Discussion "Is it your fault if the game is bad?" The Game Reviewer Who Hates Video Games

[Metroid]

James Stephanie Sterling has made a video addressing a few comments they've received recently about their Dead Space and Dead Island 2 reviews, a while ago about their Breath of the Wild review, and from a decade ago about their FF13 review. The crux of it is the usual anti-opinion stance that a review that breaks from the norm comes from a place of hating video games.

While they aren't the only reviewer in history to recieve such comments, in past decade, they have definitely been the target if such ideas and they have spoken up about it before in various ways, tones, and forms of media. It's a fascinatingly aggravating thing to have to deal with from a 3rd party perspective, so I'm curious. From my exceedingly basic summary or from watching the video yourself, where do you stand?

Personally, I do stand on the side letting JSS and anyone else have whatever opinion they want on video games, regardless of whether or not it aligns with my own.

 

[JR436]

Personally, I do stand on the side letting JSS and anyone else have whatever opinion they want on video games, regardless of whether or not it aligns with my own.

Which is how it should be.

Most people just use reviews as confirmation bias anyway.

 

[Xaltmas]

I think the issue (for some at least) is less their reviews and more just how they are so unrelentingly negative about nearly everything. I used to be a pretty big fan of Stephanie Sterling but now they are just so miserable to watch that I just can't.

God I miss Movie Defense Force.

 

[BassForever]

It really is the meta/open critic factor that throws the whole "it's just an opinion" thing into chaos. JSS's infamous BotW review probably doesn't even get half the attention it did if the review was exactly the same but didn't have a 7/10 score at the end. I stand by and believe that meta/open critic is a good tool for gauging critic consensus at the time of a game's original release. At the same time I fully believe we need to move away from scored reviews and move over to a vastly superior "recommend/don't recommend" or "like/didn't like" system, or a galaxy brained no bottom line opinion, make people read the full review to get your opinion.

I don't bother reading/watching most of JSS's game reviews because their taste in games and what they value in games are pretty different from mine. This is a feeling I've had ever since I first started seeing them attached to reviews at destructoid. I feel that if your reviews constantly get you negative attention you don't want because they're scored, maybe try not scoring them and see if that stems the constant drama. Cynically one could argue the scores are kept BECAUSE it'll generate drama/clicks, but I feel JSS is always genuine with how they review/score a game.

Also on the whole "JSS is more negative now/hates everything", I genuinely don't believe that. You go back to the videos/reviews from a decade ago and they're virtually identical outside of the fact JSS hadn't transitioned. Heck sometimes they feel more bitter and angry then they do now, likely because they were in a worse place in their lives during that era. Post transitioning JSS in general seems a lot happier, if anything they come across as more burned out by the constant gaming drama then more negative.

Edit: Just because I want to make it clear, transitioning is a very big change for the person and I'm happy for JSS and anyone who's able to become who they really are. I did not want to imply that transitioning is some minor change.

 

[Lozjam]

I can confirm they hate videogames.

I definitely get being critical of some games. But the way that they write, just seems to boil down to "I don't like this thing, hence it is bad". And I get it, it is their entire branding, and the entire character that they have created. But that really just doesn't sit well with me. In an industry where there is so much good going on, I cannot fundamentally understand why you dwell on the bad things instead of going to other side of the aisle.

In my opinion though, if they are going to keep being inflammatory, their audience is going to be just as inflammatory towards them as well. It's well known within social media circles that it is the case.

Regardless, if you stand on the side that JSS gets to have whatever opinion they want(which is what I totally believe), then you also have to stand with that people can have whatever opinion they want on JSS's content. It's only fair that way, and criticizing criticism is a healthy and natural thing. I do not condone doxxing or death threats or whatever though, that is a hard line.

 

[wonaph]

Personally, I do stand on the side letting JSS and anyone else have whatever opinion they want on video games, regardless of whether or not it aligns with my own.

What do you mean "letting"? It's not up to you whether someone "gets" to have an opinion. People have opinions. There's nothing you can do about it.

