Do you have Bogo's steam profile? How do you know? And no, I have not read the review, just ctrl+f-ed playtime.Rednog said:
I enjoy reading the comments much more when it comes to controversial titles I won't play anyway, before you ask.
Yooka-Laylee Review - Banjo-Threeie
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
I enjoy reading the comments much more when it comes to controversial titles I won't play anyway, before you ask.
Fair 'nuff, though it should be noted Laura Kate Dale wrote the Mighty Number 9 review, not Jim (who dumped it on her because he hated plying through it for review), so I'm not sure it's fair to say he gave MN9 a higher score.CaptainMarvelous said:I can't speak to their intentions but if it was malicious it was also very poorly thought out. Anyway, I learned my lesson on being hyperbolic without clearer context since I can see how it could sound sincere.TrulyBritish said:I'm aware, but I'm going by intent. I'm assuming that those trying to DDOS Jim were doing it to 1) prevent him earning money from clicks (which is pointless as you point out), 2) prevent others from reading his negative review or 3) Somehow hope that a tantrum will cause him to reconsider and give it a higher score.CaptainMarvelous said:Intended as hyperbole.TrulyBritish said:How, exactly, does people criticising a supposedly professional reviewer who took an inappropriate potshot at another review for posting a lower score make people who tried to literally fuck with someone's livelihood/censor their opinion by taking their site down look like moderates?CaptainMarvelous said:what is with Sterling lately? His reviews seem all over the place. Also, damn but he has some rabid fans, sweet christ guys, you're making the Zelda guys who allegedly DDOSed look like moderates.
Although, thinking on it more, wouldnt taking down Sterling's site merely inconvenience him? Isn't he funded quite healthily on Patreon/is very present on youtube so neither option seems like it would or could occur.
Not defending it, mind, but its hardly like they jeapordised his entire future just made an annoyance. Allegedly.
Added Edit: This isn't about Jim being objectively right and Bogos wrong, it just gets on my wick when reviewers launches insults at other reviewers over scores. I expect it from man children in Youtube comments, not from supposed professionals.
That said, if it's true that Bogos has only played 2.2 hours, I do wonder just how much he could have played to give it such a high score.
As far as the review times go, I have no idea how long Sterling played but I feel confident a 2 (half the score Mighty No 9 got from himself) is the oddity more than Bogos' high score.
Although I would just like to counter that most consumer tantrums about low review scores are poorly thought out.
I take your point that he didnt write the MN9 Score but it's hosted on his site so I'd consider it representative of the grading if nothing else.TrulyBritish said:Fair 'nuff, though it should be noted Laura Kate Dale wrote the Mighty Number 9 review, not Jim (who dumped it on her because he hated plying through it for review), so I'm not sure it's fair to say he gave MN9 a higher score.CaptainMarvelous said:I can't speak to their intentions but if it was malicious it was also very poorly thought out. Anyway, I learned my lesson on being hyperbolic without clearer context since I can see how it could sound sincere.TrulyBritish said:I'm aware, but I'm going by intent. I'm assuming that those trying to DDOS Jim were doing it to 1) prevent him earning money from clicks (which is pointless as you point out), 2) prevent others from reading his negative review or 3) Somehow hope that a tantrum will cause him to reconsider and give it a higher score.CaptainMarvelous said:Intended as hyperbole.TrulyBritish said:How, exactly, does people criticising a supposedly professional reviewer who took an inappropriate potshot at another review for posting a lower score make people who tried to literally fuck with someone's livelihood/censor their opinion by taking their site down look like moderates?CaptainMarvelous said:
Although, thinking on it more, wouldnt taking down Sterling's site merely inconvenience him? Isn't he funded quite healthily on Patreon/is very present on youtube so neither option seems like it would or could occur.
Not defending it, mind, but its hardly like they jeapordised his entire future just made an annoyance. Allegedly.
Added Edit: This isn't about Jim being objectively right and Bogos wrong, it just gets on my wick when reviewers launches insults at other reviewers over scores. I expect it from man children in Youtube comments, not from supposed professionals.
That said, if it's true that Bogos has only played 2.2 hours, I do wonder just how much he could have played to give it such a high score.
As far as the review times go, I have no idea how long Sterling played but I feel confident a 2 (half the score Mighty No 9 got from himself) is the oddity more than Bogos' high score.
Although I would just like to counter that most consumer tantrums about low review scores are poorly thought out.
And again point taken on consumer tantrums, but I'd think thats a gift horse mouth situation. Rather a quick bout of toys out of pram than trying to slip drain cleaner in coffee.
While people are busy arguing about Jim, am I the only one that saw this line in this review?
"As you collect more quills, you'll get to purchase more special moves, such as the ability to glide through the air on Laylee's wins, or suck up fireballs to shoot at enemies with Yooka's tounge."
Its literally full of win, and "tounge"
"As you collect more quills, you'll get to purchase more special moves, such as the ability to glide through the air on Laylee's wins, or suck up fireballs to shoot at enemies with Yooka's tounge."
