Destructoid article on DirectX and Steam.

[thegooseking]

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.

I don't think everyone worked like that, though, so it's hard to compare like to like. PC Gamer gave Boiling Point 21/100 because it was massively broken, while PC Format gave it 81/100 because what lay beyond the bugs was an ambitious and well-designed game. I own the game, and honestly I think both scores are justified, albeit from different perspectives. Averaging the two scores out to get 51 isn't really representative of the kind of game Boiling Point is. (It's not "works, but is crap" like you suggest a 5 out of 10 should be; it's "great, but doesn't work".)

I think it's important to rate Boiling Point highly even if it doesn't technically work, because it included some great ideas that should have been carried forward into other games (and in fact were). But that's not necessarily an accurate reflection of whether it's worth the money you would spend on it.

[deano2099]

It's almost as if a game can't be summed up with a percentage score isn't it?

[Nalano]

Not that the current conversation doesn't have merit, but did anybody else notice that the original topic lasted for all of two posts?

[Smashbox]

Not that the current conversation doesn't have merit, but did anybody else notice that the original topic lasted for all of two posts?

That's what's great here, actually. A semi-boring (sorry) topic gets turned into an actual interesting conversation. :{D

[R-F]

The sad thing is we're criticising a games writer based on the score he gave a game, rather than the quality of the review itself, which hasn't even been mentioned.

Except:

"5/10 on this AAA game for nonsensical reasons."

I wouldn't mind if he actually gave reasonable reasons (or reasons people can agree with) in his reviews, but we end up with shit like his Fable 3 Review where he gives it a 5.5 because it's basically "not like the other Fable games".

Or his Bastion Review (which is the creation of a small indie developer, by the way) where he complains about game mechanics that are perfectly serviceable and he just complains about them since he has difficulty with it. I'm using this tiny indie developer's game as an example so people can't claim that the other reviewers are being paid off. Since like 90% of them gave the game 80+%.

Unless you're a developer, people who get offended by games getting low scores deserve to be trolled.

I couldn't care less about the scores. What I care about is that he's using game's journalism as a way to troll communities and get attention onto himself. Games journalism is still a pretty fragile entity, and so when you have Jim Sterling coming out and going, "LOLOLOL 4/10 BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE WILL SCORE IT HIGHLY COME LOOK AT MY SITE", that causes issues.

[Shane]

I think we need more trolls like Sterling, if you guys are right about that, to get people to put so much value to review scores. Try mainstream gaming sites like IGN, Gamespot, even Gameinformer, the resident fanboys go apeshit if their favorite video game doesn't get the score they want it to. I still remember that IGN put out an article to explain as to why they had scored ME2 to better than Uncharted. Ridiculous.

I kinda agree with R-F though, what Sterling does doesn't put games journalism as a whole in positive light but maybe it's for the good, that perhaps people will begin to see the bullshit that are game scores and gravitate towards more subjective ones.

Also, I'd like to know what RPS' editors' opinion on this topic.

[Jams O'Donnell]

(Jim Stirling, while often a egomaniacal dick, does quite often raise good points. I'm not entirely sure what to make of him.)

[soldant]

I disliked his 6/10 review of The Witcher 2 as much as the next PC gamer

At the end of the day, the man's providing his opinion on a game. That's it. Reviewers aren't sitting up on a mountain saying "No sir I don't like it, therefore none of you can play it or have any opinion that differs from mine." Personally I don't like either of The Witcher games, I find the storyline fairly bland and uninteresting, and most of the gameplay was a chore for me. My personal view would be to give it a 6 or 7 out of 10. But so what? Who cares? If you love it, that's cool.

It's just an opinion piece, and the Internet is packed with them. If you don't agree with it, then just don't agree with it.

[deano2099]

Except:
I wouldn't mind if he actually gave reasonable reasons (or reasons people can agree with) in his reviews, but we end up with shit like his Fable 3 Review where he gives it a 5.5 because it's basically "not like the other Fable games".

And from the perspective of someone who wanted more of the same, calling it "slightly above average" is fair.

Unless he's actually printing lies about the game (when it potentially becomes a legal issue) then I don't see the problem. Well actually I do, it's the communities that rise to the bait. If he knows he'll get a load of hits by being a bit aggressive then that's because people keep visiting him to get angry. That to me, is a problem with the audience. The writer is just catering to a market.

