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

[boris_feinbrand]

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.

That's what I said. With the insane top heavy bias for game reviews, any score under 8 is basically an absolute failure that might set your console or PC on fire and give you rashes.
And with fanboys giving low scores is like the scarlet letter. That shit sticks forever.

I haven't watched any of their content in years now. And the reason for quitting was the Jimquisition, which was hyper critical and negative on purpose. The cynical persona used to argue a point. I get that and it is fine, especially as Sterling usually has something useful to contribute to the topics they discuss. I just had to cut that style of content out of my life for my own sake. Maybe it's time to check their content again. Seems they changed their style quite a bit since I stopped watching.

 

[Hailinel]

Sterling's reviews can be critical, which is not bad. But they've pulled enough stunts like their reactionary 1/10 Hellblade review that I just don't listen to their opinion anymore.

I don't think less of them for that, specifically. But I did grow exhausted with their videos when they played an endless stream of Steam garbage and their videos were naturally just complaining about all of the Steam garbage they endured. A self-perpetuating cycle.

 

[Dizzle]

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.

You're right. I undersold it. Easy for me to say. And given some of the toxic positivity from some people formerly in this thread, it's clear it's still needed.

 

[Fercho]

If someone makes a negative review of a game you love, can't you just.....not pay attention, not engaging (either with the reviewer or forums) and just move on?

God forgives the person who reviews TotK with an 8 or below score right? Why that abuse has to happen? can't you just ignore that review and move on to the 10's which are going to be the majority anyway? This is how toxicity spawns and gets perpetuated.

 

[Phosphorescent Skeleton]

The power Sterling holds over gamers is something all yeag girls can be proud of.

 

[Dusa]

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.

Also you don't want people to be nicer, you just want people with different opinions to shut up. There's never a degree of niceness that can be exhibited without people like you losing your mind over it. I couldn't express dissatisfaction with the trailer without someone suggesting that I'm personally invested in hating the game and that I'll be upset when the game turns out to be good. Because that's what it's all about. In truth, the only people actually bullied in this discourse are people who hold uncommon views on popular media, because fans can't be normal and have to make an incident out of things.

Sterling's reviews can be critical, which is not bad. But they've pulled enough stunts like their reactionary 1/10 Hellblade review that I just don't listen to their opinion anymore.

I don't think less of them for that, specifically. But I did grow exhausted with their videos when they played an endless stream of Steam garbage and their videos were naturally just complaining about all of the Steam garbage they endured. A self-perpetuating cycle.

"Reactionary" is a bit disingenuous when the "reactionary" 1/10 review was because a bug caused them to be unable to finish the game, and they re-reviewed it when it was fixed.

 

[Terrell]

Reviews are fine if you actually read them as a means to figure out if something you're wholly unfamiliar with is something you want to spend your money on. That's a huge part of their function, and it's why most reviewers are people knee-deep in the medium.

The problem is that, for a lot of people in certain fandoms, that's not what they're for anymore and Steph gets to the thick of it in this video: the need for external validation. And it doesn't matter what gaming community or forum you're a part of, they're ALL guilty of that to some degree or another. Reviews in the gaming space are, in my estimation, one of the more egregious examples of this phenomenon, as well. I don't tend to have need to read reviews for things I already know I want, because I'm my own person with my own (sometimes trashy) taste and am perfectly secure in that, which is definitely more than what can be said for the detractors featured in the posted video. The few times I do read such reviews is from a sort of "huh, neat" level of idle curiosity.

And it has not been helped by major press outlets being cowed by blacklisting threats from publishers and basing employee returns on Metacritic scores. As mentioned earlier, part of the reason people read Steph's reviews is because they, in their estimation, can at least appreciate the honesty in it, even if there's a potential for disagreement with what's written.

Gamers simply need to wean themselves off the need for external validation and just like what they want to like. But that can't happen (and thus things will never improve) so long as they're insistent on harassing and brow-beating reviewers for not liking something or even merely not liking something to what they think is the only appropriate degree.

 

[Raysu Delight]

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.

Of course, Sterling is a big expert on one of those topics especially. Maybe if they didn't happen to be a fan of indulging in a bit of workplace abuse themselves it wouldn't be considered banal. Don't really understand how anyone can still give them credit for that after what has come to light in recent months. It's wild how deep people can bury their head in the sand about something when it comes to someone they like or support.

 

[PixelKnight]

Of course, Sterling is a big expert on one of those topics especially. Maybe if they didn't happen to be a fan of indulging in a bit of workplace abuse themselves it wouldn't be considered banal. Don't really understand how anyone can still give them credit for that after what has come to light in recent months. It's wild how deep people can bury their head in the sand about something when it comes to someone they like or support.

