Jim Sterling reviewed Zelda BOTW today, then angry comments exploded, site down multiple times...
- Thread starter Neurotic Void Melody
- Start date
Like I said, there's no accounting for taste. He also found Horizon's Aloy a great protagonist, and I really like that game and all, but yeah... nooooo.Kaimax said:
I've heard other people complain about things like the stamina bar though, so I guess it's just one of those things that's going to divide people.
I was referring more to the second link than the first, but hey -- the first one works too! There's plenty of FTC investigations into paid video game shilling to go around these days.Xsjadoblayde said:
It's actually quite frightening just how similar his opinion is to mine in relation to several games. I had the same peeves in relation to BotW, while also recognizing that it is a good game at its heart. I grew tired with Nintendo's gimmickiness over the years, and that's showing now, bright as day.
But, as we all know, the internet is for porn and for hating. People find a lot of pleasure rallying with like-minded individuals against 'da man', even if 'da man' is an independent game journalist.
Luckily, tomorrow the golden fishes will have forgotten about this, and will probably move towards the next outrage.
But, as we all know, the internet is for porn and for hating. People find a lot of pleasure rallying with like-minded individuals against 'da man', even if 'da man' is an independent game journalist.
Luckily, tomorrow the golden fishes will have forgotten about this, and will probably move towards the next outrage.
In my defense he's named dropped me multiple times on his podcast as that guy who hates Dark Souls too much.Jandau said:
Okay. And...?Yoshi178 said:pretty silly that 79/81 reviews can all be a mixture of 10/10 and 9.5/10 scores and how they can all suddenly be undermined by 2 measly reviews to bring the score down a point.
that said 97/100 is still an incredible score to have on metacritic. Nintendo should be proud regardless.
also this gives a clear explanation on the scores LOL
Slant Magazine even gave No Man's Sky a 4.5/5 stars review. funny that. XD
http://www.slantmagazine.com/games/review/no-mans-sky
Is there some sort of point you're trying to make? Both games have damn good scores on Metacritic.
In my experience, Nintendo, more than another fandom attracts poorly adjusted man children. All the die hard Nintendo fans I have met have all had some sort of mental problem and an extreme obsession with Nintendo franchises. There is just something about it man...maybe Nintendo puts something in our water.Xsjadoblayde said:
As opposed to the 1080p/60 FPS crowd who can't stop defending PC even when the thread has nothing do with PC gaming at all?Dansen said:
Nor you mine.Avnger said:
The truth is, anyone who uses the term man child(ren) isn't one to be reasoned with. Saying that all Nintendo fans (that still remain Nintendo fans) are mentally impaired is ridiculous but I doubted reasoning would make much difference so I took another approach.
Nintendo's gotten a few roasts over the years (Metroid Other M, most of the Star Fox sequels. Various Wii shovelware titles. Mario [Insert Sport]) without much dissent, but yeah, Zelda's always been the proverbial sacred cow you're not allowed to critique.B-Cell said:
I have no idea what "Sony Game" would be comparable. Last of Us I guess has its strangely rabid fanbase for a relatively generic third person shooter/stealthy zombie game that mostly got by on good character acting. Their mascot Smash Bros. clone was actually kind of funny with how they had to stretch to get iconic characters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link%27s_Crossbow_Training#ReceptionSeth Carter said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Tri_Force_Heroes#Reception
Zelda has a lot of good will, but it's not above critique.
Because your point has absolutely nothing to do with this thread other than to serve as a deflection. What other fanbases may or may not do has no relation to Ninty fanboys being fucktards in this case. If you'd like to discuss the non-sequitur that you posted, make a new thread.WeepingAngels said:
And, surprise, you read more into his post than actually existed to get offended. Dansen neither stated that all Nintendo fans are impaired (he said all "die hard" ones "I have met") nor stated that all Nintendo fans are manchildren (he said "in my experience" "more than any other fandom" implying other fandoms have them as well). Also, manchildren (other than the implied assumption that they're all male) is a completely accurate term for any adults who would engage in such behavior; an adult knows how to temper their emotions and understands that people can have different opinions than them.WeepingAngels said:
I don't think this is linked especially to Nintendo-Fans.
I have of course not conducted an extensive study but from my personal experience this can happen because of anything and the behaviour gets worse the bigger the group is that likes whatever it is and the smaller the group is that dislikes or even just not likes it as much.
I think people identify with whatever item is concerned too much. Criticising the item becomes a personal attack for them and then they get really defensive about it.
May have something to do with wishful thinking that there is something we all can bond over and universally agree on.
What we see here is that a video game is praised by basically everyone. So the group that likes it is astoundingly big. Therefore, it is much more likely to include a lot of people who identify with the game too much for their own good.
However, they see themselves justified by their peers to suppress any negativity. After all: "Everyone likes it." So it brings out the shit-bag in them.
Like I said this has nothing to with Nintendo or Zelda this can happen for any reason. All you have to do is "disturb" the peace of a group by daring to criticise the only item they actually agree on that made them a group in the first place.
I have of course not conducted an extensive study but from my personal experience this can happen because of anything and the behaviour gets worse the bigger the group is that likes whatever it is and the smaller the group is that dislikes or even just not likes it as much.
I think people identify with whatever item is concerned too much. Criticising the item becomes a personal attack for them and then they get really defensive about it.
May have something to do with wishful thinking that there is something we all can bond over and universally agree on.
What we see here is that a video game is praised by basically everyone. So the group that likes it is astoundingly big. Therefore, it is much more likely to include a lot of people who identify with the game too much for their own good.
However, they see themselves justified by their peers to suppress any negativity. After all: "Everyone likes it." So it brings out the shit-bag in them.
