im dying
funniest gaf post in a while
Behind him in this situation. Against MS PR bullies who think they can pull shit like this. The same goes for any company who thinks they can ask to put a leash on a critic. Especially one as pathetic as to do it behind the critic in question's back.
I cannot confirm Mark Wahlberg will be involved. It depends if Brendan Fraser is available.
Heh. When did Microsoft lose all of it's PR cred? If I remember correctly they were pretty good during the xbox and 360 life span.
First I wanted to see you in a dominatrix outfit. Now I kinda want to see you in a cat suit.
Yes.that's the problem with sterling. his reviews revolve around whether or not he liked the game. he throws objectivity out of the window. was it actually good, whether or not he liked it? who cares. as long as he had fun, he'll give it a good score. doesn't matter if it's the 10th reiteration, if the same problems still persisted, etc. as long as he had fun because that's all that matters to him.
then, if he didn't like the game, he'll use ever negative metaphor he can think of and pick apart the smallest little details and puts on his know-it-all persona, while he easily ignores the same problems on games that he liked playing.
is that really how critiques should work?
Call it a Catwoman cosplay and split the difference?
Microsoft a little twitchy right now I guess...
And in doing so they have un-leashed the beast instead.
Yes.
Grading a game on production values is what created the 7-9 scale, which isn't useful as criticism.
that's the problem with sterling. his reviews revolve around whether or not he liked the game. he throws objectivity out of the window. was it actually good, whether or not he liked it? who cares. as long as he had fun, he'll give it a good score. doesn't matter if it's the 10th reiteration, if the same problems still persisted, etc. as long as he had fun because that's all that matters to him.
then, if he didn't like the game, he'll use ever negative metaphor he can think of and pick apart the smallest little details and puts on his know-it-all persona, while he easily ignores the same problems on games that he liked playing.
is that really how critiques should work? opinions are subjective, but there at least has to have some objectivity and an effort to understand what the game is before calling it trash and slapping it a low score just because you didn't enjoy it. a lot of people don't like to play certain games but they wouldn't really give it low scores just because.
As opposed to my reviews revolving around whether or not Axl Rose liked the game.
I thought it was funnyrunning with an unfunny post once confronted with what's wrong with your reviews. keep up the shtick.
running with an unfunny post once confronted with what's wrong with your reviews. keep up the shtick.
running with an unfunny post once confronted with what's wrong with your reviews. keep up the shtick.
To be frank, you said you can be objective with games(like a video card?) without giving examples of how it is possible to have objective reviews.
running with an unfunny post once confronted with what's wrong with your reviews. keep up the shtick.
not everyone likes starcraft. heck i don't like starcraft myself. that doesn't mean i should write paragraphs of hyperbole, metaphor, and exaggeration while i ignore the same things that i don't like in starcraft in the other games that I enjoy.
Wait you were serious? I thought you gave being sarcastic a shoot...Yeah No.. OTL
that's the problem with sterling. his reviews revolve around whether or not he liked the game. he throws objectivity out of the window. was it actually good, whether or not he liked it? who cares. as long as he had fun, he'll give it a good score. doesn't matter if it's the 10th reiteration, if the same problems still persisted, etc. as long as he had fun because that's all that matters to him.
then, if he didn't like the game, he'll use ever negative metaphor he can think of and pick apart the smallest little details and puts on his know-it-all persona, while he easily ignores the same problems on games that he liked playing.
is that really how critiques should work? opinions are subjective, but there at least has to have some objectivity and an effort to understand what the game is before calling it trash and slapping it a low score just because you didn't enjoy it. a lot of people don't like to play certain games but they wouldn't really give it low scores just because.
running with an unfunny post once confronted with what's wrong with your reviews. keep up the shtick.
not everyone likes starcraft. heck i don't like starcraft myself. that doesn't mean i should write paragraphs of hyperbole, metaphor, and exaggeration while i ignore the same things that i don't like in starcraft in the other games that I enjoy.
can't watch that...blocked link for me...what is it?