Not so much ‘burying my head in the sand’ and more that I genuinely have no idea what you’re talking about here. What are you referring to?

 

[Terrell]

Not so much ‘burying my head in the sand’ and more that I genuinely have no idea what you’re talking about here. What are you referring to?

They're talking about the former editor Justin who stole money from Steph and, in the process of tweeting his version of events, even admitted to doing so. It's a loaded and messy topic that's a lot more complicated than is being let on.

EDIT: Since I'm being dragged for not providing context by someone who wouldn't even name names, here:

 

[Raysu Delight]

They're talking about the former editor Justin who stole money from Steph and, in the process of tweeting his version of events, even admitted to doing so. It's a loaded and messy topic that's a lot more complicated than is being let on.

Wow. "It's a loaded messy topic so let me highlight something that wasn't even related to the instances of workplace abuse and give no other context or information".

 

[Raysu Delight]

EDIT: Since I'm being dragged for not providing context by someone who wouldn't even name names, here:

I mean I already private messaged this exact thread to PixelKnight; he's the mod so he can decide whether or not it's appropriate for this discussion, but thank you for eventually providing actual context.

And you know what? I kind of take back the claim I made earlier about the money embezzlement issue not being related to any instances of workplace abuse. In fact, if you think about it for a moment, isn't it funny how the matter was settled amicably and privately between employee and employer, with Sterling agreeing to be paid back what was taken, only for it to later be dragged into the spotlight after instances of workplace abuse against them were made public? It appears to be doing exactly as intended in muddying the waters, and providing anyone who's willing a reason not to take those claims seriously.

It takes a whole different level of having your head in the sand to seriously think that the person who was always in the position of power here is secretly the victim in this.

 

[PixelKnight]

I mean I already private messaged this exact thread to PixelKnight; he's the mod so he can decide whether or not it's appropriate for this discussion, but thank you for eventually providing actual context.

Minor point, but no, I can’t, that’s not how Fami operates. We don’t act alone, and we certainly don’t decide what is and isn’t appropriate when a member is (apparently, or seemingly at first) in disagreement with us. Other members of the moderation team, and at least 3 of them, would need to look at it if any posts here are reported (although I can report them myself, just like any other member). Just wanted to clear that up.

 

[Lucifer]

Reviews are fine if you actually read them as a means to figure out if something you're wholly unfamiliar with is something you want to spend your money on. That's a huge part of their function, and it's why most reviewers are people knee-deep in the medium.

The problem is that, for a lot of people in certain fandoms, that's not what they're for anymore and Steph gets to the thick of it in this video: the need for external validation. And it doesn't matter what gaming community or forum you're a part of, they're ALL guilty of that to some degree or another. Reviews in the gaming space are, in my estimation, one of the more egregious examples of this phenomenon, as well. I don't tend to have need to read reviews for things I already know I want, because I'm my own person with my own (sometimes trashy) taste and am perfectly secure in that, which is definitely more than what can be said for the detractors featured in the posted video. The few times I do read such reviews is from a sort of "huh, neat" level of idle curiosity.

And it has not been helped by major press outlets being cowed by blacklisting threats from publishers and basing employee returns on Metacritic scores. As mentioned earlier, part of the reason people read Steph's reviews is because they, in their estimation, can at least appreciate the honesty in it, even if there's a potential for disagreement with what's written.

Gamers simply need to wean themselves off the need for external validation and just like what they want to like. But that can't happen (and thus things will never improve) so long as they're insistent on harassing and brow-beating reviewers for not liking something or even merely not liking something to what they think is the only appropriate degree.

That's pretty much what I use reviews for, I don't care about the reviews for ToTK because I have history with the franchise and like what the developers are putting out, it's very likely that I'm going to love that game.

Also found new IPs I like because of reviews and just trying things out.

And sometimes it doesn't work out, currently playing The Last of Us and the gameplay is extremely boring to me.

 

[Sampdoria]

This video sounds like a preemptive measure for when they give Tears of the Kingdom a low score and the inevitable backlash happens. I noticed also that Stephanie started reviewing games again a few months ago after years of not reviewing games. The timing is too convenient.

 

[daiquiri]

This video sounds like a preemptive measure for when they give Tears of the Kingdom a low score and the inevitable backlash happens. I noticed also that Stephanie started reviewing games again a few months ago after years of not reviewing games. The timing is too convenient.