 

[Metroid]

What do you mean "letting"? It's not up to you whether someone "gets" to have an opinion. People have opinions. There's nothing you can do about it.

As opposed to contributing to dogpiling or openly harassing someone because I don't agree with their differing opinion.

 

[NateDrake]

People have opinions.

Reviews are opinions. Reviews also need examples cited to expand upon one's reasoning for disliking/liking said thing. If the critique starts and ends at, "I just don't like it..." then it's devoid of value, in my view. The same goes for enjoying it. Saying, "I love game because I do" is equally empty. Explain why you don't like a certain mechanic, idea, or element. As long as one can reasonably justify their opinion with specifics, then the opinion/take has merit and value. One can read/hear the reasoning and understand why the individual feels that way, even if the viewer/reader disagrees with the take.

Focusing on a numeric value at the end of a review to cater to the attention span of modern day has devalued reviews and their context. People look to a score and form their opinion solely on that, which is a disservice.

 

[Metroid]

I think the issue (for some at least) is less their reviews and more just how they are so unrelentingly negative about nearly everything. I used to be a pretty big fan of Stephanie Sterling but now they are just so miserable to watch that I just can't.

God I miss Movie Defense Force.

I can confirm they hate videogames.

I definitely get being critical of some games. But the way that they write, just seems to boil down to "I don't like this thing, hence it is bad". And I get it, it is their entire branding, and the entire character that they have created. But that really just doesn't sit well with me. In an industry where there is so much good going on, I cannot fundamentally understand why you dwell on the bad things instead of going to other side of the aisle

Interestingly enough, this was actually addressed in the video, where JSS pointed out that between their "negative" (negative in quotes because both reviews are actually just middling) reviews brought in in the OP, there are actually highly positive and largely ignored reviews.

 

[PixelKnight]

Just as it seems relevant, here’s the review thread policy that’ll be in place for TotK review thread.

https://famiboards.com/threads/review-thread-conduct-policy.6015/

Essentially, if people could discuss the arguments reviewers actually give, rather than either celebrate or complain about scores taken out of context by aggregate sites, or use them to take swipes at individuals rather than the actual opinion piece, that would be great and lead to much healthier discussion.

 

[wonaph]

As opposed to contributing to dogpiling or openly harassing someone because I don't agree with their differing opinion.

Those are not mutually exclusive. You caring whether someone has an opinion is irrelevant to the fact that it exists. And I can't believe I need to say this, but, if you're seriously asking whether it's ever ok to "openly harass" someone for any reason... the plot has already been lost.

 

[Metroid]

Those are not mutually exclusive. You caring whether someone has an opinion is irrelevant to the fact that it exists. And I can't believe I need to say this, but, if you're seriously asking whether it's ever ok to "openly harass" someone for any reason... the plot has already been lost.

I'm... Not? Not sure where you got that, but I seriously hope I didn't mess up my writing somewhere.

 

[Jencks]

All I know is that people can have opinions on games, and I can have opinions on people's opinions about games, and how they are presented.

 

[boris_feinbrand]

Not every opinion is worth listening to. Especially when the expressed opinion is little more than a vehicle to stroke ones narcissistic ego. And let's be honest, that's most critics on social media. Gotta cultivate that persona.

As for Sterling, I don't think their content got increasingly negative, but at least for me, the pervasive negativity just became grating. I had to stop watching their content for my own mental healths sake.

 

[Dizzle]

JSS is a magnet for hate because of transmisogyny, and that's the main reason we're talking about them in this thread and not any other exhausting Youtuber. Gotta lead with that.

But I'm someone who used to watch their videos and stopped, and I didn't because they did anything particularly wrong. I just realized that the problem was the medium and not the messenger. Negativity has nothing to do with it, as I've seen the same shit happen with toxically positive creators. Youtube as a medium just pushes you to exaggerate your own shtick, lean into the controversy, and turn up that clickbait hose. The bigger you get, the more annoying you get.

The fact that JSS isn't more annoying or terrible is in fact a testament to how great they are at what they do.

