Playtonic's Yooka-Laylee

[Jolly]

After reading the last page or so, I've become sigh man.

[Shoes]

20 hours ago, NEG said:

Oh it's exactly like 90's platformers, what a bloody surprise!

 

It shouldn't be marked down for that? Are you insane?

 

If he hated 90s platformers, then why not?

[Benny]

I popped into this last page to get some impressions of this promising new game and it seems to be entirely about children's TV presenters.

[NEG]

Just now, Shoes said:

 

It shouldn't be marked down for that? Are you insane?

 

If he hated 90s platformers, then why not?

 

So I should review all COD's, Halo's and whatever else genre I dislike/do not enjoy for the shits and giggles of giving them 2/10?

 

He knew what it would be going in.

[deerokus]

No there isn't. That's getting into 'objective review' shite. 

[Shoes]

1 hour ago, NEG said:

 

So I should review all COD's, Halo's and whatever else genre I dislike/do not enjoy for the shits and giggles of giving them 2/10?

 

He knew what it would be going in.

 

If you were paid more than a neurosurgeon to do so, knock yourself out. He's given money, by actual people, to give brutally honest, raw, mean reviews. Not to sugar coat, not to say "well, I despise the genre and this game is awful, but I'm sure they're nice people and the game was actually designed to be shit and archaic so 6/10"

[Cosmic_Guru]

Just got my code 

[Mr Do 71]

Me too 

[NEG]

29 minutes ago, Shoes said:

 

If you were paid more than a neurosurgeon to do so, knock yourself out. He's given money, by actual people, to give brutally honest, raw, mean reviews. Not to sugar coat, not to say "well, I despise the genre and this game is awful, but I'm sure they're nice people and the game was actually designed to be shit and archaic so 6/10"

 

6/10 is a long way away from 2/10, though.

 

But yes. I imagine if I were paid to review Halo, it would be hard to resist going WANK WANK WANK over it.

 

Except, you know, I wouldn't, because even I have standards. I'd try to review it properly.

[Majora]

37 minutes ago, Shoes said:

 

He's given money, by actual people, to give brutally honest, raw, mean reviews. 

 

The bolded is the problem in a nutshell really, isn't it? He has to feed the fanbase who expect a weekly dose of vitriol and he has to find something to rant about. Like I said before, if he can't be mean about something on a regular basis he would fade into obscurity. He has to keep fanning the flames of something each week to keep his profile high and his fans content.

 

 

[Shoes]

People keep saying '2/10 UNFAIR E'S DOING IT TO GET REACTIONS' but, to me, the game does look like a fucking hideous mess which I can imagine I'd despise. It doesn't to others. Opinions!

 

The garbage angel, NEG and others were spouting about it being DESIGNED to be archaic and annoying so you can't possibly mark it down for having these elements is so weird.

[Polmon]

Does anyone else's code not work on Steam?

[NEG]

12 minutes ago, Shoes said:

People keep saying '2/10 UNFAIR E'S DOING IT TO GET REACTIONS' but, to me, the game does look like a fucking hideous mess which I can imagine I'd despise. It doesn't to others. Opinions!

 

The garbage angel, NEG and others were spouting about it being DESIGNED to be archaic and annoying so you can't possibly mark it down for having these elements is so weird.

 

If it was Mario it would get a free pass and praised that it's exactly the same as 30 years ago, let's be realistic.

[Polmon]

Nevermind, it has added to my library despite the error.

[Shoes]

6 minutes ago, NEG said:

 

If it was Mario it would get a free pass and praised that it's exactly the same as 30 years ago, let's be realistic.

 

Maybe, but then 30-year-old Mario is exquisitely designed.

[NEG]

4 minutes ago, Shoes said:

 

Maybe, but then 30-year-old Mario is exquisitely designed.

 

It has problems from it's age just like anything else. The fact the New Bros titles still insist on going back to the world screen/showing the lives screen instead of instantly restarting the level like something modern (Super Meat Boy) is one of them. Nintendo are just as much at fault at keeping things archaic (for the sake of tradition/nostalgia) at times.

[Fatsam]

But Super Meat Boy levels are dead short and mega hard aren't they? I think they had a restart or quit option for the challenge levels on New Super Mario Bros U when you died, which are much more comparable to Super Meat Boy. Yeah, maybe they could have had automatic restarts.

[angel]

5 hours ago, Shoes said:

People keep saying '2/10 UNFAIR E'S DOING IT TO GET REACTIONS' but, to me, the game does look like a fucking hideous mess which I can imagine I'd despise. It doesn't to others. Opinions!

 

The garbage angel, NEG and others were spouting about it being DESIGNED to be archaic and annoying so you can't possibly mark it down for having these elements is so weird.

 

Oi you scamp, I didnt say anything of the sort. I just said it's a Banjo game made on a budget.

[Shoes]

9 hours ago, angel said:

 

Oi you scamp, I didnt say anything of the sort. I just said it's a Banjo game made on a budget.

