Support NeoGAF

[Anth0ny]

Nice job ignoring the rest of that line.

Calling Dark Souls a fairly linear game is fucking ridiculous. It's almost completely open from the word go. Just because you can't run to the final boss after an hour of gameplay doesn't make the game linear. "A Mega Man game with a hub world" is like... what. I mean I don't even know how to respond to that besides saying I strongly disagree.

I don't understand how Dark Souls can get away with having a Drake Sword but a Zelda game, balanced properly of course, can't.

You're misrepresenting my point here. What is the benefit to a game like Breath of the Wild to "unlock" being able to hold onto weapons for more longer when the game so easily gives you plenty of weapons to hold onto and it's treated like a universally disposable element? Many of which can end up being better than the ones you have on you?

Of course a theoretical Zelda with a dexterity system wouldn't hand out weapons like candy the same way BOTW does.

Your second comparison is also flimsy, you can play just fine without needing any clothing that protects you from heat/cold by cooking elixirs and food that raise your resistance. Even when you don't have the ability to induce it passively, you can still induce it actively, and that's smart design that allows players to bypass issues, mainly because none of it is actively given to you in the sheer abundance that weapons are. The elements that are in Breath of the Wild encourage something of an immediate-if-earned inclusion which I think would be at odds tremendously if beating a dungeon would let you "carry higher tiered weapons" or something like that - which is the main thing I took issue with since that is even more prohibitive than the actual game's systems.

You are missing the point. With cold/hot, you are being prohibited from exploring the map until you do SOMETHING to get around the issue. The very same game that lets you go straight to the final boss from near the start of the game... doesn't let you scale a mountain because it's too cold? Unless you eat specific foods or wear specific clothes? It's just another of many small annoyances in the game that I just have a hard time understanding the reasoning behind.

You'd also be able to play the entire game just fine with a dexterity system, which, like the hearts/stamina system, could be ignored if you want. Not prohibitive in the slightest, certainly no more than "find the right food/tunic to brave this cold temperature."

I'm trying to find a system that can make weapons feel earned again. You beat a dungeon, and oh shit, now there's a bunch of new weapons to use, learn and experiment with. Each weapon has their own unique quirks and differences, which encourages you to use them, instead of having them be nothing more than disposable crap you keep cycling through. You might have a 1 handed level 1 sword, but now you found a 2 handed level 2 sword. Even if you prefer the 1 handed sword, do you really want to trek foward with the weaker weapon, or learn a new style of combat with the more powerful weapon? Or keep exploring until you find that 1 handed level 2 sword? It's entirely up to you! Now that part of the map overrun with OP enemies is a little more tolerable. A sense of progression and difficulty curve, while still leaving the game entirely open and free to explore. No raiding Ganon's castle at the beginning of the game, grabbing a bunch of 50+ weapons and wrecking bosses with those.

 

[Poot Poot Splash]

Please explain how you think a person who gets ddos attacks, hacking attempts, and death threats over a review or statement thinks that it's a good idea to do it again to get attention.

That's the scariest aspect. I would seriously be scared for my life if they threatened me. If they take a review this seriously I'd imagine they don't have anything in their life keeping them from doing something crazy. They probably already have their cum sock just waiting to bash someone's skull in. I'm guessing its harder than damn adamantium from those 30+ years of celibacy.

 

[Spinifex]

I'm a fan of Jim and I have to disagree with him here, weapon durability I think is a great mechanic when used well. I count Fallout: New Vegas and Breath of the Wild among some great games made even better by their durability / item management systems.

That said I think it was needlessly churlish the way he approached this whole situation, rabid fanbases are gonna rabid fanbase, don't give me any of this shit about 'x is definitely worse than y', this hobby is notoriously bad with this shit across the board -- I'm remembering the shitstorm when Carolyn Petit gave GTA5 a 9.

I just wish Jim would have scored BOTW more appropriately -- i.e. a 4 or a 5. I sincerely doubt he actually thinks its a good game at all, the game pretty much hangs it hat on its item system, if the entire concept of breakable weapons is anathema to you, then you will hate the game.

 

[Arion]

You guys do realize that people enjoy watching Jim call people out and for that they may be more inclined to donate to him?

So you are telling me, Jim did a review of Zelda where he said the game is good but not great so he could get Zelda fans to start attacking him so he could call them out on attacking him so he can convince this other unrelated group of people to start donating money to his patreon? hmm.