 

[Pokemaniac]

JSS is a magnet for hate because of transmisogyny, and that's the main reason we're talking about them in this thread and not any other exhausting Youtuber. Gotta lead with that.

But I'm someone who used to watch their videos and stopped, and I didn't because they did anything particularly wrong. I just realized that the problem was the medium and not the messenger. Negativity has nothing to do with it, as I've seen the same shit happen with toxically positive creators. Youtube as a medium just pushes you to exaggerate your own shtick, lean into the controversy, and turn up that clickbait hose. The bigger you get, the more annoying you get.

The fact that JSS isn't more annoying or terrible is in fact a testament to how great they are at what they do.

JSS's reputation as a reviewer isn't exactly a recent development, it's been with them basically their whole career.

They're certainly entitled to their own perspective, but it's a pretty unusual one that not a lot of people are going to connect with.

 

[Sadist]

I think the issue (for some at least) is less their reviews and more just how they are so unrelentingly negative about nearly everything. I used to be a pretty big fan of Stephanie Sterling but now they are just so miserable to watch that I just can't.

God I miss Movie Defense Force.

Honestly, this is where I stand on JSS. At first I liked the negative attitude, but at a certain point, for every positive review, like three negative things came in its place.

I don’t have time for that stuff anymore and honestly, I want to occupy myself with more positive thoughts

 

[NewPueblo]

I hope it didn't misunderstand what the poll was! I voted yes, but only under the condition that you aren't a fan of video games in the first place.

Everyone is entitled to options (ofc), but saying a game is objectively bad when you don't like video games in general would be like going to a small business restaurant that caters towards a type of menu, and saying it's bad because you don't even like that kind of food.

Basically, context matters

 

[Deleted member 2181]

Honestly feels like a lot of the gaming community wants to be coddled or wrapped up in a blanket of hype and ~good vibes only~

And on one hand, I can totally get that, actually. Games are fun, and a lot of life isn't fun, and so it's good to have this oasis where things are just uncomplicatedly enjoyable or whatever
But on the other hand, if people are tipped off balance by someone else's dislike of something, then perhaps they're the ones that need to step back and ask themselves how lightheartedly they are taking the hobby?

I dunno.
I remember movie people would really get angry at Armond White, so maybe it's the same thing. The idea, I guess, is that consensus is truth and deviation from that is either attention seeking, malice or stupidity.
And obviously, Sterling's sense of humour often has them needling people and being provocative. And that's a kind of humour that isn't as, uh, well-received as it used to be back in the late 90s.

That's the other thing I wonder, you know, if it's a generational thing. The idea of protecting good vibes certainly didn't exist on the internet in the 90. And I am very much of that generation, with that mindset, and I feel out-of-place sometimes in how instinctively blunt I can be when talking about media in places like this. Where, to be honest, people tend to take things personally a lot.
On the other hand, everybody on this forum is as ancient as me, so maybe not.

And finally,
One thing I'll say about Sterling is that I absolutely 100% trust them to speak their mind. And I don't have that same level of trust when it comes to writers at big outlets who are cushy with publishers, or youtubers that want to pander to their audience or whatever. The only Tears of the Kingdom I can see myself reading in full is theirs.

 

[FrostyLemon]

I just don't think they are a very good reviewer. The controversy surrounding the Hellblade review a few years back was just embarrassing and felt like it was done to get a reaction. They should just stick to making videos.

 

[Aurc]

I generally have a pretty hard time understanding the mindset of those most bothered by what are really just middling reviews on some video games. A review is flawed in cases such as presenting outright incorrect information, or the reviewer blaming the game for their own lack of engagement with its mechanics. Outside of factors like that, so, so much of the rest of the review process will naturally come down to the individual's personal taste, and what they're looking for out of the experience.

