• Jim fucking Sterling gives Super Mario Odyssey 7/10! Fans enraged!
    92 replies, posted
Saw TotalBiscuit tweet about this all day, the Nintendo subreddit was filled with with golden comments. Some even continued after they actually checked if it was real or not. :v: Made up outrage is one of the easiest things nowadays. Also how rating works today: [t]https://i.imgur.com/wQqQPHS.png[/t]
[QUOTE=fulgrim;52827744]Jim is quickly becoming one of my favourite youtubers, his podcasts are often a laugh too. He should totally bring out one last review and give Mario Odysset a 7/10. Double dip on that fanboy rage.[/QUOTE] He is pretty good when it comes to decidedly black and white issues like DRM, loot boxes, publisher scumfuckery, and Steam quality control. When it comes to more nuanced opinions and his game reviews, eh. [QUOTE=StoneRabbit;52828090]Remember when 7/10 was considered a good grade?[/QUOTE] idk, 7/10 always seemed like a "rent or buy at deep discount" for me. the 1-10 scale is less about 5 being the average and more like a letter grade, where a 7/10 is a C-.
[QUOTE=Mitsuma;52829285]Saw TotalBiscuit tweet about this all day, the Nintendo subreddit was filled with with golden comments. Some even continued after they actually checked if it was real or not. :v: Made up outrage is one of the easiest things nowadays. Also how rating works today: [t]https://i.imgur.com/wQqQPHS.png[/t][/QUOTE] Stuff like this is why i've always preferred the --/5 star system, since it doesnt default your brain to school grades and makes reading the actual review something someone is morel likely to do.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52829315]He is pretty good when it comes to decidedly black and white issues like DRM, loot boxes, publisher scumfuckery, and Steam quality control. When it comes to more nuanced opinions and his game reviews, eh. idk, 7/10 always seemed like a "rent or buy at deep discount" for me. the 1-10 scale is less about 5 being the average and more like a letter grade, where a 7/10 is a C-.[/QUOTE] That is how most people here in the States, view it. So a 7/10 is "You reached the bare minimum of acceptability." on that scale, and basically anything below a 6 or 5 is literally meaningless and all the same. On an averages system a 7/10 is easily above average. Like really this is the biggest problem with using numbers is that a massive chunk of players are still U.S. players and default to relating things back to the grading system, and reviewers often do this as well. But if you're looking at it as an averages system and make a review on that, then if you give a game a 7/10 that may be an 8.5 or even higher in the grading system. But to others who think you're using a grading system it looks like you're calling it a 4 on an averages system. Basically its two different systems with no established standard for which system to use, and massive difference between what they mean that really cause problem with number grades for reviews.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52829405]Stuff like this is why i've always preferred the --/5 star system, since it doesnt default your brain to school grades and makes reading the actual review something someone is morel likely to do.[/QUOTE] Even with --/5 star systems, most people consider anything below a 4 to be trash. It's even worse if you add decimals, that makes anything less than 4.5 bad.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;52829493]Even with --/5 star systems, most people consider anything below a 4 to be trash. It's even worse if you add decimals, that makes anything less than 4.5 bad.[/QUOTE] the funny this about 5 star scales with decimals is that it's really no different than a --/10 scale the best scores are really "recommend / don't" or "thumbs up / down", with possibly a rare neutral rating for unsure or middleground quality games that are hard for that person to really say.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;52829478]That is how most people here in the States, view it. So a 7/10 is "You reached the bare minimum of acceptability." on that scale, and basically anything below a 6 or 5 is literally meaningless and all the same. On an averages system a 7/10 is easily above average. Like really this is the biggest problem with using numbers is that a massive chunk of players are still U.S. players and default to relating things back to the grading system, and reviewers often do this as well. But if you're looking at it as an averages system and make a review on that, then if you give a game a 7/10 that may be an 8.5 or even higher in the grading system. But to others who think you're using a grading system it looks like you're calling it a 4 on an averages system. Basically its two different systems with no established standard for which system to use, and massive difference between what they mean that really cause problem with number grades for reviews.[/QUOTE] I would really love a review aggregator site that actually keeps track of the mean of each reviewer's scores, then adjusts each review to have a standardized average. Then maybe use a A-F letter system instead of numbers so 'C' is average instead of some arbitrary number. [editline]f[/editline] Maybe even an option to filter out 10/10 and 0/10 scores too.
