Support NeoGAF

[SpiceMelange]

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?

No, it means one (1) very sad individual paid for a botnet. Nice try though and keep the shitposting up.

 

[Anth0ny]

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*

yeah exactly. and that's fine if you like it. obviously I'm in the minority here, just giving my thoughts.

i'm more disappointed than all of you at how disappointed I am with the game.

 

[Moosichu]

does something deliberately provocative
gets reaction
makes video about the reaction he provoked

His review was not deliberately provocative. Like, it really wasn't.

 

[-Mutsukki-]

His review was not deliberately provocative. Like, it really wasn't.

Except the part he calls 10/10 reviews out saying "I really do not understand these scores, maybe they played something else?"

 

[Vena]

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

You'd also know that durability scales and that the choice example used by Jim is a reductionist argument. But... I doubt you care about that detail. You've been fishing for validation for a while now.

 

[FallingSputnik]

I'm having like the total opposite issue, there are too many cool weapons, and I'm not breaking them quick enough to pick up new ones. Feels weird to have to drop a perfectly good weapon to pick up another. I use my magnetic/stasis/bomb powers, my bow, not everything needs to be hit with a sword.

 

[Orin GA]

Except that Jim has plenty of respect for the game, and even said it's a good game.

But if someone dislikes a certain game element, he has the right to say this without his website being DDoSed.

The enraged Zelda fanboys are the one's who lack any respect for different opinions.

Why do you keep bringing this up. Who here is saying he deserves death threats and being DDosed.

PLEASE FOCUS.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

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?

Still trying too hard.

 

[Nepenthe]

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.

You weren't criticizing the rules so much as you were criticizing the idea, however sarcastically, that the game allows freedom simply because rain limits your ability to climb like you can in sunnier weather (despite their being fair mechanical workarounds for this), hence my obviously absurd comparison. A game can be free and still have limitations. =P

Regardless, I liked the environmental effects on my person. I'm a big proponent of games giving reasonable context to reactions between the player and the environment beyond simple enemy or obstacle reactions, and I hope more games do it. Having to take into account weather, the day and night cycle, and even Link's stamina engaged me mentally and forced me to think of ways to accomplish how I wanted to get from point A to B. Moving in itself was sort of a thought puzzle, and I appreciated the appeal to my intelligence and ability to think and plan and improvise. Otherwise, what would be the point of any of it aside from aesthetic dressing?

 

[rhandino]

60 hours into the game and still haven't found the durability of the weapons annoying of limiting... I mean, all those cool weapons are going to break but it's not like there aren't spawn points in the game with some of them or that enemies drop strong weapons most of the time that act as good substitutes.

And there is that house in that village in which you can store some of them in case you want to have some cool weapons reserved for a boss or something.

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?

You seem extremely pressed about this whole thing to the point a lot of your posts in this thread come of as pure nonsense.

 

[MrPhiliasfrog]

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.

Hmm, I never thought of it that way. That's a good point.

 

[Moosichu]

Except the part he calls 10/10 reviews out saying "I really do not understand these scores, maybe they played something else?"

Except he doesn't say that.

He says:

Truly, I wish I could say I understood what all the critics were raving about in their onslaught of 10/10 reviews, but I don’t. I see too many things getting in the way of the brilliance, too much repetitive busywork and full-on dick moves for me to say this is even close to my favorite Zelda game, much less in the top five.

In the context of the review, it's clear he wish he could love the game the same way other people did. It's him saying he feels like he is missing out on a great experience, and wish he could have that, the same way other people have.

 

[Kthulhu]

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.

He gave Hyrule Warriors a 9.5 if I remember correctly, so that pretty much debunks your theory that he's biased against Nintendo.

 

[Meia]

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.

NOBODY who has followed Jim's work for any length of time should at all be surprised about how this review was going to go. Jim loves open world games, but loathes anything that removes you from it's open world, ESPECIALLY if it's a system the game is trying to do. A big, beautiful world full of things to do and monsters to fight? High score. Constantly having to wait around to watch a bar fill to continue to explore? Constantly having to pause a fight to bring up a menu to switch to a new weapon when such things have been in dozens of games before in a more elegant fashion? Yeah, those are going to be points off.




It's been interesting to see that Jim's problems with the game almost every other reviewer out there also singled out. Why didn't those scores get knocked down, MUST be bias! No, it's just that those things got in Jim's way more often than it did others, in terms of enjoyment. That's what reviewers do, they feel differently about different things. The horror!