I don't tend to engage with Sterling's content (not because of anything to do with them, but because I don't read game reviews in general), but when people claim they're in the habit of repeatedly kicking the hornet's nest, I've a few times now found myself curiously running off to investigate (in the case of reviews such as Metroid Prime Remastered's 7.5/10, or now Dead Island 2's 6.5/10), and found that Sterling's "rebukes" are so mild as to not even be worth getting worked up about. Is it really any sort of indictment against their character that they'd choose to factor a lack of credit for the original devs into their MPR review? Quite the opposite, I'd say. Nothing wrong with a review that approaches the game from an ethical standpoint. Plenty of 10/10s out there that talk about how good this identical (outside of graphics and controls) release of a two decade old GameCube game is, if you're more into that.

Regarding their Dead Island 2 review, here's an exact quote:

Dead Island 2 is… fine. It’s absolutely fine, offering relatively entertaining and brutally satisfying combat via a range of weapons that really feel like they’re connecting to bloody effect.

This is in addition to several paragraphs where they praise the game's satisfying hit detection and gore system. Where's the controversy? There's more nuance to it than a simple "generic zombie game bad", like one of the commenters in the video seems to portray Sterling's review as. Seemingly the same rando calls out reviewers in general, refers to Disco Elysium as a pretentious game, and asks for proof of Sterling's "gamer cred" in the form of a 100% completion save / Platinum trophy, so I think it's fair for Sterling to be rightly fed up with some of these clowns they've encountered across their career.

What do you mean "letting"? It's not up to you whether someone "gets" to have an opinion. People have opinions. There's nothing you can do about it.

I don't think he meant letting as in "I'm giving Sterling permission to have a differing opinion", and I think it's a little weird it'd be read that way, tbh. "Letting" in this context simply means being chill about the more fringe reviews, and not getting worked up enough over some video game opinions to harass reviewers, or otherwise contribute to the toxic discourse often held in relation to them on social media.

 

[Metroid]

I just don't think they are a very good reviewer. The controversy surrounding the Hellblade review a few years back was just embarrassing and felt like it was done to get a reaction. They should just stick to making videos.

Oh this is great to mention cause I forgot entirely about this. I definitely don't mean to paint Sterling as an end-all-be-all, always 100% critic, because I agree with you. That situation was a massive miss.

 

[curl-6]

Used to watch and love Sterling's work back in the day, but the problem for me was that the whole bitter, petty, endlessly negative jerk persona just got exhausting.
A lot of their schtick feels like trolling and just personally, that stuff is poison to my mental health, so after a while I found I came away from their content feeling worse off and decided I was better off avoiding it.

 

[Dizzle]

JSS's reputation as a reviewer isn't exactly a recent development, it's been with them basically their whole career.

They're certainly entitled to their own perspective, but it's a pretty unusual one that not a lot of people are going to connect with.

Yeah but it can be fun. Or maybe I just have a soft spot for cantankerous contrarian Brits. I also had a Yahtzee phase before I burned out hard.

There is joy in the truthteller who doesn't care about who they offend, but the more popular they get the more the contrarianism stops feeling authentically joyful.

My go to cantankerous contrarian Brit now is a podcast host who is not famous enough for this to be a problem. He'll defend games that nobody likes and it's mostly charming. Maybe something will go wrong. For now, I'm happy.

 

[shoptroll]

My go to cantankerous contrarian Brit now is a podcast host who is not famous enough for this to be a problem

It’s Stuart Gipp isn’t it?

 

[Dizzle]

It’s Stuart Gipp isn’t it?

No shit.

 

[TheQuietone]

So I won't comment about any particular reviewer but this is how I see it. A game being bad is subjective, for example there are 3 games in particular that I despise to the point where I would call them broken and bad games but all 3 are considered absolute masterpieces by the majority of people who play games. I personally wouldn't even put them in a hypothetical top 1000 games list (i don't even have a top 100 or top 10 list) and consider them abominations to gaming history but here's the kicker. I don't go around telling people who love these games that they're abominations or broken games. I just let them enjoy what they enjoy. Thankfully I am not a reviewer because I probably wouldn't be able to sidestep my thoughts on the games in question.

 

[Yamanoi]

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

 

[Aurc]

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

There are two kinds of people in the world: those in the arena, and those who would dare to bring Tears of the Kingdom's Metascore below 98.