not having ratings and having headlines like "Jim sterling rips odyssey a new asshole over X shitty feature!" instead might actually encourage game improvements.
[QUOTE=J!NX;52829497]the funny this about 5 star scales with decimals is that it's really no different than a --/10 scale the best scores are really "recommend / don't" or "thumbs up / down", with possibly a rare neutral rating for unsure or middleground quality games that are hard for that person to really say.[/QUOTE] I wanted to start doing reviews that, instead of giving a typical score, were based off a "dollar per hour of fun" score. So a game that is $60 and gives 30 hours of fun means its $2 per hour of fun. Whereas a game that is $60 but only give 10 hours of fun is $6 per hour of fun. And basically use that as the primary metric. Or a game that is $10 but gives 40 hours of fun is just 25 cents per hour of fun. Its a rough system and I revisit the idea from time to time trying to refine it, but I like it at least. Some issues were how to handle things like free-to-play games or subscription based games. And now with loot boxes thats a whole new issue I'd need to consider. It also doesn't necessarily work for some games that are short but really good, like say Stanley Parable. Others that have limitless progression get weird too. So with me in Warframe for instance I have 1765 hours of time in that game, my most played. Its free-to-play though, so we get 0/1765 which of course doesn't work quite as well. I mean I could say "Ohh, well its infinite fun!" or something but that doesn't necessarily work either especially since my play has tapered off. But then we can say, "Well I actually have spent money on it, so I do have a metric THERE that I can use." but that is technically not required to just play the game. Then comes issues of grind and the ability to pay to bypass it, not all hours in the game being fun, the fact that a large portion of that is from older versions that were radically different experiences, the impact of major updates like the latest big one Plains of Eidolon. So its a flawed system itself that needs a lot of refining, but one I want to work on.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;52829548]I wanted to start doing reviews that, instead of giving a typical score, were based off a "dollar per hour of fun" score. So a game that is $60 and gives 30 hours of fun means its $2 per hour of fun. Whereas a game that is $60 but only give 10 hours of fun is $6 per hour of fun. And basically use that as the primary metric. Or a game that is $10 but gives 40 hours of fun is just 25 cents per hour of fun. Its a rough system and I revisit the idea from time to time trying to refine it, but I like it at least. Some issues were how to handle things like free-to-play games or subscription based games. And now with loot boxes thats a whole new issue I'd need to consider. It also doesn't necessarily work for some games that are short but really good, like say Stanley Parable. Others that have limitless progression get weird too. So with me in Warframe for instance I have 1765 hours of time in that game, my most played. Its free-to-play though, so we get 0/1765 which of course doesn't work quite as well. I mean I could say "Ohh, well its infinite fun!" or something but that doesn't necessarily work either especially since my play has tapered off. But then we can say, "Well I actually have spent money on it, so I do have a metric THERE that I can use." but that is technically not required to just play the game. Then comes issues of grind and the ability to pay to bypass it, not all hours in the game being fun, the fact that a large portion of that is from older versions that were radically different experiences, the impact of major updates like the latest big one Plains of Eidolon. So its a flawed system itself that needs a lot of refining, but one I want to work on.[/QUOTE] How much fun i have with a game doesn't really depend on how many "hours" i put in though. Some games are short and well worth it but have no real replay value, but they can stick in your mind for a long time and provide a lot to the player. others can take infinite hours and just be some average baseline of entertainment that keeps me coming back, but not really activate the "fun" to the same extent. Quality and quantity. the hour counting thing kinda got popularized when AAA games started to increasingly shortened and steam was getting popularized, but people were smart enough to only use those as metrics when comparing games to similar equivalents (cod 42 vs cod 43, or something) because it's not useful otherwise.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;52829572]How much fun i have with a game doesn't really depend on how many "hours" i put in though. Some games are short and well worth it but have no real replay value, but they can stick in your mind for a long time and provide a lot to the player. others can take infinite hours and just be some average baseline of entertainment that keeps me coming back, but not really activate the "fun" to the same extent. Quality and quantity. the hour counting thing kinda got popularized when AAA games started to increasingly shortened and steam was getting popularized, but people were smart enough to only use those as metrics when comparing games to similar equivalents (cod 42 vs cod 43, or something) because it's not useful otherwise.