Yooka-Laylee Review - Banjo-Threeie

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

TrulyBritish:

CaptainMarvelous:
O.o what is with Sterling lately? His reviews seem all over the place. Also, damn but he has some rabid fans, sweet christ guys, you're making the Zelda guys who allegedly DDOSed look like moderates.

How, exactly, does people criticising a supposedly professional reviewer who took an inappropriate potshot at another review for posting a lower score make people who tried to literally fuck with someone's livelihood/censor their opinion by taking their site down look like moderates?

Intended as hyperbole.

Although, thinking on it more, wouldnt taking down Sterling's site merely inconvenience him? Isn't he funded quite healthily on Patreon/is very present on youtube so neither option seems like it would or could occur.

Not defending it, mind, but its hardly like they jeapordised his entire future just made an annoyance. Allegedly.

Guilion:

Steven Bogos:

Silentpony:
Jim's site is down 'cause he gave it a 2/10

IMO, he is an idiot. A 2/10 score denotes a game that is functionally broken. Endless glitches, missing segments, early access alpha type stuff. I understand if he didn't like the game but a 2/10 score is just insulting.

Yes, Jim is an idiot for expressing his subjective opinion and you, the reviewer that has given this game the highest rating on metacritic as of the time ofbthis writing, are the ultimate authority to call him out on it after having played a whole 2.2 hours of the game.

He did start with "in my opinion" and going off the extra information its also clear why he holds that opinion.

Still probably shouldnt have gone with Idiot but Im not really seein how Jim's 2 which is WAY below average is the objective truth and Bogos is wrong for disagreeing.

CaptainMarvelous:

TrulyBritish:

CaptainMarvelous:
O.o what is with Sterling lately? His reviews seem all over the place. Also, damn but he has some rabid fans, sweet christ guys, you're making the Zelda guys who allegedly DDOSed look like moderates.

How, exactly, does people criticising a supposedly professional reviewer who took an inappropriate potshot at another review for posting a lower score make people who tried to literally fuck with someone's livelihood/censor their opinion by taking their site down look like moderates?

Intended as hyperbole.

Although, thinking on it more, wouldnt taking down Sterling's site merely inconvenience him? Isn't he funded quite healthily on Patreon/is very present on youtube so neither option seems like it would or could occur.

Not defending it, mind, but its hardly like they jeapordised his entire future just made an annoyance. Allegedly.

I'm aware, but I'm going by intent. I'm assuming that those trying to DDOS Jim were doing it to 1) prevent him earning money from clicks (which is pointless as you point out), 2) prevent others from reading his negative review or 3) Somehow hope that a tantrum will cause him to reconsider and give it a higher score.

Added Edit: This isn't about Jim being objectively right and Bogos wrong, it just gets on my wick when reviewers launches insults at other reviewers over scores. I expect it from man children in Youtube comments, not from supposed professionals.
That said, if it's true that Bogos has only played 2.2 hours, I do wonder just how much he could have played to give it such a high score.

TrulyBritish:

CaptainMarvelous:

TrulyBritish:

How, exactly, does people criticising a supposedly professional reviewer who took an inappropriate potshot at another review for posting a lower score make people who tried to literally fuck with someone's livelihood/censor their opinion by taking their site down look like moderates?

Intended as hyperbole.

Although, thinking on it more, wouldnt taking down Sterling's site merely inconvenience him? Isn't he funded quite healthily on Patreon/is very present on youtube so neither option seems like it would or could occur.

Not defending it, mind, but its hardly like they jeapordised his entire future just made an annoyance. Allegedly.

I'm aware, but I'm going by intent. I'm assuming that those trying to DDOS Jim were doing it to 1) prevent him earning money from clicks (which is pointless as you point out), 2) prevent others from reading his negative review or 3) Somehow hope that a tantrum will cause him to reconsider and give it a higher score.

Added Edit: This isn't about Jim being objectively right and Bogos wrong, it just gets on my wick when reviewers launches insults at other reviewers over scores. I expect it from man children in Youtube comments, not from supposed professionals.
That said, if it's true that Bogos has only played 2.2 hours, I do wonder just how much he could have played to give it such a high score.

I can't speak to their intentions but if it was malicious it was also very poorly thought out. Anyway, I learned my lesson on being hyperbolic without clearer context since I can see how it could sound sincere.

As far as the review times go, I have no idea how long Sterling played but I feel confident a 2 (half the score Mighty No 9 got from himself) is the oddity more than Bogos' high score.