 

[Chaotic Neutral]

Honestly feels like a lot of the gaming community wants to be coddled or wrapped up in a blanket of hype and ~good vibes only~

And on one hand, I can totally get that, actually. Games are fun, and a lot of life isn't fun, and so it's good to have this oasis where things are just uncomplicatedly enjoyable or whatever
But on the other hand, if people are tipped off balance by someone else's dislike of something, then perhaps they're the ones that need to step back and ask themselves how lightheartedly they are taking the hobby?

I dunno.
I remember movie people would really get angry at Armond White, so maybe it's the same thing. The idea, I guess, is that consensus is truth and deviation from that is either attention seeking, malice or stupidity.
And obviously, Sterling's sense of humour often has them needling people and being provocative. And that's a kind of humour that isn't as, uh, well-received as it used to be back in the late 90s.

That's the other thing I wonder, you know, if it's a generational thing. The idea of protecting good vibes certainly didn't exist on the internet in the 90. And I am very much of that generation, with that mindset, and I feel out-of-place sometimes in how instinctively blunt I can be when talking about media in places like this. Where, to be honest, people tend to take things personally a lot.
On the other hand, everybody on this forum is as ancient as me, so maybe not.

And finally,
One thing I'll say about Sterling is that I absolutely 100% trust them to speak their mind. And I don't have that same level of trust when it comes to writers at big outlets who are cushy with publishers, or youtubers that want to pander to their audience or whatever. The only Tears of the Kingdom I can see myself reading in full is theirs.

Tbh, I mostly fall into the ~good vibes only~ category and I grew up on the late 90s and early 00s internet. I just think I've changed. Maybe it's old age, maybe it's existential cynicism and just wanting to enjoy the ride instead of being in a huff. Games are my escapism and, much like with most of other stuff that isn't actively hurting anyone's quality of life, if I don't like it, I just give it a miss.

That being said, the same principle applies to reviewers or any other media content I don't like. Do I not like this channel? I just don't watch it. Does this person not like a game I like? That's okay. Does this reviewer review a game I love badly? Fair play to them, agree to disagree.

I don't think the ~good vibes only~ mindset is a problem so much as fandoms who feel they need to protect their beloved IPs and media providers from harm for some reason. (Cf. big game review threads and the entirety of console warring.)

Tl;dr: Good vibes all around, not just surrounding what you specifically love.

 

[boris_feinbrand]

Tbh, I mostly fall into the ~good vibes only~ category and I grew up on the late 90s and early 00s internet. I just think I've changed. Maybe it's old age, maybe it's existential cynicism and just wanting to enjoy the ride instead of being in a huff. Games are my escapism and, much like with most of other stuff that isn't actively hurting anyone's quality of life, if I don't like it, I just give it a miss.

That being said, the same principle applies to reviewers or any other media content I don't like. Do I not like this channel? I just don't watch it. Does this person not like a game I like? That's okay. Does this reviewer review a game I love badly? Fair play to them, agree to disagree.

I don't think the ~good vibes only~ mindset is a problem so much as fandoms who feel they need to protect their beloved IPs and media providers from harm for some reason. (Cf. big game review threads and the entirety of console warring.)

Tl;dr: Good vibes all around, not just surrounding what you specifically love.

Pretty much where I stand. I want to enjoy my hobbies. For me a review can be negative if it actually reviews the game instead of being yet another platform for the reviewer to aggrandise themselves.

Sterlings reviews, for all their hyper cynical persona have actually always been super reasonable and fair. Shit without a score attached to them, most would never have been controversial to begin with.
And that's before we go into the problematic top heavy bias in reviews (basically anything below 8 is absolute garbage)

It's not about just wanting to be coddled, it's about not wasting my bloody time. A shit review is a disservice to the media reviewed, and a bloody waste of time for those looking for information.
Cynicism (and let's be honest, that's what gets eyeballs on content on social media) is intellectual laziness. It's a cheap way to generate buzz without having to formulate a coherent argument.
It's as worthless as the glorified and slightly modified PR pieces that pass for reviews at times.
Both cynicism and uncritical positivity are a waste if time and just shit up the media landscape with useless content that is ultimately just self serving and fails at its actual purpose.