 

[Trey]

People always bring up this shitty argument, but ya know what, in a way, the game is better for having that "Zelda skin". The little things like knowing there is a Master Sword out there in this huge world to find adds to the experience imo

Using franchise notoriety and nostalgia as knocks against media is, and will always be, a goofy point of argumentation.

 

[Kin5290]

Ridiculous post that insinuates that anyone who likes BoTW, including its durability system, are rabid "Zelda fanatics."

I mean, this simply isn't true.

I personally haven't finished a Zelda game since Twilight Princess and that one certainly had its fair share of problems.

I mean, this simply isn't true.

You can like a thing and also criticize that thing. The game won't blow away in the wind just because an internet reviewer comments that it has some design flaws.

 

[ManeKast]

I got weapons coming out of my ass in this game. Like so many I need to ditch them. Therefore I simply disagree and see this as click bait bullshit. Good on him, reaping in $$$ and getting attention. Well played.

 

[Acerac]

Ok maybe it doesn't apply to you but it certainly applies to a lot of people in this thread and else where. It's not a tangent, it's the core discussion of this thread.

Not in the context of quoting my post it isn't.

I mean it's cool if you either quoted the wrong post or just imagined I said something that I didn't, but I don't appreciate you saying I believe in conspiracies or whatever nonsense you're trying to peddle.

 

[Nepenthe]

I think it's more that, in the end, it doesn't really matter.

Of course it "doesn't matter" because these reviews are nothing more than subjective opinions of strangers which theoretically has no bearing on one's enjoyment of a particular game.

But this is a world-view that's more of an ought than an is. People like to admire things that are also admired by many others because it provides positive socialization opportunities and fosters a sense of belonging. We all care about what others think about our taste in things, particularly in a capitalistic society where the more people like something you like, the better chances of you getting more of that thing. So people have a stake in their games receiving critical acclaim, and I see little wrong with people celebrating when games like BotW, Horizon, and Nier do. Subsequently, companies do reviews because they bring in revenue from people interested in seeing what certain outlets think. Review consensuses from places like Metacritic have been reported to actually determine the bonuses of the developers. People have been attacked for reviews, whether justly (IGN's Football Manager) or not (Any DDOS effort). And this is, of course, all ripe for an environment where critics might be drawn to the idea of giving something a score that breaks the median simply for shiggles or attention.

So, no, objectively, scientifically, Metacritic doesn't "really matter." But we all know this is ultimately a load of horseshit. xP

 

[guek]

Then maybe the fanboys ought to stop repeating how full of freedom the game is, when it's obviously "just an illusion". Otherwise it feels like they're being deceitful.

What? No. The game can be full of freedom in some or most areas and constrained in others. That doesn't make the former statement false.

That's fine. Some people like it. Some don't. But can we at least agree that the people who don't like it have a right to voice their opinion without getting death threats and DDoS attacks? Can we agree that when a reviewer doesn't like a certain game mechanic, it doesn't mean he's a "hate r" who needs to be removed from Metacritic?

I think most people agree people can have different opinions, yes. I don't think too many people, if anyone, is saying he was right to be harassed over the review.

Can we agree that there's nothing wrong with giving it a 7/10 and saying that it's a good game that one can have a lot of fun with, as long as one tries to deal with the botched implementation of weapon durability?

Sure! As long as we can also agree that there's nothing wrong with strongly disagreeing with a 7/10 score or specific parts of a review either.

 

[wartama]

Ridiculous post that insinuates that anyone who likes BoTW, including its durability system, are rabid "Zelda fanatics."

I mean, this simply isn't true.

I personally haven't finished a Zelda game since Twilight Princess and that one certainly had its fair share of problems.

In my case, BoTW is my forth Zelda game, and I never finished the other three (though I intend to go back to LbtW one day). I never liked the Zelda franchise, and I never even intended to get this one even after E3 and the Switch presentation. All that changed when I saw a gif of someone applying stasis on a metallic crate, strike it and then climb it for easy traversal. It sold me on the game.

The mechanics sold me on the game, not the brand. As much as I love Nintendo's philosophy in game design, no big name will make me buy a game with mechanics that doesn't interest me. And this Zelda is very good.

