they should've been gone. Again, at least on PS2, FFXII literally proves there was no need for random battles.

Thus, I don't see a problem with rating a game low if you think the mechanics are bad. People love the Transformers movies and critics can score them as bad movies. Why not games? Nobody says that only Transformer fans should review Transformer movies.
 

Specter Von Baren

Annoying Green Gadfly
Legacy
Aug 25, 2013
5,632
2,849
118
I don't know, send help!
Country
USA
Gender
Cuttlefish
I prefer Let's Play's to reviews. Not only do you actually get to see gameplay of a game and thus see what it is that the person is experiencing (Outside of controls that aren't just completely borked) you can be entertained by their personality and even if the game ends up not looking like something you want, you can still enjoy that LPer's experience. LP's have their own issues of course but in terms of just getting a feel for a game I find it much better than a written review.
 

Xorph

New member
Aug 24, 2010
295
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Sorry for the days-late response

Totally agree that we can recognize the flaws of an innovative game on release, was moreso just pointing out that there seems to be a pattern of reviewers ignoring those flaws around release time in such cases, especially since they occasionally may not be immediately perceived as flaws (e.g. "this game aged badly")

And funnily enough yeah, RPG Maker style is synonymous with pre-FFX stuff, the boring back-and-forth slapfests (whether they be pure turn based or with the FF7 style refresh bar), and your own criticisms of it pretty much sum up my own.

And yeah, I likewise don't see a problem with calling out bad mechanics, I just think it's important to distinguish between "These mechanics are badly designed/balanced/etc" and "I didn't like these mechanics personally but I can see they're of solid design" or "I'm getting a bit tired of this mechanic being used so often even though it's well made".

Like for me personally, I'm not much a fan of sports games and seldom touch them, but I have a few friends big into NHL and WWE, and playing some games from both at their houses I can appreciate the well designed parts of those games even if it's something I'd otherwise never really enjoy on my own.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Xorph said:
Totally agree that we can recognize the flaws of an innovative game on release, was moreso just pointing out that there seems to be a pattern of reviewers ignoring those flaws around release time in such cases, especially since they occasionally may not be immediately perceived as flaws (e.g. "this game aged badly")

And funnily enough yeah, RPG Maker style is synonymous with pre-FFX stuff, the boring back-and-forth slapfests (whether they be pure turn based or with the FF7 style refresh bar), and your own criticisms of it pretty much sum up my own.

And yeah, I likewise don't see a problem with calling out bad mechanics, I just think it's important to distinguish between "These mechanics are badly designed/balanced/etc" and "I didn't like these mechanics personally but I can see they're of solid design" or "I'm getting a bit tired of this mechanic being used so often even though it's well made".

Like for me personally, I'm not much a fan of sports games and seldom touch them, but I have a few friends big into NHL and WWE, and playing some games from both at their houses I can appreciate the well designed parts of those games even if it's something I'd otherwise never really enjoy on my own.
Don't you think JRPGs would've innovated faster if reviewers actually made such criticisms of said mechanics? It's kinda like how the X-Men movies haven't really "kept up" with everyone else with regards to comic book movies since the original X-Men movie that was liked more than it really should've because it merely didn't suck, which was an accomplishment at the time. And I don't think it's that hard to see the flaws is something that is indeed fresh as especially with games it's easy to see how to expand on the new mechanic/idea. Arkham City was easily the biggest jump in gameplay quality in the entire series after Rocksteady created the solid foundation that was Arkham Asylum.

First and foremost what I want from a reviewer is to know how much or how little they liked something whether it's a game, movie, music, etc. I don't at all think we have that from professional game reviews. And professional reviews are horrible at determining balance; what professional reviewer has ever properly reviewed a multiplayer game/component where the game hinges on balance? Even single player games, where's a review that details how unbalanced Witcher 3 is or how overpowered you become in the mid-to-late game in Horizon?
 

Xorph

New member
Aug 24, 2010
295
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Don't you think JRPGs would've innovated faster if reviewers actually made such criticisms of said mechanics? It's kinda like how the X-Men movies haven't really "kept up" with everyone else with regards to comic book movies since the original X-Men movie that was liked more than it really should've because it merely didn't suck, which was an accomplishment at the time. And I don't think it's that hard to see the flaws is something that is indeed fresh as especially with games it's easy to see how to expand on the new mechanic/idea. Arkham City was easily the biggest jump in gameplay quality in the entire series after Rocksteady created the solid foundation that was Arkham Asylum.

First and foremost what I want from a reviewer is to know how much or how little they liked something whether it's a game, movie, music, etc. I don't at all think we have that from professional game reviews. And professional reviews are horrible at determining balance; what professional reviewer has ever properly reviewed a multiplayer game/component where the game hinges on balance? Even single player games, where's a review that details how unbalanced Witcher 3 is or how overpowered you become in the mid-to-late game in Horizon?
Yeah, I kinda blame it on a "this is the best this genre has at the moment" attitude. Like you said, X-men's flaws were ignored at the time because it was the best marvel movies had, so I can see the flaws of JRPGs being glossed on for the same reason.
Def agree that it isn't hard to see flaws on release, but I certainly think all the factors mentioned thus far play into reviewers ignoring them. Breath of the Wild is another game that got a bunch of 10/10s and while I think its a really fun game I myself would probably rate it like an 8.2 for a variety of flaws that many reviews just flatout ignored.

And while I personally value how well a reviewer thinks a game was made more than how much they personally enjoyed it (example, Undertale is listed as my Favorite Game on steam and yet I'd only rate it like 8.0), I totally agree, balance seems to be a completely foreign concept to most professional reviewers. For my own reviews on steam I actually put more weight into balance than any other aspect for all but walking simulators and the like, but even for ameteur reviews on steam it seems to be an uncommon practice to rate balance.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Xorph said:
Breath of the Wild is another game that got a bunch of 10/10s and while I think its a really fun game I myself would probably rate it like an 8.2 for a variety of flaws that many reviews just flatout ignored.

And while I personally value how well a reviewer thinks a game was made more than how much they personally enjoyed it (example, Undertale is listed as my Favorite Game on steam and yet I'd only rate it like 8.0), I totally agree, balance seems to be a completely foreign concept to most professional reviewers.
It just boggles my mind when a game gets so many perfect scores because of how much it entails to get said perfect score. For me to score a game a perfect 10; not does the gameplay have to completely spot-on and best of its class but the story and characters have to be of the quality that makes for my favorite movies and TV shows (assuming the game has a story, which most do nowadays). With how shit writing is in the video game industry, the 2nd part being true is almost a zero chance. What's the chance of even just a few reviewers feeling that way about any game let alone more than half the 108 people that reviewed Breath of the Wild.

Yahtzee's latest Zero Punctuation (Hob and Hat in Time) is basically exactly what I want from a review with regards to what was his genuine enjoyment level. Obviously, with on like 2 minutes for each game, there wasn't enough there to explain his enjoyment and non-enjoyment of both games with as much detail and depth as I would like. As a consumer of any media (games, movies, TV, music, etc.) I want to try stuff that someone else genuinely loves and is excited about vs trying something just because it did everything "right".