 

[PixelKnight]

Pretty much where I stand. I want to enjoy my hobbies. For me a review can be negative if it actually reviews the game instead of being yet another platform for the reviewer to aggrandise themselves.

Sterlings reviews, for all their hyper cynical persona have actually always been super reasonable and fair. Shit without a score attached to them, most would never have been controversial to begin with.
And that's before we go into the problematic top heavy bias in reviews (basically anything below 8 is absolute garbage)

It's not about just wanting to be coddled, it's about not wasting my bloody time. A shit review is a disservice to the media reviewed, and a bloody waste of time for those looking for information.
Cynicism (and let's be honest, that's what gets eyeballs on content on social media) is intellectual laziness. It's a cheap way to generate buzz without having to formulate a coherent argument.
It's as worthless as the glorified and slightly modified PR pieces that pass for reviews at times.
Both cynicism and uncritical positivity are a waste if time and just shit up the media landscape with useless content that is ultimately just self serving and fails at its actual purpose.

Yeah. I find YouTube influencers that don’t declare that they are acting as freelance marketing, selling their audience to the publisher in exchange for free stuff to be the worst of the lot to be honest, purely down to the level of dishonesty in play. If someone puts ‘todays sponsor is x and they gave us free stuff and a bag of swag in exchange for this video’ at the front, then I’m all good with it, the same for actual editorial outlets that make their hospitality and review conditions clear. But if not, marketing pretending to be lofi, grassroots creative editorial is even worse than cynicism, it’s just outright misleading.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

I think the issue (for some at least) is less their reviews and more just how they are so unrelentingly negative about nearly everything. I used to be a pretty big fan of Stephanie Sterling but now they are just so miserable to watch that I just can't.

God I miss Movie Defense Force.

They're infinitely more positive than they used to be. They're not more miserable about anything, what happened is they came out as trans and a bunch of absolute bottom feeders decided they needed to imbed it in the public consciousness that they're actually worse because of it.

I'm not accusing you of that, it's just sad how well it worked.

 

[kvetcha]

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

 

[boris_feinbrand]

Yeah. I find YouTube influencers that don’t declare that they are acting as freelance marketing, selling their audience to the publisher in exchange for free stuff to be the worst of the lot to be honest, purely down to the level of dishonesty in play. If someone puts ‘todays sponsor is x and they gave us free stuff and a bag of swag in exchange for this video’ at the front, then I’m all good with it, the same for actual editorial outlets that make their hospitality and review conditions clear. But if not, marketing pretending to be lofi, grassroots creative editorial is even worse than cynicism, it’s just outright misleading.

To me they're the same waste of time as lazy cynicism because both waste my time. The financial incentives (PR extension of publishers, or personal brand investment) are irrelevant.
Only difference is, its easy to spot and filter out the cynical crowd. Their shtick is always the same and really obvious and sooo fucking lazy. At least once you recognize the patterns.
Sponsored content can be much more subtle and therefore devious.
In the end, at least to me personally, all that cynical stuff can fuel depression and apathy, and honestly that's just not worth it.

In the end it comes down to media literacy and competence. Something that is severely lacking in all age groups these days.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

To me they're the same waste of time as lazy cynicism because both waste my time. The financial incentives (PR extension of publishers, or personal brand investment) are irrelevant.
Only difference is, its easy to spot and filter out the cynical crowd. Their shtick is always the same and really obvious and sooo fucking lazy. At least once you recognize the patterns.
Sponsored content can be much more subtle and therefore devious.
In the end, at least to me personally, all that cynical stuff can fuel depression and apathy, and honestly that's just not worth it.

In the end it comes down to media literacy and competence. Something that is severely lacking in all age groups these days.

Of the reviews they've written this year the average score is 7.25, with half of them being 8/10 or higher.