 

[And_Gignac]

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.

He is really a sad dude. Mess.

 

[-Mutsukki-]

By the way, even if his videos aren't monetized, his visibility is his livelihood. Drama, rage, call outs etc all make people more aware of who Jim Sterling is and more people who agree with him will fund his Patreon. If you think he's doing all of this just to "be a hero" or do "good call outs" you're in for a rude awakening. Every content he makes and people watch is more money in his account, no doubt.

In the context of the review, it's clear he wish he could love the game the same way other people did. It's him saying he feels like he is missing out on a great experience, and wish he could have that, the same way other people have.

That was my bad then, sorry. But it still feel like it's such a weird call out. What other reviewers have to do with your experience with the game? Why even say that? It's pretty telling that these have been on his head since they came out :/

 

[Plum]

you should watch the video.

and no, he doesn't monetise his videos.

Yes, he does.

 

[BluePikmin11]

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

I could not agree more. This is just how fans are and you gotta understand how they feel towards these kinds of situations.

 

[NotLiquid]

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.

My Mega Man analogy was in the sense that there generally exists somewhat of a "recommended" path throughout the game to alleviate it's incredibly upward difficulty curve. I suppose it'd be more fair to almost call it a Metroidvania but without the same abundance of story checks. Analogies aside, it is still a much more linear game than Breath of the Wild that requires different type of blancing.

If there's a way to balance an element like the Drake Sword in Breath of the Wild without compromising on the elegance of it's open world and freeform way of tackling it's many design nuances; cool. I'll gladly take it. But the problem is I haven't really heard a convincing argument yet as to how to implement it is what I'm saying. But that's just me personally.

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.

I guess this is just something of an agree-to-disagree point. What I like about Breath of the Wild is the fact that everything about being able to get around those issues is immediate in overcoming once understanding. Hunting down materials is quick, painless and mostly fun - cooking together a heat/cold elixir is easy since you get a lot of the elements needed for those through battles. I never thought of any of it as busy work because as much as the map was generally open for me, it didn't assume I was going to have an easy ride in doing so. To me that makes the freedom of the world into something of a puzzle when a situation arises that requires a little more of me. That just makes the world feel organic, and surprisingly deliberate for the size it proposes.

For the record, I'm not going to say that the implementation is literally flawless because it isn't. I just think that, for all the years of development this game was in, I trust Nintendo had to think long and hard about the weapon balancing and a whole lot of other balancing to justify it's inclusion in the context of making the open world resonate the best it could as a whole.

The deeper into that conversation hole we go into that subject I think it becomes a lot more of a conversation about what you as a player would expect from Zelda. To me I think Zelda is less about what you find and more about how you find it, solving a puzzle or discovering something brand new to me feels a lot more innately satisfying while the reward is just the cherry on top.

 

[Protome]

Except the part he calls 10/10 reviews out saying "I really do not understand these scores, maybe they played something else?"

He didn't say that though?
Is it really getting to the point where you need to straight up lie about his review to criticise it?

 

[Arion]

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"

Or maybe, Jim gave his honest opinion about the game then he gave his honest opinion on the people attacking him and all the outrage surrounding this is completely out of his control. Or should he just shut up and not do his job?

 

[R_thanatos]

On the other hand you could say that this makes​ the durability in witcher 3 entirely pointless. The experience would hardly change if you'd remove it. I haven't played Zelda, byt the durability seems to play much more into the gameplay.

Not really because it still exists , it just doesn't have the same impact.

One is essential and forced upon the players, the others is non intrusive and part of another set of sub systems where at some point you'll use it anyway ....not because you're forced to because it broke but because you want to keep the great ones.

It make experimentation easier when you can just try something and stick with it

This remind me with a similar debate i've got during the second beta of nioh. Nioh , in the end didn't go toward that route and i personally , in the final game was able to keep my favorite weapon/gear yet could experiment plenty because the loot was an incentive.

In a game with so much freedom like zelda , the weapon durability system hurt the game more than it helps it. not that the game's bad but it makes loot less rewarding.

It is my belief that the loot lose it's value when it doesn't last or when you have hardly time to profit from it. and if it happens regulary , the appeal of said loot is kinda lost on me.

 

[Gitaroo]

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.

It flashes red.

 

[kromeo]

There's a lot of people really aren't willing to accept any criticism of this game, and I'm not just basing that on this thread

As long as I don't see anyone defending the shit house motion shrines I'm happy

 

[Moosichu]

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.

