Why is Jim Sterling still allowed to call himself a reviewer?
I know, right? I'm so tired of that guy. Perfect example of a pretty limited amount of celebrity going completely to someone's head.
"5/10 on this AAA game for nonsensical reasons."
"What is this shit, Jim? I'd understand 6 or 7 out of 10, but 5, really?"
"DON'T QUESTION ME I INVENTED OUR RATING SYSTEM!!!!!"
Despite the fact he's the only one on the site who uses it like that, whereas most are happy to go with the usual 6/7 to mediocre games and 5 for pretty bad ones.
Douchey devil's advocate: shouldn't a game halfway between awful & classic get a 5? Not to open a can on worms.
Fun fact: iPhone autocorrect doesn't like "douchey"
four point scale?
Seriously. If it's mediocre (and a lot of AAA titles are mediocre), it gets a 5. Hell, don't make the games industry have worse grade inflation than public schools.
Yeah I thought his Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days was the best. I mean sure it's no Mona Lisa but it was a perfectly serviceable game 5-6/10 with an effective gritty aesthetic to it (I'm hoping Hitman Absolution takes some cues from it), yet Jim awards it 1/10 for no good reason beyond wanting to impress his fans ('tell it like it is Jim!!!') and ride on the coat tails of Gerstmanngate, way after Jeff Gerstmann had long put that behind him. Pathetic really. As regards later answers a 1/10 is a score a truly broken game deserves and K&L2 wasn't broken. Still given his ever expanding BMI I doubt Jim will be around to trouble us for long, the rate he's going.
Last edited by Kadayi; 02-08-2011 at 11:03 PM.
But god knows I want to live in a world where a game can upset me enough that I want to give it 1/10, while getting a different reaction from other people.
Does Ebert get accused of trolling when he gives a film one star?
It is interesting actually, in that it is possible for a game to be 'broken' in the way a film really can't be. I mean technically it can, all the shots could be out of focus or all the scenes too dark to see what's going on, but it's basically accepted that this just doesn't happen. And if it does nowhere will screen it and nowhere will review it. It's an irrelevancy.
I think that is part of the cause of the upswing in games scores over the past 20 years or so. Really low scores (less than 40%) were reserved for games that were objectively broken. The scale of subjectivity only really started around 5/10. Even if I really hated a game, if it functioned, it was worth a 5 at least.
What was the last commercial, broken game you heard about? (and let's leave off the WoW /DNF/UbiDRM jokes for now). It just doesn't happen anymore. On console it'd never pass the QA process the platform owners run. It maybe happens in PC indie stuff but I can't think of any examples.
The medium is growing up and we need to get past the point where 1/10 is reserved for games that crash after the intro movie.
I disliked his 6/10 review of The Witcher 2 as much as the next PC gamer, but his recent videos on the escapist have made me like him.
I recommend "Linearity vs Replayability" or "Metacritic Isn't the Problem". Funnily enough, in the last one he makes the point some of you are discussing of in the thread. If you watch "Fight in the Name of Childishness", you can sort of understand why he is so loud and even annoying, too... And there goes another thread thrown off topic to argue about Jim Sterling.