A 6 year scheme comes to fruition, thought Sterling as their finger hovered over the publish button

Stopping writing reviews, starting again just 2 months before Tears of the Kingdom release; it had all been for this

I can't wait to see gamers' faces, Sterling cackled, when I award it a score of 1-10 based on my opinion having played it

 

[Deleted member 2]

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.

You hate it so much but lozjam is right

 

[Deleted member 2181]

You hate it so much but lozjam is right

Nah.
Saying you think Product Is Bad isn't "insulting the millions of people who love" Product. It just means you think it's bad. Why tiptoe? Because some people have decided to make Product a core part of their identity so that an attack on Product is an attack on them? Is that it?
Dunno. Sounds like an unhealthy way to view things to me.

 

[Leo]

I think the last debacle about a Stephanie Sterling review was Metroid Prime, because she gave it a 7.5. People where accusing her of being an attention seeker etc.

Then I played the game for the first time and found myself agreeing with everything in the review down to a tee, except that I would maybe score it even a bit lower. That would probably scandalize a lot of people out there, but it's how I genuinely felt about the game, only difference is I'm not a reviewer.

So, you know, people will have different opinions. Get over it.

 

[Deleted member 2]

Nah.
Saying you think Product Is Bad isn't "insulting the millions of people who love" Product. It just means you think it's bad. Why tiptoe? Because some people have decided to make Product a core part of their identity so that an attack on Product is an attack on them? Is that it?
Dunno. Sounds like an unhealthy way to view things to me.

Nah, saying a product is bad means you don't know how to frame your opinion using language. The rest of your comment is a weird projection.

 

[Hailinel]

"Reactionary" is a bit disingenuous when the "reactionary" 1/10 review was because a bug caused them to be unable to finish the game, and they re-reviewed it when it was fixed.

And it's unfortunate that bug was encountered. As I recall though, when Sterling wrote the second review, they did so while also admitting they felt sheepish for writing the original in a pique.

 

[Deleted member 2181]

Nah, saying a product is bad means you don't know how to frame your opinion using language. The rest of your comment is a weird projection.

It's not a projection, it's a best effort attempt to understand the mindset that would equate saying Minecraft is bad to "insulting the millions of people who love the game".
Maybe it's wrong, I don't know. Hence the question marks.

I think people can decide for themselves how they should frame their opinions. I use a lot of "I think that..." or "I feel that..." or "in my opinion" in my posts. But what I'm doing when I say any of these things is rephrasing the obvious, and possibly wasting people's time doing so. Of course it's my opinion, what else would it be?
Some people don't bother with that, they leave it as implicit. I don't see a problem with that, personally. I don't think videogame discussion merits particular care most of the time. It's a an entertainment medium, not political philosophy or whatever.

 

[Deleted member 2]

It's not a projection, it's a best effort attempt to understand the mindset that would equate saying Minecraft is bad to "insulting the millions of people who love the game".
Maybe it's wrong, I don't know. Hence the question marks.

I think people can decide for themselves how they should frame their opinions. I use a lot of "I think that..." or "I feel that..." or "in my opinion" in my posts. But what I'm doing when I say any of these things is rephrasing the obvious, and possibly wasting people's time doing so. Of course it's my opinion, what else would it be?
Some people don't bother with that, they leave it as implicit. I don't see a problem with that, personally. I don't think videogame discussion merits particular care most of the time. It's a an entertainment medium, not political philosophy or whatever.

Okay, I'll take your word for it and say this - my original post you responded to is just my opinion. Why are you debating me about it.

 

[souio]

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.

I agree with this, but it's more of a balance issue I have. It's good to have both positive and negative reactions and it's true that sometimes sticking your head in the sand to any and all negativity isn't always the best action, it's just that Sterling is just dripping with negativity almost all of the time, especially these days. While there are a lot of people who cater to the "coddled"/good-vibe seekers out there, it can feel like Sterling caters to the complete mirror opposite of the Doomer/~Bad Vibes Only~ crowd, lol. I believe good reviewers should be able to fearlessly point out flaws in things that are revered, but also possibly point out good facets in poor quality things, as well. Good mix of positivity and negativity.

 

[paranoodle]

It's not a projection, it's a best effort attempt to understand the mindset that would equate saying Minecraft is bad to "insulting the millions of people who love the game".
Maybe it's wrong, I don't know. Hence the question marks.

I think people can decide for themselves how they should frame their opinions. I use a lot of "I think that..." or "I feel that..." or "in my opinion" in my posts. But what I'm doing when I say any of these things is rephrasing the obvious, and possibly wasting people's time doing so. Of course it's my opinion, what else would it be?
Some people don't bother with that, they leave it as implicit. I don't see a problem with that, personally. I don't think videogame discussion merits particular care most of the time. It's a an entertainment medium, not political philosophy or whatever.