Jim Sterling has always picked fights with companies, and fans of games. It has never influenced his reviews. The problem is, that you only notice the datapoints that fit your world view, not that fact that he has rated many Ubisoft, Square Enix, Activision, EA, Nintendo and Konami games very well indeed.

To think he gave the game the score to stoke controversy is simply not true. He would have scored BoTW more if he enjoyed it more, and his lack of enjoyment came from the game's mechanics, which didn't suit him. Nothing more, and nothing less.

 

[blankempathy]

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.

I guess it's easy to fool people who haven't actually played the game by showing only low level game play and him using the worst and second worse variants of weapons. He claims that later weapons still break too easily yet he didn't bother showing footage of that. I wonder why?

 

[Kthulhu]

Yes, he does.

That isn't monetization. That's the equivalent of having a donate button for open source software.

Him getting dontations isn't dependent on him making clickbait videos.

 

[MHWilliams]

Well yeah. I think the point of contention is that Jim gave it a 7 out of spite and to invoke controversy, not because it actually deserved that score. Of course, that's impossible to really confirm without Jim saying so outright.

For clarification, two questions:

Did you believe 'spite scoring' is a common occurrence for most reviewers? Not "it's happened", I mean common enough that you're floating it as Occam's Razor here.

Why is an average score invoking of controversy?

My apologies if you're speaking broadly and not of your own feelings.

I'm interested in this idea that reviewers pillory games on a regular basis for tangible benefit.

I guess it's easy to fool people who haven't actually played the game by showing only low level game play and him using the worst and second worse variants of weapons. He claims that later weapons still break too easily yet he didn't bother showing footage of that. I wonder why?

Having beaten the game, I'd still say that the speed at which weapons like Edge of Duality or Great Thunderblade break is still tuned too fast. So regardless of the footage, the overall point still stands.

 

[-Mutsukki-]

He didn't say that though?
Is it really getting to the point where you need to straight up lie about his review to criticise it?

I honestly misremembered as it's clear that I do not like Jim and his character lol. The part about him calling out 10/10 reviews isn't exactly a lie though

That isn't monetization. That's the equivalent of having a donate button for open source software.

Him getting dontations isn't dependent on him making clickbait videos.

No, it is. 100% it is. Patreon is as much as donations as it is funding an artist. Artists get funded by the art he makes. Jim would not be funded to sit around on his house not making videos, so yes, it is the same as being monetized.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

Drake sword wasn't game breaking. It just gave you a leg up early game.

 

[Pop-O-Matic]

That was my bad then, sorry. But it still feel like it's such a weird call out. What other reviewers have to do with your experience with the game? Why even say that? It's pretty telling that these have been on his head since they came out :/

It's a review that came out over a week after release and after nearly every other major critic had their say. It'd be weirder if he DIDN'T address the general response to this game in some way.

 

[NotLiquid]

He didn't say that though?
Is it really getting to the point where you need to straight up lie about his review to criticise it?

He ended his review saying he "wishes he understood what reviews saw in the game to give it 10/10".

 

[Nick_C]

Except the part he calls 10/10 reviews out saying "I really do not understand these scores, maybe they played something else?"

I really do not understand where this came from, maybe I read something else?

Truly, I wish I could say I understood what all the critics were raving about in their onslaught of 10/10 reviews, but I don’t. I see too many things getting in the way of the brilliance, too much repetitive busywork and full-on dick moves for me to say this is even close to my favorite Zelda game, much less in the top five.

 

[MidnightCowboy]

The weapon durability doesn't annoy me precisely because it's so short. In other games, you can swing for a long time before it breaks, what's the point in having it break at all then? Here you have to constantly cycle weapons. It's engaging.

Also pausing mid battle to change a weapon isn't annoying at all. It takes 2 seconds at most. The greatest 3D action game of all time, Ninja Gaiden 2, does the same thing.

 

[Plum]

Or maybe, Jim gave his honest opinion about the game then he gave his honest opinion on the people attacking him and all the outrage surrounding this is completely out of his control. Or should he just shut up and not do his job?

Having an "honest opinion" doesn't make that opinion any less exempt from criticism. My argument is that he's deliberately stoking the flames via reactionary videos such as this Jimquisition (which, as I've said before, was clearly planned before yesterday) and the tweets that no-one has yet to refute. By saying that this is "his job" you must agree with me that he benefits from it. When freelance journalism is your job you pick and choose what you cover; he didn't have to cover the DDoS in more than just a tweet yet he chose to do so; there is no social or consumer benefit to us hearing his "opinion" about the backlash like there is a review, the only benefit is Jim's.

