Why Jim Sterling's Mario Kart 7 review is bullshit.

[Something Amyss]

"Oh no, an internet reviewer failed to validate my personal opinions!"

Get over it.

But...Someone is WRONG on the internet!

>.>

 

[Baneat]

not to sound like a CoD hater, but if he gave Mario Kart a 5 for not changing anything, then he has no reason to give MW3 a 9.5

This. I'd be fine if he also gave CoD something like this score, since he wants to mark down for lack of innovation. For a new player, MK7 is probably still just as good as the other ones. On its own, CoD is a pretty good game, I'd give it an 8/10. But I've played almost the exact same game before, 3 times, so I enjoyed it like an average game, a 5/10 (This is roughly Jim's scale of game-rating).

It makes an important point for reviewing as a whole, though. Should you mark your games based on its standalone features, regardless of predecessors or competition, or should you also take into account the lack of innovation or new elements in the game when considering it?

Jim kind of seems to have switched his choice here. Or maybe he just doesn't like MK games that much, but then he could just say that instead of including the point that it's like the older games and that'd be fine.

Jim didn't complain about the lack of innovation in his review.

Also, I've actually tried to find Jim's review of MW3 on Destructoid, but the only thing I could find was a review by a different person, and it was given a 6.5

I read it again to see, but honestly, it seems like the whole tone of the review was that it wasn't moving far enough from the old games. Especially the first paragraph. And my argument between CoD and MK kind of completely falls apart if the review doesn't exist. I watch his show, I think he's great, but don't follow his reviews and just assumed the guy that posted the image macro had some kind of basis behind the text on it.
PS: Never mind, the review's been linked after.

Why do people call the rubber-band AI and blue shells in Mario Kart "flaws?"

Mario Kart is designed so that everyone has a chance to win, regardless of skill. Skill will get you to win much more often out of many races, but those elements are put in there to make sure that other players will win at least one race. Playing a game with someone 100 times more skilled than you is never any fun, and Nintendo knows that.

That just leaves it up to random chance, you might as well flip a coin, why bother playing the game if nothing I do matters in the end, playing a game with someone 100 times better than you is indeed no fun, but playing one where nothing you do matters in the slightest is 1000 times worse than that, even if you use as much skill as possible in the game, you throw your bananas forward and nail people, use green shells effectively, drift competently, it's still going to be a massive pile of bullshit to lose to a blue shell an inch from the finish line, you thought you were going to win? Nope because the player in the back of the pack clicked the fire button

It's great to play with younger players or less skilled(Or more drunk!) players, since by default you're not going to annihilate them instantly or by laps and laps. Yeah, being blue shelled by your 6 year old brother is annoying to you, but the devious little shit's shadenfreude from throwing it's great for them.

 

[Something Amyss]

Jim didn't complain about the lack of innovation in his review.

Also, I've actually tried to find Jim's review of MW3 on Destructoid, but the only thing I could find was a review by a different person, and it was given a 6.5

http://www.destructoid.com/review-call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-215404.phtml

That's got Jim's name on it and a 9.5 review score.

 

[V8 Ninja]

...And this is one of the major problems with the video games industry; people are complaining about other people's opinions. Come on, fellow forum users, let's all just take a deep breath and move on.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Jim didn't complain about the lack of innovation in his review.

Also, I've actually tried to find Jim's review of MW3 on Destructoid, but the only thing I could find was a review by a different person, and it was given a 6.5

http://www.destructoid.com/review-call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-215404.phtml

That's got Jim's name on it and a 9.5 review score.

How'd you find that if you don't mind me asking? Because I seriously couldn't.

Edit: You know...I agree with Jim's score.

Final Verdict:
9.5

Superb: 9s are a hallmark of excellence. There may be flaws, but they are negligible and won't cause massive damage to what is a supreme title in its *genre*.

Call of Duty is pretty much the defining game of the FPS genre. When a bunch of same-y FPSes came out, what did everyone call them? CoD clones. If you say 'FPS', most people think of CoD.

Whether or not Call of Duty is stagnant doesn't really weigh in on the score that it got. It does define the genre, so it fits the criteria for a 9 on the Destructoid.

Edit 2: I should point out, by the Destructoid's scoring system, a 9 doesn't mean the game is amazing. It just defines the genre. A 10 means that the game both defines a genre and is mindblowingly awesome.

 

[pwnzerstick]

Review scores have gotten too damn high (Like the rent!). We can not let ourselves fall into the trap of buying the same rehashed game over and over again. Games that have become stagnant, just sleeping through development, slowly adding the bare minimum of content to the new release should be punished. Gamers have fallen into a trance, buying the next game in the series no matter what, even if they hated the last one (see Black Ops), they will still buy the sequel. The game may be fun, but if you are content to sit back and let the same set of games be released each year then you are poisoning the future of this medium.

 

[Fusioncode9]

After Jim gave such a low score to Bastion I've pretty much disregarded his reviews and opinion.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

http://www.destructoid.com/review-mario-kart-7-216484.phtml

Jim Sterling, once again showing what a hypocrite he is, gives Mario Kart 7 a 5 out of 10 for being a "stagnant, crawling, and indolent effort" despite being more lenient towards the Dynasty Warriors series, which is just as stagnant as this game, if not more.

English Language warrior:Thats not what a hypocrite is... Thats just being biased.