I feel pretty similar to you, honestly. Sure, if I'm stepping in the middle of a conversation fans of a specific game (that I dislike) are having, I'll try to be more polite and say "I don't like it" as opposed to "I think the game you all like is trash". But in a neutral space I think it's pretty obviously implicit that if I say "Yeah this game's pretty bad" it's my opinion. And people are free to disagree with that opinion, but it's just a disagreement, not me getting a "fact" wrong or anything.

In the case of reviews/reviewers, it's the same thing. And if someone doesn't like a reviewer's opinion, or doesn't like how it's presented, or whatever else, they can just... ignore it. Even block them if that's relevant.

But I do wonder how much my perspective on it is informed by very frequently being told by wider gaming communities (not even necessarily just Gamers) that most of the games I like are complete dogshit (or, if you include Gamers, your pick of descriptions frequently involving homophobic slurs).

 

[Dizzle]

The problem isn't "positivity" or "negativity" because nobody complains about too much negativity about the shit they don't like. You only complain when somebody doesn't like something you like, and vice versa.

If there is a problem, it's hyperbole, but hyperbole is fun if used appropriately. It only becomes a problem when you get big enough that you have a following who starts taking the hyperbole seriously. Then it isn't fun or funny, because it's fueling arguments that lead to real hurt feelings.

People shouldn't get their feelings hurt over video games? Every person on this website is a thin skinned weirdo, at the very least on a bad day.

Does that make sense?

 

[freedomseekr]

I can live with a negative review, even if it's a game I like, if I see from the way the review is written that the reviewer tried to engage with it with openness and earnestness. Maybe that's a pet peeve of mine as a fan of games who frequently get lambasted by critics for various (but mostly aesthetic) choices, but if see a critic has put their preconceptions aside and at least made an honest effort to engage with the game they're presented with. I think a large problem with doing that, though, lies in the mechanics of the job, where there is pressure from your outlet to give a positive review out of fear of being blacklisted (because video games journalism and by extent, a lot of other media journalism, is based on "access journalism" and for a professional outlet, said access is often their most important asset), alongside a need to get the review out before the game launches lest you lose out on some of those clicks that SEO brings in, and I can see any reviewer just "phoning it in" occasionally when they're not immediately on board with something because they have four or five other games to review within the month.

Though I can also see where a lot of the backlash towards negative reviews has come from - we have incredibly gotten used to reviews being set in stone thanks to the rise of the metascore and an initial "bad" review (i.e. for some reason anything below a god-damn 7) is going to hang on to a game forever, even if somewhere down the line it gets a reappraisal by the community at large. This, incidentally, is also part of the issue with the whole idea of a "Citizen Kane of Gaming" - Citizen Kane did not review well initially and it wasn't until it was reappraised that it begun attaining its status as "the greatest movie ever", something that is damn-near impossible in a world where scores are forever and reappraisals rarely happen in the era of media journalism centred around topicality and, for lack of better phrasing, being "click-bait".

So, is it the reviewer's fault, if a game is "bad"? I voted "no", but my honest answer would be more "occasionally". Unless you want to argue semantics and get into a kerfuffle on what being a "bad game" means.

 

[SammyJ9]

Nah.
Saying you think Product Is Bad isn't "insulting the millions of people who love" Product. It just means you think it's bad. Why tiptoe? Because some people have decided to make Product a core part of their identity so that an attack on Product is an attack on them? Is that it?
Dunno. Sounds like an unhealthy way to view things to me.

It might come down more to just how it’s phrased and how it’s said - if you say “I think this game is bad, because of reasons X, Y, and Z” then that’s much better than just “It’s bad.” But even then, I would lean far more toward saying “I didn’t like this thing for reasons X, Y, and Z” and not even using the term “bad”. It’s more a connotation thing, and worrying that I’d be implying exactly what they’re talking about - that a lot of people would read that as me saying that I think the thing is trash and everyone who likes it has terrible taste and I’m insulting them. And I don’t want that, at all. That wouldn’t be my intention.

But I also have that Midwest-stereotype gene where I feel bad about asking for simple things and constantly worry that something I said might be taken the wrong way, and usually end up adding like three variations of “I’m not saying it’s bad/it’s just not for me/it still does a lot of things really well/etc.” to like every opinion I have, so that could just be me. It’s how I’m wired.

 

[Dusa]

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.