Guilion:

CaptainMarvelous:

Guilion:

Yes, Jim is an idiot for expressing his subjective opinion and you, the reviewer that has given this game the highest rating on metacritic as of the time ofbthis writing, are the ultimate authority to call him out on it after having played a whole 2.2 hours of the game.

He did start with "in my opinion" and going off the extra information its also clear why he holds that opinion.

Still probably shouldnt have gone with Idiot but Im not really seein how Jim's 2 which is WAY below average is the objective truth and Bogos is wrong for disagreeing.

... And I'm just saying that he is absolutely right about his clearly informed opinion.

I don't know what you're arguing here considering that I've done nothing but praise his stellar job so far.

My Dysarcasmia is acting up, I have no idea what end of this is genuine. Blasted text with its lack of voice tones!

Rednog:
2.2 Hours Playtime,gives YL a 4.5/5, and has the gall to take a swing at another reviewer?

Do you have Bogo's steam profile? How do you know? And no, I have not read the review, just ctrl+f-ed playtime.

I enjoy reading the comments much more when it comes to controversial titles I won't play anyway, before you ask.

CaptainMarvelous:

TrulyBritish:

CaptainMarvelous:

Intended as hyperbole.

Although, thinking on it more, wouldnt taking down Sterling's site merely inconvenience him? Isn't he funded quite healthily on Patreon/is very present on youtube so neither option seems like it would or could occur.

Not defending it, mind, but its hardly like they jeapordised his entire future just made an annoyance. Allegedly.

I'm aware, but I'm going by intent. I'm assuming that those trying to DDOS Jim were doing it to 1) prevent him earning money from clicks (which is pointless as you point out), 2) prevent others from reading his negative review or 3) Somehow hope that a tantrum will cause him to reconsider and give it a higher score.

Added Edit: This isn't about Jim being objectively right and Bogos wrong, it just gets on my wick when reviewers launches insults at other reviewers over scores. I expect it from man children in Youtube comments, not from supposed professionals.
That said, if it's true that Bogos has only played 2.2 hours, I do wonder just how much he could have played to give it such a high score.

I can't speak to their intentions but if it was malicious it was also very poorly thought out. Anyway, I learned my lesson on being hyperbolic without clearer context since I can see how it could sound sincere.

As far as the review times go, I have no idea how long Sterling played but I feel confident a 2 (half the score Mighty No 9 got from himself) is the oddity more than Bogos' high score.

Fair 'nuff, though it should be noted Laura Kate Dale wrote the Mighty Number 9 review, not Jim (who dumped it on her because he hated plying through it for review), so I'm not sure it's fair to say he gave MN9 a higher score.
Although I would just like to counter that most consumer tantrums about low review scores are poorly thought out.

TrulyBritish:

CaptainMarvelous:

TrulyBritish:

I'm aware, but I'm going by intent. I'm assuming that those trying to DDOS Jim were doing it to 1) prevent him earning money from clicks (which is pointless as you point out), 2) prevent others from reading his negative review or 3) Somehow hope that a tantrum will cause him to reconsider and give it a higher score.

Added Edit: This isn't about Jim being objectively right and Bogos wrong, it just gets on my wick when reviewers launches insults at other reviewers over scores. I expect it from man children in Youtube comments, not from supposed professionals.
That said, if it's true that Bogos has only played 2.2 hours, I do wonder just how much he could have played to give it such a high score.

I can't speak to their intentions but if it was malicious it was also very poorly thought out. Anyway, I learned my lesson on being hyperbolic without clearer context since I can see how it could sound sincere.

As far as the review times go, I have no idea how long Sterling played but I feel confident a 2 (half the score Mighty No 9 got from himself) is the oddity more than Bogos' high score.

Fair 'nuff, though it should be noted Laura Kate Dale wrote the Mighty Number 9 review, not Jim (who dumped it on her because he hated plying through it for review), so I'm not sure it's fair to say he gave MN9 a higher score.
Although I would just like to counter that most consumer tantrums about low review scores are poorly thought out.

I take your point that he didnt write the MN9 Score but it's hosted on his site so I'd consider it representative of the grading if nothing else.

And again point taken on consumer tantrums, but I'd think thats a gift horse mouth situation. Rather a quick bout of toys out of pram than trying to slip drain cleaner in coffee.

While people are busy arguing about Jim, am I the only one that saw this line in this review?

"As you collect more quills, you'll get to purchase more special moves, such as the ability to glide through the air on Laylee's wins, or suck up fireballs to shoot at enemies with Yooka's tounge."