 

But you said he shouldn't critique the synthesized voice system because it's how they did it in Kazooie. But he criticised it for being really annoying, not because of any budget limitation reason. I'm beginning to think you guys haven't read the review at all 

[angel]

41 minutes ago, Shoes said:

 

But you said he shouldn't critique the synthesized voice system because it's how they did it in Kazooie. But he criticised it for being really annoying, not because of any budget limitation reason. I'm beginning to think you guys haven't read the review at all 

 

I didnt specifically say that as my problem, it's more an example of how he's so unsympathetic to the game in general, to things like that speech. It didnt annoy me in Banjo and it doesnt annoy me here, I think its cute. I did read the review, I think it's mean spirited.

[Shoes]

You find it cute, he finds it infuriating.

[freezycold]

Does he really though?

[NEG]

Main disappointment I'm seeing so far from the videos is that the villain doesn't talk in rhyme Hopefully some other character does.

[George Clooney]

On 07/04/2017 at 17:38, Majora said:

 

The bolded is the problem in a nutshell really, isn't it? He has to feed the fanbase who expect a weekly dose of vitriol and he has to find something to rant about. Like I said before, if he can't be mean about something on a regular basis he would fade into obscurity. He has to keep fanning the flames of something each week to keep his profile high and his fans content.

 

 

 

So you believe that there's a fanbase out there that not only want him to just tear into things on a weekly basis, but actively pay their own money to do so, rather than a bunch of people that think he's either entertaining, interesting or just share similar opinons?

 

The idea that people thinks he gave these games a low score not because he actually believes it but because he feels he needs to do so to stay relevant literally boggles my mind.  And if you think he's "mean" in his contentious reviews you obviously havent read his Last Guardian review, where he's almost going to great pains to wish he didnt feel the issues he did were there.  People have to choose to give him money as I dont think any of his stuff is ad based, it's all funded by patreon - you honestly think that pissing of large portions of fanbases is a good strategy to keep people paying for something if it's not actually what he thinks and he's just being mean for the sake of it?  Look how many people in recent threads pop up to say pretty much just that they think he's a prick and nothing else.

 

If you think he's "mean", and dont like that, fine.  I dont read loads of his stuff because it's obvious that his views and what he likes arent generally the same as mine.  But to think he manufactures his opinions based more on some attempt to "stay relevant" is bonkers. 

[Goemon]

Wow, my backer physical PC version just dropped through the door. Pretty shocked it arrived today.

[the_debaser]

I don't see why you should give a game a 4 or 5 just because it's technically competent. A score should simply reflect how much you like a game. 

 

2/10 is fine, if he really didn't like it. 

[Stanley]

47 minutes ago, the_debaser said:

I don't see why you should give a game a 4 or 5 just because it's technically competent. A score should simply reflect how much you like a game. 

 

2/10 is fine, if he really didn't like it. 

I think the problem is that reviews are fundamentally used by customers as buying guides. Taking that into account it's likely you wouldn't consider reading a review anyway unless you had some interest in the game. So I think review outlets owe it to their readers to give a fair and balanced appraisal. Too often Jim Sterling eschews any kind of measured response in favour of hissy fits and subsequent Internet hysteria. For example, his snarky fanboy baiting Zelda review and followup video generated numerous news stories on various sites including the likes of Kotaku. To believe none of it was planned or deliberate is giving him way too much benefit of the doubt. Jim Sterling has to differentiate himself from the masses of me too video game news sites and youtubers. This is how he does it. How long he can ultimately go on for I guess depends on how long his paying fans find it entertaining. For me it spoils any good points he has.

 

The other point worth mentioning that someone else brought up is that if you remove all the attitude he's not that good a writer. I think even the likes of Gamespot and IGN have better writing.

[the_debaser]

That's fine, I don't particularly like his style either but the point remains that 2/10 is still a perfectly fine score to give a game you didn't like. 

 

If you reviewed a novel which was utter garbage, but the binding on the book was fine and the grammar was functional you shouldn't just give it 5/10 because it's technically competent. 

[Stanley]

Or perhaps you should consider all elements of the game including level design, playability and so on. I don't like the speech thing in Yooka either but if I was reviewing the game I'd respect the fact that it's aimed at people who liked those platformers back in the day. 

 

To use your example it's like me slagging off a a perfectly competent novel with a serviceable story just because I don't like swearing, or whatever. It's unbalanced. 

[Cosmic_Guru]

12 minutes ago, the_debaser said:

That's fine, I don't particularly like his style either but the point remains that 2/10 is still a perfectly fine score to give a game you didn't like. 

 

If you reviewed a novel which was utter garbage, but the binding on the book was fine and the grammar was functional you shouldn't just give it 5/10 because it's technically competent. 

 

Potentially two different things?  If you are paid to write a review of a game or book you dislike very much it must be difficult to stick at the task and finish but you surely have to try to analyse why you don't like it and consider the thing as objectively as possible.

 

It goes the other way too, fans of the franchise /author / genre  overlook flaws which others might find significant.