This applies to "good" and you would be mocked if you wanted people to stop calling games good. Calling a game bad is not an objective statement.

Anyway the fact that people think that they're relentlessly negative tells me everything I need to know. Turns out, if you only engage with their content when it's a negative review, all you'll see is negativity.

 

[Phosphorescent Skeleton]

In this thread, trans people get yelled at for casually stating negative opinions. Now that's what I call bad!

 

[curl-6]

In this thread, trans people get yelled at for casually stating negative opinions. Now that's what I call bad!

Being trans doesn't mean people aren't allowed to dislike your online persona or your content, especially since being intentionally edgy is a big part of their stuff.
Just as Sterling is entitled to their opinion, others are entitled to an opinion of their content, and some simply find it too bitter and petty for their taste, and that's okay.
I don't know Sterling personally and bear them no ill will, and I certainly have no problem with how they identify, but I'm under no obligation to like their work.

 

[Phosphorescent Skeleton]

Being trans doesn't mean people aren't allowed to dislike your online persona or your content, especially since being intentionally edgy is a big part of it.
Just as Sterling is entitled to their opinion, others are entitled to an opinion of their content, and some simply find it too bitter and petty for their taste, and that's okay.
I don't know Sterling personally and bear them no ill will, and I certainly have no problem with how they choose to identify, but I'm under no obligation to like their work.

I was more responding to people who are acting like saying "Game is bad" without giving a detailed explanation is some grave and terrible offense.
Also lets cool it with the "choose to identify" shit.

 

[curl-6]

I was more responding to people who are acting like saying "Game is bad" without giving a detailed explanation is some grave and terrible offense.
Also lets cool it with the "choose to identify" shit.

If that's not the correct or preferred terminology then I genuinely wasn't aware of that and didn't mean anything by it. I've edited the post.

 

[Aurc]

You hate it so much but lozjam is right

Nah, saying a product is bad means you don't know how to frame your opinion using language. The rest of your comment is a weird projection.

Sorry, I just find myself super confused here, so I'll ask for clarity: who is the person or entity going "game is bad", with no further elaboration or meaningful commentary? If one would care to properly engage with the points brought forth in James Stephanie Sterling's reviews, they'd know it's clearly not them guilty of it, so who? Have we fallen into that classic trap of "Make up a person who many might agree is in the wrong, but since they don't actually exist, nobody can properly challenge the assertion"?

I know Lozjam is banned at the moment, and can't speak for himself, so for the time being, I've got no interest in attempting to engage with his points in-depth. I'd rather do that upon his return (and only if he's interested in having the conversation, of course). I'm not gonna say there's absolutely no validity in anything he's said, since I do sympathize with the perspective that certain areas of online discourse can lean too negative. That's kinda why I like Fami, since I feel we (mostly) avoid that.

However, I'd like to touch upon what I viewed to be just a couple issues in how he approached the dialogue in this thread, and chief among them is his opening line of "I can confirm they hate video games", obviously referring to Sterling. That seems to me to be even more inflammatory than calling a video game bad, since it's casting an actual person and their career in a negative, disingenuous light. Sterling doesn't hate video games. I reckon anyone acting in good faith can tell that.

The next issue I perceive is this idea presented of how when you say a game is bad, you're also "insulting the millions of people who love that game". Yeah... I dunno man, but to me, if you feel personally insulted as a result of someone on a forum disparaging a game you happen to like, that may be indicative of an unhealthy relationship with the product.

I've definitely had folks shit on the stuff I love, but my response to that is to challenge and attempt to talk through it with them. I don't feel personally offended, I just wanna break down their argument and understand things better. If it's just a simple "Your favorite game sucks" with no further elaboration, I know those people aren't even worth talking to, so my response wouldn't be to get offended over what a bad opinions rando thinks (and there are plenty of those on the internet, with me certainly having been guilty of stepping into the role of that rando, a handful of times).

 

[Fercho]

Being trans doesn't mean people aren't allowed to dislike your online persona or your content, especially since being intentionally edgy is a big part of it.

Well, yeah...

But the reality is , because of the fact that the person is trans also amplifies the disagreements, insults and hate this person receives online, in videos and forums and maybe real life, specially in this "gamer" scene, and that fact should be undeniable and always present in people's minds.

So it get's tricky when discussing how "edgy" a person (o a person's opinions) is because it gets difficult to separate the legit opinions with disagreements/hate fuel by actual transphobia.

If you have to dwell in the arguments such as "being trans doesn't mean I have to agree with him/her/they " especially in something as asinine as videogame reviews, then maybe your heart is not in the right place. The very fact that the you felt compelled to reply to the post you quoted as if the "shoe fits" for you, may say a lot.