 

[Uno Venova]

I get Jim having his own scoring system, but acting like he doesn't know the actual landscape of score expectations for AAA games seems pretty naive.

Everyone knows what a score like that causes. I dont see how is disprespectful to speculate that he probably loves this shit. I've seen him make more than one video responding to irate fanboys.

 

[Moosichu]

By the way, even if his videos aren't monetized, his visibility is his livelihood. Drama, rage, call outs etc all make people more aware of who Jim Sterling is and more people who agree with him will fund his Patreon. If you think he's doing all of this just to "be a hero" or do "good call outs" you're in for a rude awakening. Every content he makes and people watch is more money in his account, no doubt.



That was my bad then, sorry. But it still feel like it's such a weird call out. What other reviewers have to do with your experience with the game? Why even say that? It's pretty telling that these have been on his head since they came out :/

On his podcast, he's talked about this a lot. There have been a few games which he didn't gel with that other people adored. I think one example was Shadow of the Colossus, and he does make it clear that he doesn't set out to dislike certain games.

I honestly think that paragraph was an attempt to temper any kind of backlash, poorly done, yes, but I do think that was the motivation.

The only source I have for this is that I listen to his podcast, where he isn't as much "in character", and he genuinely doesn't seem to enjoy not liking a game.

I get Jim having his own scoring system, but acting like he doesn't know the actual landscape of score expectations for AAA games seems pretty naive.

Everyone knows what a score like that causes. I dont see how is disprespectful to speculate that he probably loves this shit. I've seen him make more than one video responding to irate fanboys.

That's the thing though right, he's not naive. But he didn't give Zelda the score he did out of pure spite. It's not like he secretly did enjoy the game more and decided to score it lower for controversy, he simply scored it using his own metrics. The problem is, that for 99% of games no one gives a shit about that. Yes, he knew the Zelda fans would blow up, but surely not scoring the game honestly because of that isn't the right approach to take, and says more about the fan base than it does about him?

 

[Deku89]

There's no way he didn't expect this reaction (from building up with previous videos to the lower than average score). It's kind of what he does: riles up one side of the spectrum to incite emotion. People enjoy listening to him and seeing the other side get angry. It's also a good way to get the conversation going. Do I agree with his tactics? Not really, but it gets the job done.

There really is no excuse for a DDoS attack.

 

[-Mutsukki-]

It's a review that came out over a week after release and after nearly every other major critic had their say. It'd be weirder if he DIDN'T address the general response to this game in some way.

Hm, I guess that makes sense, but nonetheless I still find it weird that he felt like he had to make a point about the 10/10 reviews. Not just the general praise it received, but those that said 10/10. And by his tweets posted here, it's pretty clear he was bothered by them Day 2.

On his podcast, he's talked about this a lot. There have been a few games which he didn't gel with that other people adored. I think one example was Shadow of the Colossus, and he does make it clear that he doesn't set out to dislike certain games.

I honestly think that paragraph was an attempt to temper any kind of backlash, poorly done, yes, but I do think that was the motivation.

The only source I have for this is that I listen to his podcast, where he isn't as much "in character", and he genuinely doesn't seem to enjoy not liking a game.

Perhaps, but it's weird when the very next day you're complaining about how "the fanbase" can't take a 9 for Zelda. It really seems like the general perception affected him way too much before he got an actual chance to form his opinion. It almost feels like he was the most nitpicky he could ever be.

But really, I guess I don't know the "real" Jim Sterling aside from his recent characters and Destructoid reviews that I found horrible (even if he always gave Kirby the highest of scores)

But he doesn't hate the game. He said the game was good. Both in the review and the video, multiple times. He liked the game. You don't give the things you hate a 7/10.

Yeah, hating is the wrong word there. But I'd honestly say that he already went into the game thinking "it can't be all that".

 

[Icolin]

Prepare yourselves

Should've been first post.

 

[Meia]

I guess it's easy to fool people who haven't actually played the game by showing only low level game play and him using the worst and second worse variants of weapons. He claims that later weapons still break too easily yet he didn't bother showing footage of that. I wonder why?

If a reviewer doesn't like a system and thinks the game is worse for being in, that's not going to change by saying "Oh, well it's slightly less shit later, no worries!"