Its literally full of win, and "tounge" :P

TrulyBritish:

Samtemdo8:

Pyrian:
Really? A functionally broken game is worth more than 1?

It amuses me to contrast the two reviews. They both state outright that the game is almost exactly like Banjo Kazooie. The disagreement seems to be mostly about whether or not that's a GOOD thing.

To me this just proves that 10 out of 10 score is not a good measurement of quality.

5-5 score is much more streamlined.

5 = Flawless

4 = Great

3 = Decent, Average, Good.

2 = Bad, Mediocre.

1 = Broken, Failure.

How does having a marking system with even less room for nuance make a better measurement for quality?
I can understand people hating review scores in general but this seems a little off.

The thing is redundancy.

Anything under 7 is usually ranging from mediocre to utter failure.

I mean what redeeming qualities does a 4 out of 10 game have over a 3 out of 10?

Samtemdo8:

TrulyBritish:

Samtemdo8:

To me this just proves that 10 out of 10 score is not a good measurement of quality.

5-5 score is much more streamlined.

5 = Flawless

4 = Great

3 = Decent, Average, Good.

2 = Bad, Mediocre.

1 = Broken, Failure.

How does having a marking system with even less room for nuance make a better measurement for quality?
I can understand people hating review scores in general but this seems a little off.

The thing is redundancy.

Anything under 7 is usually ranging from mediocre to utter failure.

I mean what redeeming qualities does a 4 out of 10 game have over a 3 out of 10?

If you go with that, from 7 to 10 already takes 4 of the five meaningful numbers 1 to 5 scale would have, you could include halves but then it would literally be the same as 1-10 except people might perceive it differently.

Also the lower scores really depend on the reviewer, most don't use them, if it's jim. 4 is something that is below mediocre but people can get something out of it, and 3 is something like you really need to like the genre or style of game to get enjoyment out of the title, and most people should probably ignore the title. Angry joe uses pretty similar scale, don't really know others who do. You're not wrong saying anything below 7 usually means awful, because the scale is not used really well.

Samtemdo8:

TrulyBritish:

Samtemdo8:

To me this just proves that 10 out of 10 score is not a good measurement of quality.

5-5 score is much more streamlined.

5 = Flawless

4 = Great

3 = Decent, Average, Good.

2 = Bad, Mediocre.

1 = Broken, Failure.

How does having a marking system with even less room for nuance make a better measurement for quality?
I can understand people hating review scores in general but this seems a little off.

The thing is redundancy.

Anything under 7 is usually ranging from mediocre to utter failure.

I mean what redeeming qualities does a 4 out of 10 game have over a 3 out of 10?

Well yeah, if you hilariously slant the scale so that anything below a 7 is considered mediocre that yeah, numbers lower are going to mesh together, which is why that's a daft system to use. A 5 should be the score for an average game.

TrulyBritish:

Samtemdo8:

TrulyBritish:

How does having a marking system with even less room for nuance make a better measurement for quality?
I can understand people hating review scores in general but this seems a little off.

The thing is redundancy.

Anything under 7 is usually ranging from mediocre to utter failure.

I mean what redeeming qualities does a 4 out of 10 game have over a 3 out of 10?

Well yeah, if you hilariously slant the scale so that anything below a 7

So some people would buy a game that's 4 out of 10 ranked?

Samtemdo8:

TrulyBritish:

Samtemdo8:

The thing is redundancy.

Anything under 7 is usually ranging from mediocre to utter failure.

I mean what redeeming qualities does a 4 out of 10 game have over a 3 out of 10?

Well yeah, if you hilariously slant the scale so that anything below a 7

So some people would buy a game that's 4 out of 10 ranked?

How many people would really buy a 1 out of 10 game, or a 2 out of 10 game?
Hell, not everyone would buy a 10 out of 10 game if it was in a genre they didn't like.
The score merely tells you how well the reviewer like the game, if it's slightly below average it gets a 4 (under my system at least). Doesn't matter if the score makes people want to buy it.
I'd point out that people saying 7 should be the average would be exactly why people wouldn't but a 4/10 game. It's also partly why some people flip their shit when reviewers give game they like "only" an 8 or a 9.

Guilion:
...

image

Sorry for not thinking thoroughly... Thanks.

Guilion:
snip

EDIT: Checked his page, proper he really did only play it for two hours, nevermind, forget I said anything.