 

[MegaManTrigger]

To give my perspective on this video, in my opinion, the way Jim approaches Zelda fans in his video isn't the best way to solve the problem. He's only rallying more angry Zelda fans. You have to understand, at the least, why Zelda fans feel this way, regardless of how they behave. It goes for all fanbases in general.

To give a score of 7 and then proceeding to respond how childish those Zelda fanboys are is kinda an immature way to handle a situation. Yeah, he explains his situation with weapon durability well, but his proceeding discussion after could've been handled WAY better.

It's better to not waste time talking about fanboyism in a video, because that's just how communities are going to be. It's what you expect and you understand that. It is better to not say anything than respond with "Zelda fans don't deserve my positive talking points about Breath of the Wild." But it's part of Jim's personality I guess. That's my personal stance.

Precisely my thoughts. He is obviously allowed to have an opinion, but the way he goes about (especially with the DDoS mess) it is essentially adding more fuel to the fire. Jim's thoughts and the way he frames them comes across to me like he's a egotistical troll trying to get the last laugh on as many people as humanely possible. He could've spent the video time talking about flaws that include not only the weapon durability system in greater detail, but also other flaws that hindered his experience.

 

[MYeager]

So you are telling me, Jim did a review of Zelda where he said the game is good but not great so he could get Zelda fans to start attacking him so he could call them out on attacking him so he can convince this other unrelated group of people to start donating money to his patreon? hmm.

The aristocrats!

 

[Common Knowledge]

But he's right. Hype culture surrounding new Zelda games means that many people are incapable of being critical about any game flaws. They try to find excuses to or even outright ignore anything bad. We'll have to wait until the next Zelda game to be announced for the fanbase to objectively look at BoTW.

It's the Zelda cycle.

I like that this is actually the polar opposite of what people consider the "Zelda cycle".
You don't even understand the baseless concept you're trying to prove.

 

[LotusHD]

Using franchise notoriety and nostalgia as knocks against media is, and will always be, a goofy point of argumentation.

I don't really know what you mean, I'm just saying that for me personally, those little things add to the experience. Not speaking for everyone.

 

[Kagoshima_Luke]

This game would probably have 7s and 8s from everyone if the title was just Breath of the Wild and it didn't have link/zelda purely from the framerate/resolution and the controversial weapon durability.

 

[Volphied]

Breath of the Wild is absolutely a game with an unabashed level of massive freedom when reflecting on the context of the game's own existence, it's genre, it's design philosophies and it's series.

Seems to be that it's more like a significant step back when I have to constantly pause the game to take out another paper-weapon. Don't see any "unabashed level of massive freedom" in here, sorry.

Maybe next Zelda game.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

I like that this is actually the polar opposite of what people consider the "Zelda cycle".
You don't even understand the baseless concept you're trying to prove.

Yeah I was thinking the same.

 

[dh4niel]

It's ridiculous that people can't seem to be able to tell the difference between opinion and fact. Just because some guy on the Internet doesn't like something as much as you doesn't mean it's bad or you should like something less. It's just so childish and completely unnecessary.

 

[Crimson_Echidna]

So you are telling me, Jim did a review of Zelda where he said the game is good but not great so he could get Zelda fans to start attacking him so he could call them out on attacking him so he can convince this other unrelated group of people to start donating money to his patreon? hmm.

Well when you outline it like that, it sounds stupid.

 

[blankempathy]

So you are telling me, Jim did a review of Zelda where he said the game is good but not great so he could get Zelda fans to start attacking him so he could call them out on attacking him so he can convince this other unrelated group of people to start donating money to his patreon? hmm.

Did I say that? Nope I didnt. It's foolish to believe that Jim gains nothing by pissing off a fan base though. People love drama. Especially when it's directed at a group of people who have wronged their favorite YouTube personality.

 

[holygeesus]

This is a long thread so could someone actually explain how durability works in this?

Do you have a set number of hits with a weapon, differing on type, before the item is completely lost or can you then repair said weapon with items in the world? In that case is it that big a deal? Just treat it as ammo in any other game?

I think personally games should do damage as a percentage chance of breaking based on durability rather than a set number of bashes.

 

[BajiBoxer]

Let's be honest here: Jim knew EXACTLY the kind of attention he'd get over his original review and planned on making the followup video the entire time. Dude is probably gonna get a bunch of patreon support from all of this drama too.