Honestly, in a good review ecosystem, this is how it should be. You choose to follow/listen to reviews of people you know your opinions closely follow, and you tune out those they don't. Movie fans(that bother with reviews) have been doing that for a long time, and were doing it long before RT came out. If anything, it just kind of shows that things like metacritic and RT aren't all that healthy when it comes to having a differing opinion I guess. I mean, for god's sakes, trying to attack someone's livelihood because you only *slightly* disagree with someone's opinion? Those are the types that Jim is complaining about.

 

[Arion]

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

But he doesn't hate the game. He said the game was good. Both in the review and the video, multiple times. He liked the game. You don't give the things you hate a 7/10.

 

[Acerac]

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.

I guess next time you should quote them instead of people you're not talking about in that case.

You have to understand my confusion, when you quote me and you're apparently not talking to me, about me, and didn't make a mistake... well, I can't help but feel involved with your words somehow, even if you've made it very difficult for me to figure out how exactly that is.

 

[GregLombardi]

That isn't monetization. That's the equivalent of having a donate button for open source software.

Him getting dontations isn't dependent on him making clickbait videos.

This is an absolutely ridiculous standpoint. If someone is eating or not eating as a result of the money coming in from something, their objectivity in making that something is most certainly questioned.

You see this problem in news sensationalization and the way the media handles information. He's doing 100% exactly the same thing. More attention more money. It's that simple.

 

[Plum]

That isn't monetization. That's the equivalent of having a donate button for open source software.

...that's also monetization.

When money for a good or service, whether that be a pay-walled review of the continuation of said reviews through donations, is brought into the equation it is monetized. To continue to make a living Jim has a financial incentive to keep that Patreon alive and growing, same way Open Source software firms make a living by providing a product that people are willing to give money to. There are plenty of other examples of this business model; street performers, tips in restaraunts, political parties, the entire charity industry. The definition of monetization is "the process of converting or establishing something into legal tender"; that something, in Jim Sterling's case, is the brand in which people donate to via Patreon (and also the merchandise he sells).

 

[guek]

For clarification, two questions:

Did you believe 'spite scoring' is a common occurrence for most reviewers? Not "it's happened", I mean common enough that you're floating it as Occam's Razor here.

Why is an average score invoking of controversy?

My apologies if you're speaking broadly and not of your own feelings.

I'm interested in this idea that reviewers pillory games on a regular basis for tangible benefit.

I'm honestly trying to speak more broadly there. At worst, I have suspicion that Jim is intentionally making a big deal about his review and the controversy around it in order to gain more attention. I do think its common for there to be a review or two for a popular game from a popular source that's contrarian either just for the sake of being contrarian or because of an inherent bias. However, I don't think it's a common practice for any specific reviewer. Jim telegraphed that he's taking other reviews into account when writing his own review, which really wasn't fair to the game. This decidedly average score seems as much a response to those reviews as it is to the game but again, that's just my suspicion and I'm not going to act like my hunch is a fact. The 7 is "controversial" in the context of all the other reviews.

 

[Natiko]

He gave Hyrule Warriors a 9.5 if I remember correctly, so that pretty much debunks your theory that he's biased against Nintendo.

It's not an opinion I agree with but it sure is interesting to consider that there are people who find Hyrule Warriors significantly better than Breath of the Wild. Seems crazy to me but everyone has the right to their opinion.

 

[Plywood]

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.

Except that the gun doesn't break in shooters and you can find ammo for it usually dropped by the enemies which would be the equivalent of repairing it in your analogy, but ammo doesn't cost anything in most shooters while it however does cost precious resources(as per Sterling) in BotW.

 

[Karl_Dilkington7]

Good on Jim. I think it's highly immature to do a DDOS attack just because someone gave a score lower than what you would give it. It's honestly the main reason why I don't call myself a "gamer." I have friends that loathe games that I like (and vice versa) and we get along just fine. Sometimes we will get into debates, but at the end of the day, our relationship is pertly healthy after those debates.


I highly agree him about weapon durability. I can't stand that gameplay mechanic. It's the only thing I don't like in BOTW and I hate pausing the action just to switch a weapon during combat. To me, it's looses it's pacing when you have to stop the game just because your weapon broke.

 

[Nzyme32]

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.

Meanwhile I take the opposite stance and agree with him, though not quite for the precise same reason. It's annoying as hell to have to enter a menu mid combat and select new weapons every few seconds. It's tedious. Durability as a system isn't necessarily bad if done with some thought.