Like I said this has nothing to with Nintendo or Zelda this can happen for any reason. All you have to do is "disturb" the peace of a group by daring to criticise the only item they actually agree on that made them a group in the first place.
I never really cared for Zelda, I played most of em but the only one I finished was TP which apparently lots of people don't like.
I'm strictly a fan of Okami when we tackle Zelda-style games, I describe it as "Zelda, but good". Ever since I played that game I could never bother with any Zelda and I'd rather just replay Okami one more time instead. Maybe I finished TP since in that game you can become a wolf and steal some of that Okami thunder? Who knows.
In any case, 7 is pretty bad in the current climate of reviewing where CoD games get higher grades from most publishers so you can't really blame the public when the journalists have made it seem that anything under a 9 means the game is not worth your money.
I'm strictly a fan of Okami when we tackle Zelda-style games, I describe it as "Zelda, but good". Ever since I played that game I could never bother with any Zelda and I'd rather just replay Okami one more time instead. Maybe I finished TP since in that game you can become a wolf and steal some of that Okami thunder? Who knows.
In any case, 7 is pretty bad in the current climate of reviewing where CoD games get higher grades from most publishers so you can't really blame the public when the journalists have made it seem that anything under a 9 means the game is not worth your money.
Face it, Jim knew EXACTLY what he was doing giving the game a 7/10. He's been doing this long enough to KNOW what buttons to push when it comes to a new Zelda game. He did it on purpose. Probably also knew a 7/10 score would actually drop the metacritic average by 1 point as well.
Personally, I don't think the game is a 10. I would give it a 9 if I were reviewing it because it does so much right that the small flaws it has are quite noticable (repetitive shrines, frame-rate issues, small dungeons etc.) so there is room for improvement but they made one hell of a great overworld and they reward exploration with many surprises! Jim complained a lot about the weapon-breaking system but it really is a non-issue. You're never really without a weapon to back yourself up. Hell, I ignore heaps of weapons because I know they are inferior to the ones I have already.
There was only ever one time I ran out of weapons and that was in a shrine. You were meant to stasis a ball, whack it a few times and have it fly into a hole. I couldn't get the ball to land in the hole and broke all my weapons. I just loaded a save and tried again from the beginning of the shrine. Got it that time!
So going back to the 7/10, he basically asked for this. This is what he wanted so he could get some content to discuss for the next few weeks (I bet you that for the rest of March his Jimquisition episodes will be focused on the subject of 'review scores'). I don't hate Jim for this but I see through his facade of blaming 'angry haters' for the DDoS attacks.
Personally, I don't think the game is a 10. I would give it a 9 if I were reviewing it because it does so much right that the small flaws it has are quite noticable (repetitive shrines, frame-rate issues, small dungeons etc.) so there is room for improvement but they made one hell of a great overworld and they reward exploration with many surprises! Jim complained a lot about the weapon-breaking system but it really is a non-issue. You're never really without a weapon to back yourself up. Hell, I ignore heaps of weapons because I know they are inferior to the ones I have already.
There was only ever one time I ran out of weapons and that was in a shrine. You were meant to stasis a ball, whack it a few times and have it fly into a hole. I couldn't get the ball to land in the hole and broke all my weapons. I just loaded a save and tried again from the beginning of the shrine. Got it that time!
So going back to the 7/10, he basically asked for this. This is what he wanted so he could get some content to discuss for the next few weeks (I bet you that for the rest of March his Jimquisition episodes will be focused on the subject of 'review scores'). I don't hate Jim for this but I see through his facade of blaming 'angry haters' for the DDoS attacks.
I'm highly critical of overinflated scoring systems. The most abysmal are the ones with 100 scale.Dreiko said:
Now it might make sense if you are an aggregator like Metacritic because you are not actually making a recommendation but collecting data.
But it makes no sense for a review score in of itself. I doubt anyone can explain the difference between an 86 and 87 for example. There are few scores there that actually make a difference for example: 79. Why 79? Because apparently the game was not good enough for the 80 which is considered the spot for good game these days. So withholding one point said probably more about the game than the 79 points that were given. Which I think is kind of absurd.
A scale of 10 is IMO also already too detailed as the scores from 0 to 4 hardly get used so why have them? It becomes even worse when fractions become involved which I think is true of a scale of 5 as well. If you have a scale of 5 with fractions why not make it a scale of ten already?
Personally I think scoreboards with a scale as small as possible are the best. They cut to the chase. If you want details read the text.
There is of course some merit to some degree of details in the score. That's why I prefer a scale from 0 to 5 with no fractions:
0 = Scams:
The creators did not even try to make an enjoyable game or a game at all but extort money from the uninformed e.g. repacked asset games or games with really absurd business practices e.g. Dungeon Keeper mobile.
1 = Bad Game:
The creators did try to make a game but lacked ideas and created mostly dysfunctional game mechanics and/or technology e.g. Superman64 or E.T.
2 = Poor Game:
The game has some good ideas but they are rather poorly executed. Fans of the subject matter might still get something out of it.
3 = Decent/okay game:
The game has good ideas that are competently executed but lack a bit of refinement. It?s a bit rough round the edges but overall enjoyable.
4 = Good game:
Good ideas that are well executed.
5 = Excellent Game:
A good game that on top might have an influence on the genre or video games in general.
Everyone should at least have a look at it.
Sir I award you the Victim blaming 101 award!pearcinator said:
I like it to be even smaller still. If a game is poor or bad or a scam, I'm not going to play them either way, so I lump them all together. Most reviews these days are positive, so it is just a question of helping consumers prioritise which game to devote their time and money to.Ishigami said:
Mine is 4 points only:
1- Bad
2- OK
3- Good
4- Must have