 

[Clov]

If "choose to identify" isn't the correct way to say it then I genuinely wasn't aware of that and didn't mean anything by it. I've edited the post.

When you tell someone who's trans that they "choose to identify" one way or the other, you're saying that being trans in itself is a choice, and not an essential part of who that person is. I hope that you learn from this.

It's interesting though; this is the second time I've seen you in a thread regarding Sterling, and the second time that you seem to be making the same argument. You seem very hung up on the idea that trans people in these threads are saying that "if you're trans, people CAN'T dislike what you make!". Essentially, you're saying that trans people the fact that they're trans as a shield.

The thing is, you're wrong. Being trans is not a shield, being trans is something that places a target on you. Do some people simply not like Sterling's work because they don't want to hear harsh criticism? Of course! But there IS a large contingent of people who hate Sterling just because they're trans.

Phos' post is simply an observation. It can apply to far more than just Sterling, too!

 

[Monster Mash]

I think the most effective way to use reviews as a tool to inform your decisions about whether or not to buy a game is to just look a bunch of individual critics up. Peruse their reviews, and try to see which ones have tastes that line up with yours, or ones who have interesting taste. They are now the critics whose reviews you look at when you need help deciding whether or not you might like something you're on the fence about.

Critique and review are more than just buyers guides, but just for that purpose I think this is the way to go.

 

[Deleted member 2]

When you tell someone who's trans that they "choose to identify" one way or the other, you're saying that being trans in itself is a choice, and not an essential part of who that person is. I hope that you learn from this.

It's interesting though; this is the second time I've seen you in a thread regarding Sterling, and the second time that you seem to be making the same argument. You seem very hung up on the idea that trans people in these threads are saying that "if you're trans, people CAN'T dislike what you make!". Essentially, you're saying that trans people the fact that they're trans as a shield.

The thing is, you're wrong. Being trans is not a shield, being trans is something that places a target on you. Do some people simply not like Sterling's work because they don't want to hear harsh criticism? Of course! But there IS a large contingent of people who hate Sterling just because they're trans.

Phos' post is simply an observation. It can apply to far more than just Sterling, too!

I'm not sure I agree with the accusation that @curl-6 is saying anyone is using their identity as a shield; I could be convinced otherwise, of course, as always

The statement "trans people are being yelled at for stating opinions" is pretty clearly implying that identity is the reason people are disagreeing with them.

The truth is there's a lot of complexity to why people get riled up about Sterling's videos; some people definitely are shitty about their identity. Even people who aren't overtly transphobic may target them because of their identity.

But the comment curl was responding to had none of that nuance and carried nothing more than an implication that someone was being yelled at for being trans.

 

[Deleted member 2]

Sorry, I just find myself super confused here, so I'll ask for clarity: who is the person or entity going "game is bad", with no further elaboration or meaningful commentary? If one would care to properly engage with the points brought forth in James Stephanie Sterling's reviews, they'd know it's clearly not them guilty of it, so who? Have we fallen into that classic trap of "Make up a person who many might agree is in the wrong, but since they don't actually exist, nobody can properly challenge the assertion"?

Probably. My facetious participation in the topic was agreeing with the idea that using limiting language in discourse begets more discourse. But I don't think that's what Sterling does. I sure think that's what a majority of Online Gamers do, but I don't know how the conversation got to them in the first place.

I know Lozjam is banned at the moment, and can't speak for himself, so for the time being, I've got no interest in attempting to engage with his points in-depth. I'd rather do that upon his return (and only if he's interested in having the conversation, of course). I'm not gonna say there's absolutely no validity in anything he's said, since I do sympathize with the perspective that certain areas of online discourse can lean too negative. That's kinda why I like Fami, since I feel we (mostly) avoid that.

However, I'd like to touch upon what I viewed to be just a couple issues in how he approached the dialogue in this thread, and chief among them is his opening line of "I can confirm they hate video games", obviously referring to Sterling. That seems to me to be even more inflammatory than calling a video game bad, since it's casting an actual person and their career in a negative, disingenuous light. Sterling doesn't hate video games. I reckon anyone acting in good faith can tell that.

I agree fully, and would add that that's detrimental to an argument for using better language in discourse

The next issue I perceive is this idea presented of how when you say a game is bad, you're also "insulting the millions of people who love that game". Yeah... I dunno man, but to me, if you feel personally insulted as a result of someone on a forum disparaging a game you happen to like, that may be indicative of an unhealthy relationship with the product.