Its literally full of win, and "tounge"
The thing is redundancy.TrulyBritish said:
Anything under 7 is usually ranging from mediocre to utter failure.
I mean what redeeming qualities does a 4 out of 10 game have over a 3 out of 10?
If you go with that, from 7 to 10 already takes 4 of the five meaningful numbers 1 to 5 scale would have, you could include halves but then it would literally be the same as 1-10 except people might perceive it differently.Samtemdo8 said:
Also the lower scores really depend on the reviewer, most don't use them, if it's jim. 4 is something that is below mediocre but people can get something out of it, and 3 is something like you really need to like the genre or style of game to get enjoyment out of the title, and most people should probably ignore the title. Angry joe uses pretty similar scale, don't really know others who do. You're not wrong saying anything below 7 usually means awful, because the scale is not used really well.
Well yeah, if you hilariously slant the scale so that anything below a 7 is considered mediocre that yeah, numbers lower are going to mesh together, which is why that's a daft system to use. A 5 should be the score for an average game.Samtemdo8 said:
How many people would really buy a 1 out of 10 game, or a 2 out of 10 game?Samtemdo8 said:
Hell, not everyone would buy a 10 out of 10 game if it was in a genre they didn't like.
The score merely tells you how well the reviewer like the game, if it's slightly below average it gets a 4 (under my system at least). Doesn't matter if the score makes people want to buy it.
I'd point out that people saying 7 should be the average would be exactly why people wouldn't but a 4/10 game. It's also partly why some people flip their shit when reviewers give game they like "only" an 8 or a 9.
EDIT: Checked his page, proper he really did only play it for two hours, nevermind, forget I said anything.Guilion said:
Under the gaming section you can see a link to his steam profile (which is this if you are lazy http://steamcommunity.com/id/thetacoman) which quite clearly shows 2.2 hours of game time. Now i'm not going to say anything about game time because he could of quite easily of played the game through a special review copy not linked to steam or played offline (not quite sure if offline steam tracks hours played or not). But having a "word from god" would clear up matters nicely.erttheking said:You do know that that just means that his last play session was 2.2 hours, not the entire game right? I mean, according to my Escapist page, I've only played Total War: Warhammer for 6 hours. According to my steam page, I've played it for nearly 30.Guilion said:His steam profile is proudly displayed on his profile...Naldan said:
...As he should, for he works hard to make informed reviews and we should all gawk at it like the non-gamejourno peasants that we are.
This isn't really conclusive evidence.
Already edited my post to correct my oppsie, accusations of laziness are not required.iamzim101 said:
Edited for duplicated content.Steven Bogos said:
OT: If I can see something in common about these reviews is that its PC version is more recommended.
OoT: DDoS wasn't confirmed by Jim this time. I'm still willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the haters and concede the possibility of high traffic spike.
Maybe (and I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt) he played the whole game on some sort of Escapist press account and the 2.2 hours is just his personal playtime since the review?iamzim101 said:Under the gaming section you can see a link to his steam profile (which is this if you are lazy http://steamcommunity.com/id/thetacoman) which quite clearly shows 2.2 hours of game time. Now i'm not going to say anything about game time because he could of quite easily of played the game through a special review copy not linked to steam or played offline (not quite sure if offline steam tracks hours played or not). But having a "word from god" would clear up matters nicely.erttheking said:You do know that that just means that his last play session was 2.2 hours, not the entire game right? I mean, according to my Escapist page, I've only played Total War: Warhammer for 6 hours. According to my steam page, I've played it for nearly 30.Guilion said:His steam profile is proudly displayed on his profile...Naldan said:
...As he should, for he works hard to make informed reviews and we should all gawk at it like the non-gamejourno peasants that we are.
This isn't really conclusive evidence.
That's why it's called a review, darling. He plays the game and tells us what he thinks of it.Steven Bogos said:
That is literally the entire concept. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Review#User_review]
The game isn't released to the public, that is most likely the press copy that was given to the Escapist.TrulyBritish said:Maybe (and I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt) he played the whole game on some sort of Escapist press account and the 2.2 hours is just his personal playtime since the review?iamzim101 said:Under the gaming section you can see a link to his steam profile (which is this if you are lazy http://steamcommunity.com/id/thetacoman) which quite clearly shows 2.2 hours of game time. Now i'm not going to say anything about game time because he could of quite easily of played the game through a special review copy not linked to steam or played offline (not quite sure if offline steam tracks hours played or not). But having a "word from god" would clear up matters nicely.erttheking said:You do know that that just means that his last play session was 2.2 hours, not the entire game right? I mean, according to my Escapist page, I've only played Total War: Warhammer for 6 hours. According to my steam page, I've played it for nearly 30.Guilion said:His steam profile is proudly displayed on his profile...Naldan said:
...As he should, for he works hard to make informed reviews and we should all gawk at it like the non-gamejourno peasants that we are.
This isn't really conclusive evidence.