[/QUOTE]Which is something I brought up, games like Stanley Parable that are short but very memorable and great, and the fact not every moment of play is going to be fun. And for many people they have to be able to justify spending money on a game, so the enjoyable time they get out of it is going to be a big part in determining if the cost is justified. Look at how often, "Get it on sale." or "Its good but not worth $60." crops up. And the idea overall for the review is to tell people if its worth their money.
[QUOTE=Steel & Iron;52827266]Jim my boy, going to /v/ and thinking that the board is representative of the entire fanbase is getting a bit too judgemental. Let me remind you that these are the people that shitpost for a living, and make images like this. [t]https://i.imgur.com/W3K6cnZ.jpg[/t] Taking anything you see there at face value is on you.[/QUOTE] is there a decoder ring for this image
Reminds me of when Something Awful did a gag review of some MMORPG. The denizens of said game were having a conniption because someone spoke ill of their game. The thread demonizing the review was like 70 pages of people who couldn't take a joke. Some wanted to ask nicely for them to give the game a second chance, most went the "I'll kill them and their entire bloodline for not liking what I like!!1" route, no one caught on that it was not a serious review.
[QUOTE=J!NX;52829497]the funny this about 5 star scales with decimals is that it's really no different than a --/10 scale the best scores are really "recommend / don't" or "thumbs up / down", with possibly a rare neutral rating for unsure or middleground quality games that are hard for that person to really say.[/QUOTE] Personally I really like Double Toasted's movie scores Better Than Sex - For works that are masterpieces and advance the medium/genre Full Price - Really fucking good, worth the full price ticket Matinee - Still pretty good, but if you wait until you can save a bit of money you won't miss anything Rental - You might enjoy it, but might as well wait until it's on Netflix or something Some Ol' Bullshit - Not worth paying for at all FUCK YOU - Works that actively offend or piss off the guys and have no redeeming features whatsoever I'd like it if games reviewers used a similar system, something like "buy on release", "wait for steam sale/patches", "play it if it's a gift", "don't even bother", etc.
[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;52829990]Personally I really like Double Toasted's movie scores Better Than Sex - For works that are masterpieces and advance the medium/genre Full Price - Really fucking good, worth the full price ticket Matinee - Still pretty good, but if you wait until you can save a bit of money you won't miss anything Rental - You might enjoy it, but might as well wait until it's on Netflix or something Some Ol' Bullshit - Not worth paying for at all FUCK YOU - Works that actively offend or piss off the guys and have no redeeming features whatsoever I'd like it if games reviewers used a similar system, something like "buy on release", "wait for steam sale/patches", "play it if it's a gift", "don't even bother", etc.[/QUOTE] [url=https://www.youtube.com/user/AngryCentaurGaming]Angry Centaur Gaming[/url] does a similar rating scale using 'Buy, Wait for a Sale/Rent or Never Touch', and he's one of the most in-depth reviewers for a good while without being too dragging. He's even courteous enough to say too whenever a game isn't for him/preferred genre but still lists down the perks and does specific results like 'must buy for fans, but might be worth a look for newcomers too, and definitely worth looking on a sale' sort of thing. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc9xgfLwzY4[/media] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LGEit022m0[/media]
[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;52829990]Personally I really like Double Toasted's movie scores Better Than Sex - For works that are masterpieces and advance the medium/genre Full Price - Really fucking good, worth the full price ticket Matinee - Still pretty good, but if you wait until you can save a bit of money you won't miss anything Rental - You might enjoy it, but might as well wait until it's on Netflix or something Some Ol' Bullshit - Not worth paying for at all FUCK YOU - Works that actively offend or piss off the guys and have no redeeming features whatsoever I'd like it if games reviewers used a similar system, something like "buy on release", "wait for steam sale/patches", "play it if it's a gift", "don't even bother", etc.[/QUOTE] I like Jeremy Jahns's review scale for the same reason. Awesometacular/worth seeing and worth buying on blu-ray/good time, no alcohol required/good time if you're drunk/won't remember in t-minus X/dogshit.