Okay that's indefensible, using a number in the range of millions to describe a group of people that something bad is happening to is way too melodramatic of a leap for me to take seriously on the topic of Gamer Opinions.

I've definitely had folks shit on the stuff I love, but my response to that is to challenge and attempt to talk through it with them. I don't feel personally offended, I just wanna break down their argument and understand things better. If it's just a simple "Your favorite game sucks" with no further elaboration, I know those people aren't even worth talking to, so my response wouldn't be to get offended over what a bad opinions rando thinks (and there are plenty of those on the internet, with me certainly having been guilty of stepping into the role of that rando, a handful of times).

Me 2

 

[Clov]

I'm not sure I agree with the accusation that @curl-6 is saying anyone is using their identity as a shield; I could be convinced otherwise, of course, as always

The statement "trans people are being yelled at for stating opinions" is pretty clearly implying that identity is the reason people are disagreeing with them.

The truth is there's a lot of complexity to why people get riled up about Sterling's videos; some people definitely are shitty about their identity. Even people who aren't overtly transphobic may target them because of their identity.

But the comment curl was responding to had none of that nuance and carried nothing more than an implication that someone was being yelled at for being trans.

Frankly, when I see someone tell me "Being trans doesn't mean people aren't allowed to dislike your online persona or your content", I take that as the person telling me I'm arguing the opposite. I could understand not being able to see it from this alone, but this is the second time I've been through this with Curl.

Fercho has really said everything I want to say here. Trans people are already on the edge of cis acceptance; any deviation from accepted opinions on anything leads to a vastly disproportionate response. Maybe you don't believe me, but I've lived it. Phos has too. Sterling's videos would not attract nearly as much hatred as they do if they were cis, and having seen the way people react to them evolve since their transition, that's fact.

What Phos has said is right: "trans people are being yelled at for stating opinions". Not just Sterling, but even in this thread. See how Lozjam jumped to equating homophobia and racism with having video games you like criticized, all because Phos referred to something as "bad". Why can't she say something so innocuous without having her actions compared to homophobes? Would this have even been brought up if she wasn't queer? I have doubts. You can't leave things well enough alone to accept that our experiences are real, that our perceptions on how we have been treated are real. You have to make it into an argument.

 

[curl-6]

I'm not sure I agree with the accusation that @curl-6 is saying anyone is using their identity as a shield; I could be convinced otherwise, of course, as always

The statement "trans people are being yelled at for stating opinions" is pretty clearly implying that identity is the reason people are disagreeing with them.

The truth is there's a lot of complexity to why people get riled up about Sterling's videos; some people definitely are shitty about their identity. Even people who aren't overtly transphobic may target them because of their identity.

But the comment curl was responding to had none of that nuance and carried nothing more than an implication that someone was being yelled at for being trans.

Yeah I definitely did not mean to convey that anyone was using identity as a shield, just that it seemed like criticism of Sterling here was being labelled as "yelling at a trans person". I could have misinterpreted, and if I did that's my mistake, due to my autism I'm not great with the finer points of nuance.

There are definitely going to be people who criticize Sterling in bad faith and are coming from a place of hate, and that's very much unacceptable.
I just don't think it follows that expressing a negative opinion is hateful, that's all.

 

[Deleted member 2]

Frankly, when I see someone tell me "Being trans doesn't mean people aren't allowed to dislike your online persona or your content", I take that as the person telling me I'm arguing the opposite. I could understand not being able to see it from this alone, but this is the second time I've been through this with Curl.

Fercho has really said everything I want to say here. Trans people are already on the edge of cis acceptance; any deviation from accepted opinions on anything leads to a vastly disproportionate response. Maybe you don't believe me, but I've lived it. Phos has too.

First off all, I believe you. Fair-weather allies muddy the waters and make it hard to trust anyone. How could you know if someones acceptance of you is balancing on the razors edge of a single mutual aspect? That shit sounds draining. I understand how tired and done you probably are with educating every single well-meaning person who doesn't get these kinds of nuances. Hell, Phos is clearly on some plane of existence so far past done that her meme game has become transcendental.

So with that being said, I gotta say that like with some other times I've debatelorded you, my heart isn't really in it. All in all, I see a comment from Phos with little nuance, yet understandable as fuck, being responded to on a textual level by someone who took it on a textual level. Which... I also understandable as fuck. I guess if I look deep down, my motivation is based on solving what I see as an error in communication? But I don't really think I have a strong enough reason to step into this particular convo anymore so I'm out

Sterling's videos would not attract nearly as much hatred as they do if they were cis, and having seen the way people react to them evolve since their transition, that's fact.