It's absurd to say they're lazy and cynical or don't like anything because that is emphatically not true unless you're kind of nutcase' that gets up in arms over them giving prime remaster 7.5/10, which frankly is a completely understandable score to give it in 2023 given how simple the game is once you get past the shiny exterior. I'd probably go a little higher but I totally get it.

 

[Weiss]

Reviewers are only worth a damn if they exist for reasons outside of validating my preexisting thoughts.

Stephanie Sterling does this, ergo they are one of the GOATs.

 

[hologram]

Yeah. I find YouTube influencers that don’t declare that they are acting as freelance marketing, selling their audience to the publisher in exchange for free stuff to be the worst of the lot to be honest, purely down to the level of dishonesty in play. If someone puts ‘todays sponsor is x and they gave us free stuff and a bag of swag in exchange for this video’ at the front, then I’m all good with it, the same for actual editorial outlets that make their hospitality and review conditions clear. But if not, marketing pretending to be lofi, grassroots creative editorial is even worse than cynicism, it’s just outright misleading.

YouTubers do tend to do this, or at least the ones I've seen. I actually thought it was a requirement to be clear when content is sponsored

 

[Phosphorescent Skeleton]

I can confirm they hate videogames.

I definitely get being critical of some games. But the way that they write, just seems to boil down to "I don't like this thing, hence it is bad".

That's what is known as an opinion. For example, I don't like this post, hence it is bad.

 

[PixelKnight]

YouTubers do tend to do this, or at least the ones I've seen. I actually thought it was a requirement to be clear when content is sponsored

Ah, fair enough. I’ve seen some that didn’t while being drenched in freebies before, but admittedly I don’t watch very many these days.

 

[Yamanoi]

 

[Dizzle]

Reviewers are only worth a damn if they exist for reasons outside of validating my preexisting thoughts.

Stephanie Sterling does this, ergo they are one of the GOATs.

I'd call that a strawman, but I've spent too much time on forums like this to deny how a lot of people treat criticism.

Then again, I think Sterling at a certain point does just validate the preexisting thoughts of their audience, it's just an audience that's looking for validation disguised as contrarianism.

But a lot of the preexisting thoughts being validated are things like "video game companies treat their employees like shit" and "video game companies treat their customers like shit." So if they're gonna dress up banal observations as radical truthtelling, at least they have a moral grounding for it. They're not the damn Angry Video Game Nerd.

On the other hand? There is no other hand! JSS is just alright me.

 

[Lozjam]

That's what is known as an opinion. For example, I don't like this post, hence it is bad.

But, if people can see value in something, that doesn't mean it's bad. Like at all. The word "bad" connotates a decisive quality of a thing, and not an opinion.

For example. You could be a perveant hater of something like Fortnite or Minecraft or something like that. But if I were to go to every forum around the sun claiming they are bad games, that's not just an argument of the game. That's also insulting the millions of people who love the game.

There is a huge difference between saying "I don't like minecraft, the game isn't for me". And "Minecraft is a bad game". I think claiming that any game that is clearly beloved by millions of people "bad" is incredibly inflammatory, and not really an opinion. It also doesn't provide any useful critique, or interesting dialogue.

And also, the fact that you claim that my post is bad, just because you don't like it, is obviously inflamatory too. There are many opinions you can disagree with, without calling it bad. The fact that you head straight for an insult of my posting, instead of actually engaging my points says it all.

 

[Phosphorescent Skeleton]

But, if people can see value in something, that doesn't mean it's bad. Like at all. The word "bad" connotates a decisive quality of a thing, and not an opinion.

For example. You could be a perveant hater of something like Fortnite or Minecraft or something like that. But if I were to go to every forum around the sun claiming they are bad games, that's not just an argument of the game. That's also insulting the millions of people who love the game.

There is a huge difference between saying "I don't like minecraft, the game isn't for me". And "Minecraft is a bad game". I think claiming that any game that is clearly beloved by millions of people "bad" is incredibly inflammatory, and not really an opinion. It also doesn't provide any useful critique, or interesting dialogue.