[QUOTE=Intermission;52828203]I love Mario Odyssey. Now I suppose I feel the same way the Zelda fans did back in March.[/QUOTE] Considering that the review is fake, no.
Amazing that even people in this thread got baited :v:
[QUOTE=darth-veger;52830152]Amazing that even people in this thread got baited :v:[/QUOTE] Surprising amount of people comment before they watch the video. Reminds me of the Quality Rips thread
[QUOTE=darth-veger;52830152]Amazing that even people in this thread got baited :v:[/QUOTE] Say anything bad about Nintendo and you awaken raging fanboys. Its been like this for quite some time. They ususally plug their ears and say "No my nintendo game is 100/100" without reading any critism of the game. Even if the person didn't actually say it.
[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;52827208]His PSN account. He reviewed one of the final fantasy games and said the final boss fight was too hard and he would lower his review score because of it. When you check his PSN account he only beat the first boss of the game and then stopped playing.[/QUOTE] This is hilarious.
[QUOTE=Oizen;52830540]Say anything bad about Nintendo and you awaken raging fanboys. Its been like this for quite some time. They ususally plug their ears and say "No my nintendo game is 100/100" without reading any critism of the game. Even if the person didn't actually say it.[/QUOTE] There is also this phenomenon where Xbox players, PS4 players and PC players usually team up and criticize/trashtalk/insult anything regarding Nintendo from time to time not realizing that it's the counterpart of Nintendo players praising Nintendo for everything. And I'm honest: Out of all the stupid things Nintendo players say and do, Nintendo [I]does[/I] get the most flak/shit from opposing players simply because it's Nintendo and they hate it when they do things in their own way instead of playing by the rules as Sony and Microsoft do. And the worst thing for them is, when it actually works out for them like Wii and Switch. Teaming up to shit on everything that Nintendo does is just as bad as what some Nintendo players do like the stuff in the video. They are triggered easily because 1vs3 is kinda unfair.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52827143]The first to swallow the bait and start the rumor was none other than... Mister Metokur [media]https://twitter.com/WeWuzMetokur/status/923539769665245184[/media] Not that he was wrong to swallow the bait, of course, I'd believe it. In fact, I sort of want him to give Odyssey a 7/10 for real just to see the real show[/QUOTE] For a guy who touts himself an intellectual in his videos and mocking others, he sure did fall for something that was obviously not even there. Did he check the date of the review, because that sure is hell a DEAD giveaway. I don't know why, but seeing MM take the bait made my day and feel a bit better about myself.
[QUOTE=maddogsamurai;52831457]For a guy who touts himself an intellectual in his videos and mocking others, he sure did fall for something that was obviously not even there. Did he check the date of the review, because that sure is hell a DEAD giveaway. I don't know why, but seeing MM take the bait made my day and feel a bit better about myself.[/QUOTE] I find it more believable that he was intending to spread the bait how else do you spread it other than playing along? [editline]28th October 2017[/editline] It's 100% his type of thing to do Very likely for a video
I thought all his reviews were satire anyway. I thought that was the point of his videos but don't really watch his videos. Fucking OOT Conspiracy made me laugh.