OT: All critics are entitled to an opinion. The fact that he redressed one game for a reason that he let slip on another just means that he isn't as good at expressing his views as say, some of the more famous critics we see in national papers and magazines. He must have reasons to think that Dynasty Warriors is still fun, despite it being stagnant, but he just hasn't expressed them very well.
All you have done is pulled out 2 similar lines in 2 of his reviews. Thats like saying that a misc reviewer gives CoD# 9/10, but says that it dropped from 10 because it had too short a story, but gave 'generic movie-tie-in' a 3/10 for having a short story, and ignoring the fact that CoD has multiplayer, and movie-tie-in doesn't!

Now, I admit I haven't read the 2 reviews, as I cannot access them from work, and am currently in another country, so won't be able to, but I cannot imagine that the 2 are word for word identical apart from the final score...

 

[Space Spoons]

You guys realize that your ridiculous complaints about this pretty much validate everything he's ever said about gamers being completely braindead when it comes to review scores, don't you?

The game was a rehash. Average at best. It didn't deserve more than a 5. Common knowledge dictates this.

Why do people call the rubber-band AI and blue shells in Mario Kart "flaws?"

Mario Kart is designed so that everyone has a chance to win, regardless of skill. Skill will get you to win much more often out of many races, but those elements are put in there to make sure that other players will win at least one race. Playing a game with someone 100 times more skilled than you is never any fun, and Nintendo knows that.

That just leaves it up to random chance, you might as well flip a coin, why bother playing the game if nothing I do matters in the end, playing a game with someone 100 times better than you is indeed no fun, but playing one where nothing you do matters in the slightest is 1000 times worse than that, even if you use as much skill as possible in the game, you throw your bananas forward and nail people, use green shells effectively, drift competently, it's still going to be a massive pile of bullshit to lose to a blue shell an inch from the finish line, you thought you were going to win? Nope because the player in the back of the pack clicked the fire button

I think you're exaggerating a bit. If you're playing well enough, then getting hit by a blue shell "an inch from the finish line" will never cost you first place. If blue shells are that much of a problem, though, you could always do what experienced Mario Kart players do and sandbag until the final lap. I mean, there have been items that target the leader since Super Mario Kart on the SNES, it should be common knowledge by now that going for first place in the first two laps is just begging for a shell up the tailpipe.

But all of that is missing the greater point. Nintendo is not, and never was, out to reward skill in Mario Kart games. They've always been about giving every player a chance to win, even the players that aren't any good. The fact that the most skilled player won't always win is in fact one of the primary perks of playing Mario Kart for most people.

 

[Kopikatsu]

After Jim gave such a low score to Bastion I've pretty much disregarded his reviews and opinion.

He gave it a 6.5 (Above average) and recommended it. What more do you want from him?

Jim sterling is a joke in every way. He's not a journalist, hell he's not even a critic. Just a loud mouth with a website. Don't take anything he says too seriously.

Are you one of those people who only know him from Jimquisition and think that's how he really is? Sounds like it.

 

[xAtomicHero]

Jim sterling is a joke in every way. He's not a journalist, hell he's not even a critic. Just a loud mouth with a website. Don't take anything he says too seriously.

 

[Kingpopadopalus]

HEY GUYS! RATINGS ARE ACCURATE AND MUST BE ADHERED TO AT ALL TIMES!

But to be perfectly non-sarcastic. Don't be so butt hurt about game reviews, they're just opinions.

 

[NiPah]

From actually reading his review his entire point was that the game needed an overhaul, Dynasty Warriors was a perfect game and thus needs no overhaul. You make a copy of a mediocre game and you get another mediocre game, you make a copy of a perfect game and you get a perfect game.
Also quoting 4 words from a review and whining about the score is just bad form, either you're trying to get quoted in his video or you just don't understand that reviews are a reviewer's personal opinion and if you disagree you are free to do so.

 

[Chezza]

I cant wait to see Jim make a reply and retaliate to this on his next video, which I am sure he will do.

 

[DustyDrB]

Well. Let's sit down and have story time.

-puts on reading glasses-

There once was a man who gave a video of his time to the internet. In this video he excaimed how scores like nines and tens are precious and should only be given tot those select games that amaze us. This man, was Jim Sterling. Jim's take on what scores should look like obviously didn't go over with everyone, as noone's opinion does, and people got angry at him.

-takes off reading glasses-

So you see kids? The grinch really did save Christmas.

Yeah. This is the point people are missing.

Gamers keep crying, "It's a three point scale!! Use the full scale you stupid reviewers!!"

But what they are really saying is, "Use the full scale...as long as you're not doing it with a game I like". Hypocrisy.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

I dislike his opinions, too, but seriously, why would either of you care that much about Mario Kart? "Stagnant"? "changing the formula"?

It's basically a party game. It doesn't warrant this kind of attention.

 

[SAMAS]

IMO, a game review at it's heart has to look at two things:

#1: What the game is trying to do -- The Genre, play style, visual style, stuff like that.

#2: How well the game tries to do it -- Simply put, the execution.

Having read the review in question, Jim seems to find fault in both criteria. Essentially, he's saying that thematically, it loses too much for what it adds to make up for it, and he also seems to find fault in the execution (primarily, he says the game is too slow, which really is a no-no when you're talking about a Racing game).

Now as I recall, he primarily praises the Dynasty Warriors series because it's #1 is pretty simple, and it's (in his opinion) really fun to play for what it is (i.e., it's got #2 covered as well).

Now you (or I) may not agree with his assessment, but from where I stand it's a fair one. I can't give my own opinion of course because I don't have the game.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

Are you one of those people who only know him from Jimquisition and think that's how he really is? Sounds like it.

I hear this claim a lot, or that he's trolling, so I'm curious.
What's the point of his show here? Like, why did he make it, what is its goal?