Steven Bogos:

Silentpony:
Jim's site is down 'cause he gave it a 2/10

IMO, he is an idiot. A 2/10 score denotes a game that is functionally broken. Endless glitches, missing segments, early access alpha type stuff. I understand if he didn't like the game but a 2/10 score is just insulting.

https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/849931708489244672

LOL

erttheking:

Guilion:

Naldan:
Do you have Bogo's steam profile? How do you know? And no, I have not read the review, just ctrl+f-ed playtime.

I enjoy reading the comments much more when it comes to controversial titles I won't play anyway, before you ask.

His steam profile is proudly displayed on his profile...image
...As he should, for he works hard to make informed reviews and we should all gawk at it like the non-gamejourno peasants that we are.

You do know that that just means that his last play session was 2.2 hours, not the entire game right? I mean, according to my Escapist page, I've only played Total War: Warhammer for 6 hours. According to my steam page, I've played it for nearly 30.

This isn't really conclusive evidence.

Under the gaming section you can see a link to his steam profile (which is this if you are lazy http://steamcommunity.com/id/thetacoman) which quite clearly shows 2.2 hours of game time. Now i'm not going to say anything about game time because he could of quite easily of played the game through a special review copy not linked to steam or played offline (not quite sure if offline steam tracks hours played or not). But having a "word from god" would clear up matters nicely.

iamzim101:
Snip

Already edited my post to correct my oppsie, accusations of laziness are not required.

Steven Bogos:

Silentpony:
Jim's site is down 'cause he gave it a 2/10

IMO, he is an idiot. A 2/10 score denotes a game that is functionally broken. Endless glitches, missing segments, early access alpha type stuff. I understand if he didn't like the game but a 2/10 score is just insulting.

Edited for duplicated content.

OT: If I can see something in common about these reviews is that its PC version is more recommended.

OoT: DDoS wasn't confirmed by Jim this time. I'm still willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the haters and concede the possibility of high traffic spike.

Darkstar370:

https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/849931708489244672

LOL

iamzim101:

erttheking:

Guilion:

His steam profile is proudly displayed on his profile...image
...As he should, for he works hard to make informed reviews and we should all gawk at it like the non-gamejourno peasants that we are.

You do know that that just means that his last play session was 2.2 hours, not the entire game right? I mean, according to my Escapist page, I've only played Total War: Warhammer for 6 hours. According to my steam page, I've played it for nearly 30.

This isn't really conclusive evidence.

Under the gaming section you can see a link to his steam profile (which is this if you are lazy http://steamcommunity.com/id/thetacoman) which quite clearly shows 2.2 hours of game time. Now i'm not going to say anything about game time because he could of quite easily of played the game through a special review copy not linked to steam or played offline (not quite sure if offline steam tracks hours played or not). But having a "word from god" would clear up matters nicely.

Maybe (and I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt) he played the whole game on some sort of Escapist press account and the 2.2 hours is just his personal playtime since the review?

Steven Bogos:

Silentpony:
Jim's site is down 'cause he gave it a 2/10

IMO, he is an idiot. A 2/10 score denotes a game that is functionally broken. Endless glitches, missing segments, early access alpha type stuff. I understand if he didn't like the game but a 2/10 score is just insulting.

That's why it's called a review, darling. He plays the game and tells us what he thinks of it.

That is literally the entire concept.

TrulyBritish:

iamzim101:

erttheking:

You do know that that just means that his last play session was 2.2 hours, not the entire game right? I mean, according to my Escapist page, I've only played Total War: Warhammer for 6 hours. According to my steam page, I've played it for nearly 30.

This isn't really conclusive evidence.

Under the gaming section you can see a link to his steam profile (which is this if you are lazy http://steamcommunity.com/id/thetacoman) which quite clearly shows 2.2 hours of game time. Now i'm not going to say anything about game time because he could of quite easily of played the game through a special review copy not linked to steam or played offline (not quite sure if offline steam tracks hours played or not). But having a "word from god" would clear up matters nicely.

Maybe (and I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt) he played the whole game on some sort of Escapist press account and the 2.2 hours is just his personal playtime since the review?

The game isn't released to the public, that is most likely the press copy that was given to the Escapist.

Rednog:

TrulyBritish:

Maybe (and I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt) he played the whole game on some sort of Escapist press account and the 2.2 hours is just his personal playtime since the review?

The game isn't released to the public, that is most likely the press copy that was given to the Escapist.

Fair point.
Whelp, guess I'm out of excuses.

After playing Yooka Laylee for a few hours today, I can safely say Jim is a fucking idiot. Yooka Laylee is great and I haven't run in to a single one of his reported issues.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here