And also, the fact that you claim that my post is bad, just because you don't like it, is obviously inflamatory too. There are many opinions you can disagree with, without calling it bad. The fact that you head straight for an insult of my posting, instead of actually engaging my points says it all.

I never thought I would see someone argue that thinking something bad isn't an opinion.

I don't give a shit if something is popular, I'm allowed to think and say it's bad. I swear gamers are some of the most thin skinned people on earth.

 

[PixelKnight]

I'd call that a strawman, but I've spent too much time on forums like this to deny how a lot of people treat criticism.

Then again, I think Sterling at a certain point does just validate the preexisting thoughts of their audience, it's just an audience that's looking for validation disguised as contrarianism.

But a lot of the preexisting thoughts being validated are things like "video game companies treat their employees like shit" and "video game companies treat their customers like shit." So if they're gonna dress up banal observations as radical truthtelling, at least they have a moral grounding for it. They're not the damn Angry Video Game Nerd.

On the other hand? There is no other hand! JSS is just alright me.

I don’t think it’s very fair to call Sterling’s longrunning criticism of industry fuckery ‘banal observations.’ It’s only ‘radical’ because large chunks of the press won’t touch stuff like workplace abuse, consumer rights or bigotry in games, nor do large chunks of gamers give a shit either.

 

[Yamanoi]

I don't think this place will be able to handle the official review thread for The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom after some of these replies.

 

[PixelKnight]

I don't think this place will be able to handle the official review thread for The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom after some of these replies.

I did drop the new review thread guidelines in above (and am mentioning them again now!) on the off chance that the thread might be alright if people can respond to actual quotes in the articles rather than kneejerk reactions to numbers.

 

[Lozjam]

I never thought I would see someone argue that thinking something bad isn't an opinion.

I don't give a shit if something is popular, I'm allowed to think and say it's bad. I swear gamers are some of the most thin skinned people on earth.

You know, the term thin skin actually refers to someone being hit. And it's actually a way that was used to gaslight bullying and abuse. It's also used to gaslight racism, sexism, homophobia.

Maybe, if we could have the same opinion, but convey it in a nicer way, "gamers" could be a lot nicer people. I am not asking you to like something or not, nor even change your opinion. But speaking in an inflamatory way, is the actual real problem of "gamers". You never know how people will react to the way that people say something. Other people's feelings do matter, and it takes very little effort to not "offend" anybody.

 

[Phosphorescent Skeleton]

You know, the term thin skin actually refers to someone being hit. And it's actually a way that was used to gaslight bullying and abuse. It's also used to gaslight racism, sexism, homophobia.

Maybe, if we could have the same opinion, but convey it in a nicer way, "gamers" could be a lot nicer people. I am not asking you to like something or not, nor even change your opinion. But speaking in an inflamatory way, is the actual real problem of "gamers". You never know how people will react to the way that people say something. Other people's feelings do matter, and it takes very little effort to not "offend" anybody.

Careful you don't pull a muscle with that reach there. Love, as a queer woman, to be lumped in with sexists and homophobes for saying its okay to say a game is bad. Gamers are truly the most marginalized group in society. In the future I will practice being more mealy mouthed and obsequious.

 

[Clov]

You know, the term thin skin actually refers to someone being hit. And it's actually a way that was used to gaslight bullying and abuse. It's also used to gaslight racism, sexism, homophobia.

Maybe, if we could have the same opinion, but convey it in a nicer way, "gamers" could be a lot nicer people. I am not asking you to like something or not, nor even change your opinion. But speaking in an inflamatory way, is the actual real problem of "gamers". You never know how people will react to the way that people say something. Other people's feelings do matter, and it takes very little effort to not "offend" anybody.

Wow, you've got it all figured it out! The real problem of gamers is that they say mean things about games others like. Maybe they'll call me a f***ot less if I tone down my criticisms of Tears of the Kingdom.

MOD EDIT: Censored reference to bigotry
MOD EDIT 2: Removed censoring
MOD EDIT 3: Adjusted censoring