Still a Jim fan tbh

Probably. But, knowing whst's coming doesn't make his review less reasonable. His dislike, and reasons for disliking the weapon destruction are perfectly reasonable justifications for the score. I have no problem with it at all, but totally understand why that could make it come up short of being an amazing game for some.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

Seems to be that it's more like a significant step back when I have to constantly pause the game to take out another paper-weapon. Don't see any "unabashed level of massive freedom" in here, sorry.

Maybe next Zelda game.

Some of you are trying too hard.

 

[Volphied]

What? No. The game can be full of freedom in some or most areas and constrained in others. That doesn't make the former statement false.

Ah, so it's freedom only half the time.

OK then.

 

[Flying Toaster]

Agreed. A 7/8 for this game seems reasonable to me from what I have played of it so far on the WiiU.

I absolutely love the game and last friday started to ponder what I would give it. With no actual epic dungeons and other small things I felt it was a 7. My friends immediately piled on me.

The game is awesome. I absolutely love it but there is nothing ground breaking in this version. For the series yes but in general... no. I guess I am a bad person. Glad I do not review games for a living.

 

[Plum]

So you are telling me, Jim did a review of Zelda where he said the game is good but not great so he could get Zelda fans to start attacking him so he could call them out on attacking him so he can convince this other unrelated group of people to start donating money to his patreon? hmm.

If Jim didn't benefit at all from this controversy he wouldn't have tweeted before the review and dedicated an entire Jimquisition to one aspect of a game just so he can highlight the reaction to that review.

Things can be in the middle between "false flag conspiracy" and "completely innocent"

 

[guek]

Did I say that? Nope I didnt. It's foolish to believe that Jim gains nothing by pissing off a fan base though. People love drama.

Just look at this thread! Every other page has a poster praising Jim for giving it good to Zelda fanboys.

Also, Jim almost certainly realizes that of all the possible internet shitstorms, review shitstorms are some of the most transient and quickly forgotten controversies. And by forgotten, I mean him giving Zelda a 7 isn't going to dissuade too many people to completely stop watching his content if they enjoyed his stuff to begin with. Maybe it'll become a meme at worst but I don't think people will hold this review against him a year from now.

 

[Trey]

I don't really know what you mean, I'm just saying that for me personally, those little things add to the experience. Not speaking for everyone.

I'm agreeing with you.

 

[Anth0ny]

Freedom is always an illusion. The game has loads of freedom but there are always game rules. You are always forced to do something a certain way no matter what. The game is about unfettered exploratory freedom but that doesn't really apply to the combat, nor does it have to. That doesn't mean you have to like those combat constraints though. I can understand wanting the ability to repair weapons or at least manually increase a weapon's durability but personally don't find it necessary when the game constantly throws good weapons at you.

Even in games that tout a lack of linearity and limited closed solutions (with "freedom" as a shorthand for this) there still have to be rules to abide by and consequences for breaking them for any title to even be classified as a "game" at all. Rain inhibiting your ability to climb is one such rule (which, in and of itself, can still be circumvented with other systems and mechanics in the game if you just really need to climb that mountain right then and there anyway.)

I mean, should I criticize BotW for not allowing me turn received damage off since it restricts my ability to win fights as easily as I want to and thus it doesn't offer true "freedom"? Might as well if we're going to be absurd about it.

Of course, and we criticize these rules all the time. That's all I'm doing. Some rules work well, some rules are dumb and annoying and unnecessary. Especially in a game like this that allows such freedom (And it NAILS it most of the time, which is why these little things are so much more annoying) I really think there a just a bunch of things in this game, like the weather, like the temperature, like the weapon durability, that just don't add to the game. They're there to annoy the player, and the game is less fun because of it. At least that's how I came out of the game.

 

[Gravy Boat]

Not in the context of quoting my post it isn't.

I mean it's cool if you either quoted the wrong post or just imagined I said something that I didn't, but I don't appreciate you saying I believe in conspiracies or whatever nonsense you're trying to peddle.

I literally just said that my post didn't apply to you. In the post you've just quoted. But it does apply to a lot of people.

 

[phoenix296]

He did say that it could kinda maybe work / make sense for survival / horror games cause you're supposed ta be underpowered. That fits the original Dead Rising I think? Does it fit a series which for 30 years never had limitations like this? Doesn't seem like it.