Same with gold sellers - they're catering to the market, it's the people buying it that are the problem.

[Xercies]

(Jim Stirling, while often a egomaniacal dick, does quite often raise good points. I'm not entirely sure what to make of him

Yeah I've been watching his videos an...I can't really complain about some of his views. The way he goes about it with this false I'm better then you thing and the swearing(a little bit much) is a bit distasteful, but of course its meant to do that i guess. Though to be honest thats why I prefer Extra Credits, they do reasonable discussions in a nice way.

[Nalano]

If he knows he'll get a load of hits by being a bit aggressive then that's because people keep visiting him to get angry. That to me, is a problem with the audience.

Fanboys vs haters. Pretty much stating an opinion does that - especially if your opinion doesn't fit either camp.

[cpugeek13]

I think Jim has too much bias towards certain kinds of games (underdogs and indies) and tends to be overly judgmental to games with a lot of hype. His review of the Witcher may be the low point of his career, as far as I'm concerned. He is pretty much representative of the quality of destructoid in general. I could never see a writer like him finding much success on a more professional gaming blog like rockpapershotgun. Thank God we have rockpapershotgun!

[Kadayi]

Depends how the rating system works. And how he interprets it. The sad thing is we're criticising a games writer based on the score he gave a game, rather than the quality of the review itself, which hasn't even been mentioned.

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.

Review is here: -

http://www.destructoid.com/review-ka...s-181575.phtml

Kane & Lynch: Dead Men was one of the most notorious games of this generation. Famously bad, the game made headlines after a GameSpot reviewer gave it a low score and ended up fired because, allegedly, it had upset Eidos and the site's marketing department.

A game so famously bad it garnered a meta critic average of 67, and Jeff Gerstmann the gamespot critic in question gave it a 6/10. Hardly 'famously bad' more just not likely to win any GoTY awards.

I'll leave you to decide if Jim's score made sense, but tbh what is said to me was 'This guy fucking sucks at shooters'. Sure Journalism is all opinion, but even amongst Journalists there's an acknowledgement that you put the right person on the job to review a particular game (jack of all trades = master of none).

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.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vide...w/jimquisition

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.

Yeah I've been watching his videos an...I can't really complain about some of his views. The way he goes about it with this false I'm better then you thing and the swearing(a little bit much) is a bit distasteful, but of course its meant to do that i guess. Though to be honest thats why I prefer Extra Credits, they do reasonable discussions in a nice way.

For the sake of fair balance I watched the episodes you recommended ezekiel as well the 'fight in the Name of Childishness' one. I'll be honest, there is nothing that Jim Sterling says throughout that I found particularly insightful tbh. Good linear games are fun to replay? Cheers Jim I never knew that. Publishers are dumb to get worked up over metacritic? Wow Jim I'd of never come to that conclusion without your guiding wisdom. However I find the 'let's take one incident on Fox news (a site renowned for it's lack of journalistic integrity) and use that as the basis to argue an entire proposition' the most hilarious. Why should gamers act like adults? Maybe for the simple reason that the average gamer is technically one based on age (what is it like 28 now?). Sure given the piteous cries of assorted man babies and AIMs at the drop of a hat over Ubisoft DRM, Bioware RPGs or Steam it's easily to think otherwise, but by on large these are people who can legally buy alcohol, hold downs jobs, raise children, have sex with other consenting adults and vote in elections.

Much like Xercies I think Extra Credits is a lot better, and frankly more orientated to adults.

[jp0249107]

I used to frequent destructoid quite...frequently. And it seems after that giant mass of crap did his review of FFXIII he just turned into a giant troll. I mean yeah he had a mouth on him beforehand but once all the fanboys raged on him for the review, he wrote at least 4 more articles about it and continued to turn into a troll.

It's like the guy only knows how to jiggle his moobs and yell things that are vaguely british in relation to a videogame. His video rants are literally him, douchebag sunglasses, and a microphone being molested by his incredibly large mouth. Instead of reporting on videogame news he writes one paragraph about it and then proceeds to make vague insults if he disagrees with it or insults people who might happen to disagree with him on the issue.