[QUOTE=maddogsamurai;52831457]For a guy who touts himself an intellectual in his videos and mocking others, he sure did fall for something that was obviously not even there. Did he check the date of the review, because that sure is hell a DEAD giveaway. I don't know why, but seeing MM take the bait made my day and feel a bit better about myself.[/QUOTE] He made a post about Jim making a video about this subject while he said himself "Sony always wins" in all caps. He's /v/ personified, seeking to misinform and rile up.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;52832926]you don't need to defend nintendo for being a shitty company or god forbid, they make an average game[/QUOTE] I'm not defending them. I'm saying that people make fun of their games for being "childish" and/or not playing by the rules when it comes to console development. Or their mishandling of online multiplayer in games (this one is justified). The whole "Nintendo is doomed" thing has been going on for years because they dare to make things a bit different instead of doing everything the exact same as Sony or Microsoft. For better or worse. I'm not defending their practices of handling fan projects with their lawyers and such. I'm saying that they do get the most flak simply because they are Nintendo and it's cool to hate them and you often see people just teaming up to express their negative thoughts on them, more than Microsoft and Sony. Even though all of them make as equally as many mistakes and fuck ups. It's right that Nintendo gets flak for things like their mishandling of fanprojects, their backwards online multiplayer, sometimes fucking up their games but in general the amount of negativity is simply more than what Sony and Microsoft get when they fuck up things as equally as big as this. It reminds me of the launch of the Switch where people were shitting up the entire internet after Crowbcat posted the video of the painful launch. People were saying that it was the worst launch in history, ignoring Microsofts fuck up of the Xbox 360 and its huge failure rate of 50-60% in the first year. Things like this. They get blown out of proportion because it's Nintendo and they want them to fail. They are a good or shitty company but only as good and shitty as the competition in different fields. They fuck up as many things as Microsoft and Sony and all of them are on the same level in the end. And I'm not defending them if they make an average game. The direction they go with games like Paper Mario for example are also things that are very disappointing.
For those who haven't seen: [video=youtube;2vMLXVIF6QQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vMLXVIF6QQ[/video] He says the game is brilliant and it's the best 3D Mario he has played in years.
[QUOTE=Zeos;52828189]I wouldn’t have minded his 7/10 for Breath of The Wild had the content of the review itself not been utter bullshit. The game is great but has some glaring flaws, yet his review was full of criticism that... didn’t address any of these issues, but instead he just kinda made up arbitrary points about stuff like a rant on “Ubisoft towers”, despite the fact that the equivalent in Zelda actually had none of the problems that he previously bitched about beforehand. Worse yet, not a week before he reviewed Horizon he just... apparently forgot that the game did nearly everything he arbitrarily ranted about but actually nailed everything he HATED, but just kinda... conveniently forgot to mention it in the review of that game. Like a game, hate a game, but be fucking honest about it[/QUOTE] One of my biggest issues with his review is him saying the Shrines are pretty much not optional, since the base Stamina isn't enough to do anything in the game. Which is fucking bullshit as I've had base Stamina for 170+ hours in the game, and I have explored half of the map with it. Same with hearts too, base hearts are fine.
[QUOTE=Antimuffin;52833166] It reminds me of the launch of the Switch where people were shitting up the entire internet after Crowbcat posted the video of the painful launch. People were saying that it was the worst launch in history, ignoring Microsofts fuck up of the Xbox 360 and its huge failure rate of 50-60% in the first year. Things like this. They get blown out of proportion because it's Nintendo and they want them to fail. [/QUOTE] This one was really obnoxious because, screen scratching due to the bewilderingly poorly thought out dock design aside, most of the issues were pretty rare and isolated all things considered and people blindly treated that Crowbcat video like it was the gospel and that everybody who bought a Switch on launch was a sucker with a defective unit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.