Dead Rising is survival action game with more RPG elements than Zelda. Frank West is probably more powerful than Link ever becomes comparing both game's end game content so I'm not sure where the "you're supposed to be underpowered" comes form.

And as the devs have said numerous times, Breath of the Wild is going back to basics and rebooting/reinventing the franchise. I'm not sure what the historical implications of the franchise have to do with what is essentially a reboot. Everything is different about this Zelda from the dungeons, the puzzle solving and the item progression. What you can and can't do in this game is vastly different than its predecessors and it should be judged as its own entity.

 

[CloudyTuba]

I've gotta agree with Jim. Weapon durability annoys the hell out of me in games, especially in Zelda. I want to play the game not play inventory management 2017.

It's the one thing I know about BOTW that I do not like at all. I've never enjoyed this mechanic in any game and it has always bothered me when present. I dont expect this game to be an exception, but I dont own the game yet so my opinion is not worth much for the time being.

 

[BajiBoxer]

This is a long thread so could someone actually explain how durability works in this?

Do you have a set number of hits with a weapon, differing on type, before the item is completely lost or can you then repair said weapon with items in the world? In that case is it that big a deal? Just treat it as ammo in any other game?

I think personally games should do damage as a percentage chance of breaking based on durability rather than a set number of bashes.

I do think that would be better, also taking into account the what you're hitting. Like, you might break a standard sword on a rock monster, but shouldn't break it hitting an unarmored fleshy creature. Also, except for breaking it on really tough things, sword degradation should be in the form of blade sharpness, imo.

 

[Volphied]

Some of you are trying too hard.

Speaking of trying too hard, the DDoS is finally over as Jim's website is back up for me.

So, what did the DDoS prove in the end? I mean apart from showing that there's a large amount of Zelda fanboys who will spend all of their energy on attacks against anyone who dares to criticize their perfect game?

 

[-Mutsukki-]

Of course he made this video, lol.

 

[ronaldthump]

Just look at this thread! Every other page has a poster praising Jim for giving it good to Zelda fanboys.

Also, Jim almost certainly realizes that of all the possible internet shitstorms, review shitstorms are some of the most transient and quickly forgotten controversies. And by forgotten, I mean him giving Zelda a 7 isn't going to dissuade too many people to completely stop watching his content if they enjoyed his stuff to begin with. Maybe it'll become a meme at worst but I don't think people will hold this review against him a year from now.

He's not allowed to review accurately as he sees fit? The frothing rage is hilarious.

I had no ideas the weapons break so often. Hilarious video from Jim.

 

[Nepenthe]

This is a long thread so could someone actually explain how durability works in this?

Do you have a set number of hits with a weapon, differing on type, before the item is completely lost or can you then repair said weapon with items in the world? In that case is it that big a deal? Just treat it as ammo in any other game?

I think personally games should do damage as a percentage chance of breaking based on durability rather than a set number of bashes.

Weapons have basically an invisible gauge that drains the more you use them. The speed at which this gauge drains depends upon durability and also whether you use the weapon on the proper enemies and environmental objects. When a weapon gets low enough, you will be warned that it's going to break with text and the weapon flashing red in the menu screen, at which point you can either drop it, keep wailing on an enemy or object until it breaks, or throw it at an enemy to break it over their head and achieve double damage. Outside of a few exceptions, every weapon will permanently break after enough use and can only be recovered by finding a replacement in a chest or from an enemy drop.

Instead of thinking of weapons as their own entities that should last forever, try thinking of weapons instead as the actual ammo for Link himself. And no one really hoards bullets in games where bullets are everywhere. You waste them into an enemy until you need to reload.

 

[guek]

Of course, and we criticize these rules all the time. That's all I'm doing. Some rules work well, some rules are dumb and annoying and unnecessary. Especially in a game like this that allows such freedom (And it NAILS it most of the time, which is why these little things are so much more annoying) I really think there a just a bunch of things in this game, like the weather, like the temperature, like the weapon durability, that just don't add to the game. They're there to annoy the player, and the game is less fun because of it. At least that's how I came out of the game.