Yeah

What Phos has said is right: "trans people are being yelled at for stating opinions".

On a textual level, yeah, but saying it that way invites misinterpretation and it literally hurts my broken brain. Something like this would be more effective I think... "Trans people once again are having their opinions overly scrutinized compared to cis people". But, imagine worded more clever and funny

Not just Sterling, but even in this thread. See how Lozjam jumped to equating homophobia and racism with having video games you like criticized, all because Phos referred to something as "bad". Why can't she say something so innocuous without having her actions compared to homophobes? Would this have even been brought up if she wasn't queer? I have doubts. You can't leave things well enough alone to accept that our experiences are real, that our perceptions on how we have been treated are real. You have to make it into an argument.

You and I weren't talking about lozjam, so I'll keep it brief, but lemme just say my greatest mistake was commenting "lozjam was right" instead of like, saying what I think

 

[Terrell]

Sterling's videos would not attract nearly as much hatred as they do if they were cis, and having seen the way people react to them evolve since their transition, that's fact.

Yeah, this does warrant pointing out. Steph's current "schtick" as people put it has been largely the same for about 5 years now, if not longer (depending on which aspect of it one refers to, because it has definitely evolved over time). And yet it is only post-transition that it has become en vogue to cite it as reason to stop following them, to disagree with them, etc. And it makes it impossible for those who recognize that to take certain criticism of them at face value.

There are definitely going to be people who criticize Sterling in bad faith and are coming from a place of hate, and that's very much unacceptable.
I just don't think it follows that expressing a negative opinion is hateful, that's all.

Even if it's not hateful, one must be situationally aware whenever possible. Because our opinions don't exactly exist in a vacuum, either, they are influenced by the larger dialogue in our peer groups, so a number of people engaged in transmisogyny masquerading as legitimate critique that is not immediately perceived by those who can't identify it can and does influence both opinion on Steph Sterling and eagerness to engage in the discussion of said opinion. Folks are more willing to criticize their work now because it's more prominent of an opinion, one that handily disguises what the motivation behind it might be, while other folks think the disguise is the actual message and internalize that to give credence to others to engage in the deception.

If someone's been at Steph for this sort of thing since the pre-transition era, then that's all well and good, but such individuals would be several years on from that realization by now and probably should have moved on, considering their only crime is being a vocal negative nelly on certain topics.

Basically, if you engage in the discussion in good faith, a key part of doing that in this situation is acknowledging that you're stepping into an environment rife with the opposite that'll get hackles up if not approached with responsible and adequate care and a reasonable look at the motivations of people who give the appearance of agreeing with you.

 

[PixelKnight]

This video sounds like a preemptive measure for when they give Tears of the Kingdom a low score and the inevitable backlash happens. I noticed also that Stephanie started reviewing games again a few months ago after years of not reviewing games. The timing is too convenient.

Did you actually watch it? It’s a 20 minute video about exactly what the OP says- largely talking about their recent comments on Dead Island 2 and Dead Space and the reactions they got, with brief mentions of BOTW and FFXIII to give historical context. At 12 minutes in they briefly touch on BOTW (and the hate they got for daring to say it was merely good) for all of a minute before saying they are really looking forward to ToTK.

Honestly, it’s comments like this that are why we’ve had to put the new review thread guidelines together, if some members won’t even watch or read an opinion piece before just making up conspiracies about ulterior motives based on what the piece sounds like to them. When what they are actually saying is right there. The hook is obviously ridiculous gamer rage over a period of years and four examples, focusing on two very recent ones. Not just one brief one from six years ago or a literally momentary mention about an upcoming popular game they are looking forward to.

 

[Mer.Saloon]

Prior to Sterling's transition, I stopped following their content because at a point the negativity was too much for me. But I always held the utmost respect for them and their reviews. Yeah, they brought on a lot of negativity for being so out going about their opinions, but Sterling never came off as someone striving to be contrarion for the sake of it. I feel like anyone who ever said otherwise never actually read any of the damn things.

And I don't doubt shit has gotten worse since the transition because, woop-de-doo transphobia ahoy. Tch.

Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, all reviews are valid unless stating outright misinformation, but even then, some people just love to lump criticism with misinformation. Otherwise it all boils down to opinion and what values the reviewer place on their entertainment. As far as I'm concerned, even a negative review is helpful to me if it tells me details of the product I enjoy, even if the reviewer in question doesn't enjoy those details.

The stupid score at the end is just a bunch of abstract numbers anyways meant to give some semblance of a consensus on the damn things.