Even though I knew we had it good at 1UP, I didnt quite realize how good. Even IGN has to deal with publisher shenanigans, but their travails generally amount to PR guys trying to pressure them into making compromises in return for exclusives (trying in vain, it should be said). Down at the bottom, the challenge is more about getting PR guys to recognize you exist. And even then, I have an advantage over a genuine startup in a bit of Eurogamer clout and a healthy rolodex of contacts from my past decade of work.
Going from the single biggest media outlet in the industry to a startup has been a useful exercise in discovering which publishers (and really, their gatekeepers, the PR people) respect folks in the press for their work and perspectives, and which see us as traffic stats. There are definitely companies Ive dealt with in the past half year where I can tell theyre looking at me and seeing a vision like in those old cartoons where a hungry character hallucinates his friend as a steak, except here my body metamorphoses into a Comscore number (and is deemed unworthy). On the other hand, there are some publishers who dont really care about the traffic stats and are simply happy to work with writers they trust to be fair, even when that fairness means calling them out on bad ideas. This hasnt really come as any surprise, nor have the breakdowns of which companies fell where on that scale, but it does add a new layer of complexity to the job.
Im not sure what this really contributes to the ongoing message board rage-debate about how games journalism is broken and terrible. I guess it proves the point on one level, because this meritocracy-by-traffic as determined by corporate public relations gatekeepers isnt exactly a level playing field. Then again, can you really blame them? They have a few thousand assholes clamoring for games and systems every day, and somehow they have to sort out who legitimately wants to cover them and who just wants a free handout.
The reality is that publishers really do have all the power over their industry of interactive toys, which means that if you want early access for reviews, or even to talk to the people who make said toys, you have to go through the company. Worse, as the traditional AAA packaged retail game industry shrinks in around itself, those gatekeepers guard that shriveling power with ever more jealousy. These days, the gaming press doesnt hold nearly as much interest for a lot of them as overnight YouTube stars who set up a video feed from a basement somewhere and blew the doors off IGN and Machinimas video traffic combined on a budget of about $300 and who are likely to be a lot more easily swayed by gifts and attention from the people who make their favorite games than us jaded jerks in the press.
not everyone likes starcraft. heck i don't like starcraft myself. that doesn't mean i should write paragraphs of hyperbole, metaphor, and exaggeration while i ignore the same things that i don't like in starcraft in the other games that I enjoy.
I liked juggles in tekken. Hated them in SFxT. I'm a shitty games reviewer though.not everyone likes starcraft. heck i don't like starcraft myself. that doesn't mean i should write paragraphs of hyperbole, metaphor, and exaggeration while i ignore the same things that i don't like in starcraft in the other games that I enjoy.
that's the problem with sterling. his reviews revolve around whether or not he liked the game.
that's the problem with sterling. his reviews revolve around whether or not he liked the game.
Honest question, what does an objective review look like?
Why does this tweet have chromatic aberration?
Honest question, what does an objective review look like?
Skyrim contains rocks, trees and water areas. In the game you can walk around and can also run. It supports both right and left clicking of a mouse or similar inputs from a controller. Overall we would rate this game neutrally.
Sad and true. I spend so much time trying to get RID of it in my photos and here developers are trying to replicate it to be more filmicIt's next gen bro.
It just so happens that none other than Jim Sterling himself once wrote one. You can read it here.
It just so happens that none other than Jim Sterling himself once wrote one. You can read it here.
not everyone likes starcraft. heck i don't like starcraft myself. that doesn't mean i should write paragraphs of hyperbole, metaphor, and exaggeration while i ignore the same things that i don't like in starcraft in the other games that I enjoy.
Whenever someone complains about a reviewer being too "subjective," I' think what they are actually complaining about is that the reviewer has a different opinion than them.
It just so happens that none other than Jim Sterling himself once wrote one. You can read it here.
It has things in it that some people might enjoy ...
Honest question, what does an objective review look like?