That's fair. But it's also fair for some people to view all those elements as additional hurdles worth crossing. I'm "annoyed" when it rains, yes, but I enjoy overcoming the obstacle. Not everyone will though. *shrugs*

 

[aBarreras]

Of course, and we criticize these rules all the time. That's all I'm doing. Some rules work well, some rules are dumb and annoying and unnecessary. Especially in a game like this that allows such freedom (And it NAILS it most of the time, which is why these little things are so much more annoying) I really think there a just a bunch of things in this game, like the weather, like the temperature, like the weapon durability, that just don't add to the game. They're there to annoy the player, and the game is less fun because of it. At least that's how I came out of the game.

i dont feel there are there to annoy the player but to guide you, like you actually asked.

im pretty sure that most people will go for Ruta as their first divine beast, why? because it actually doesnt need nothing about hot/cold/warm stuff, you just go there.

durania and naboris require you to know more about the systems of the game, like elixirs, foods and gear.

 

[gamerMan]

I don't think we will see any legitimate reviews by Jim for Nintendo's games. It's been brewing for awhile but this year it has pushed him to his breaking point. He has posted video after video bashing them with bad words and such vile. He is going to shit on every Nintendo game from here out. How can somebody have so much of hatred and negativity?

From the tweets, it was obvious he went into the game trying to hate it. He found things he didn't like to justify his preconceived notions. Some of them don't even make sense.

Does anyone think he reviewed this fairly when he posted these tweets before even playing the game? A lot of trolls do this. They see something is getting reviewed well and go in trying to hate it so that they can get attention. I think he has finally got Nintendo's attention.

 

[Plum]

Speaking of trying too hard, the DDoS is finally over as Jim's website is back up for me.

So, what did the DDoS prove in the end? I mean apart from showing that there's a large amount of Zelda fanboys who will spend all of their energy on attacks against anyone who dares to criticize their perfect game?

Do you have any proof for this claim? DDoS attacks don't exactly require very many people.

 

[Powwa]

Spoiler

fyi you can unequip metalic armor/weapons to avoid thunder

Oh yeah I know it, but when you are in the middle of the combat sometimes you may forget to make the change which happened to me quite some.

 

[ronaldthump]

Jim nailed the Fanbase Fragility. Nailed it.

 

[guek]

He's not allowed to review accurately as he sees fit? The frothing rage is hilarious.

 

[LotusHD]

I'm agreeing with you.

Ah okay, I was confused lol

I do think that would be better, also taking into account the what you're hitting. Like, you might break a standard sword on a rock monster, but shouldn't break it hitting an unarmored fleshy creature. Also, except for breaking it on really tough things, sword degradation should be in the form of blade sharpness, imo.

I think the game does take that into account, as in what you're hitting matters, at least to some extent.

 

[kpaadet]

Weapon durability sucks and will always suck, as far as I can tell BotW doesn't even have a durability meter to see exactly when it will break, which makes it even more annoying.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

Speaking of trying too hard, the DDoS is finally over as Jim's website is back up for me.

So, what did the DDoS prove in the end? I mean apart from showing that there's a large amount of Zelda fanboys who will spend all of their energy on attacks against anyone who dares to criticize their perfect game?

We know those people exist and they're pathetic. If that's the only thing you want to discuss then I doubt anyone here disagrees.

 

[-Mutsukki-]

I don't think we will see any legitimate reviews by Jim for Nintendo's games. It's been brewing for awhile but this year it has pushed him to his breaking point. He has posted video after video bashing them with bad words and such vile. He is going to shit on every Nintendo game from here out. How can somebody have so much of hatred and negativity?

From the tweets, it was obvious he went into the game trying to hate it. He found things he didn't like to justify his preconceived notions. Some of them don't even make sense.

Does anyone think he reviewed this fairly when he posted these tweets before even playing the game? A lot of trolls do this. They see something is getting reviewed well and going in trying to hate it so that they can get attention. I think he has got Nintendo's attention.

I do not question his love for Zelda or anything, but it's clear he went into the game already hating it on principle

 

[ronaldthump]

This is a long thread so could someone actually explain how durability works in this?

Do you have a set number of hits with a weapon, differing on type, before the item is completely lost or can you then repair said weapon with items in the world? In that case is it that big a deal? Just treat it as ammo in any other game?

I think personally games should do damage as a percentage chance of breaking based on durability rather than a set number of bashes.

you should watch the video.

and no, he doesn't monetise his videos.