Just in case you can't tell, I hate that guys guts. I'm an assistant in a media relations department and he is the worst journalist I've ever seen, and I've had alot of experience in dealing with journalists.

[deano2099]

I used to frequent destructoid quite...frequently. And it seems after that giant mass of crap did his review of FFXIII he just turned into a giant troll. I mean yeah he had a mouth on him beforehand but once all the fanboys raged on him for the review, he wrote at least 4 more articles about it and continued to turn into a troll.

It's like the guy only knows how to jiggle his moobs and yell things that are vaguely british in relation to a videogame. His video rants are literally him, douchebag sunglasses, and a microphone being molested by his incredibly large mouth. Instead of reporting on videogame news he writes one paragraph about it and then proceeds to make vague insults if he disagrees with it or insults people who might happen to disagree with him on the issue.

Just in case you can't tell, I hate that guys guts. I'm an assistant in a media relations department and he is the worst journalist I've ever seen, and I've had alot of experience in dealing with journalists.

I'd rather have some people love my work and others hate it than most people be indifferent.

[Kadayi]

I'd rather have some people love my work and others hate it than most people be indifferent.

I'm sorry but that's no excuse for idiocy. By promoting Jim as some kind of latter day Che Guevara fighting the good fight you pretty much diminish real game Journalists like the guys writing here at RPS, or a bunch of other informative sites.

[deano2099]

I'm not doing that. Never really read the bloke. But clearly some people really enjoy his writing, and assuming he enjoys writing it I don't see the problem.

And I'd take writing that wound me up and annoyed me constantly over the anodyne, personality-less crap the likes of IGN and Gamespot spurt out.

Unless he's literally mis-informing people and lying about games, in which case I'd be with you. But knowing how litigious certain publishers are, I imagine someone would have sued him by now if that was the case.

[Althea]

Jim Stirling is a large (hur hur) reason why I don't go on Destructoid anymore. Oh, and it's written by complete douchebags. I remember wanting to murder people due to that annoying creature they had presenting their GamesCom coverage. PC Gamer isn't that great, either. They troll their members as much as their members troll the site, plus they frequently misreport things. As a recent example, there was that recent GfWL scare for Skyrim. Some sites double-backed and said "Wait, it's been pointed out that it's not a GfWL game", but PC Gamer did no such thing. Mind you, I was pissed that most sites ran that story, because there was absolutely no proof for it. I could probably slide a little for multiplatform sites, but PC-centric sites like PC Gamer and RPS should have known better and checked before they ran the story, because it was just scaremongering.

RPS seems to be one of the better balanced sites for PC journalism, in my opinion.

[DougallDogg]

Well the main reason I have always avoided Destructoid is stated in their about section:-

"You love gaming, so go to E3 expo. People with blogs can get invited. Make one."

It's this sort of mentality that has got everyone and their mothers writing a 'gaming blog' with no professional qualifications or vocational experience.

What makes matters worse is people like Jim Sterling go around rubber stamping games with no more of a professional opinion than me or you.

From my experience chatting with friends or family no one really pays attention to reviews anyway. Me and a few of the guys from work actually like some pretty shitty games, films and bands but that because we all get enjoyment from them.

[jp0249107]

I'd rather have some people love my work and others hate it than most people be indifferent.

It has nothing to do with whether or not people like his work. It's because you can't classify it as "work". The guy represents every reason why I got out of journalism (that and my uni's paper, that thing would make Pravda blush). He represents what is wrong with sites like n4g and others who live on "hits" instead of attracting hits with good reporting and insightful posts.
Not to sound like a fanboy but RPS is a perfect example of toeing the line between opinion and reporting. There is more information and facts in a post than opinion and if there is any opinion it's presented as such. Sterling merely hides the news in his ramblings and random brit cursing. I seem to remember a thread here talking about "New Games Journalism" that basically outlines why people like him are hurting journalism.
Oh and just because; I don't look down upon anyone who likes him, or anyone who disagrees with me. This is an interesting conversation on how games journalism is evolving in the internet era. I do miss the professionalism of the mag writing but in all honesty you can't get the same kind of coverage that you can with awesome sites like this one. RPS is my main site to go to for games news and forums.