Support NeoGAF

[OrbitalBeard]

You better believe that people are able to see issues through different lenses and perspectives. And now we're discussing whether his review is unfair or not. He wouldn't care, because he got his response to the clickbait which is part of his marketing strategy.

I like the book analogy from the page before. That book reviewer could be just reviewing as-is or, if possible, cooperate with the publisher and tell them about the issue and receive a better review copy.

The worst part of his reasoning is that the game is a 8/10 for 99% of the time and one incident which is not triggered for everyone - and bugs do happen in every game - makes him drop the score that hard, even to the worst possible score. I see his frustration over this, but venting is not a good thing if you were to review something. Logically speaking, a 8/10 experience can hardly drop to the worst rating possible.

If every reviewer was focused on *that one* bug, not many games would receive any good grade at all, especially during launch. Think Bethesda. Let's hope that he fixes the score after the launch-patch is released, because not doing so would definitely be unfair.

But I know: It's not his job to be fair and not our job to care.

Yeah, sure. If Bethesda games only gave you a single save file and if it corrupted, you were out of luck.

Bethesda's games are bug-ridden, but this is actually not a perfect comparison. The player almost never loses all progress. And if something like that were to happen, I would hope a reviewer would score the title appropriately.

 

[Salty Rice]

Being able to complete games are sort of important.

He was able to. The bug doesnt just appear every playthrough.

 

[Kenzodielocke]

Disregard, don't want to derail this thread.

 

[Nightwing123]

I respect Jim's opinion but I believe that a professional reviewer should actually finish a game before making an actually review. Same thing for movies I don't care if you hate it or love it but I want a review that actually captures the whole product.

Also Total Biscuit has always been a pro gamer gate jerk so I'm not shocked to see this behavior from him.

 

[Hasney]

I don't see how you see an issue with I was saying. If he's the only one encountering the problem, that means it is more probable than not that something may be wrong with his system instead of the game, yes?

Not that I am saying that the game is flawless, mind you.

If it was crashing, I would say yes. But game scripting shouldn't be affected by machine configuration.,

 

[matrix-cat]

Some of you need to get your priorities in order. Gamebreaking bugs are apparently trivial, but when the big bad video game reviewer is going to make the Metacritic average slightly lower? Yeah, that's the real problem.

Why can't he just replay the game again? Is it that big of a deal to play a game twice?

"In conclusion, you might have to play Hellblade twice because it breaks the first time through. 10/10"

 

[whyman]

To me bigger issue is this TB opinion

Spoiler

For a person who said multiple times that he will do his work as he wants to come and call out other people who did their work how they wanted is just sad.

Has he stopped them from doing the game they wanted to? He is just having a opinion, it's a big difference.

 

[SZips]

It is how it should work. A single bug doesnt make everything else worthless. If you think otherwise you are wrong, sorry. Like I said, it is okay to give the game a lower score. But ignoring everything you like about the game because of this bug is to harsh.

It's not Jim's job to give a damn about what is or is not "too harsh." It's not about how it "should" work in your mind. The game is unplayable for him. He cannot finish the game due to a bug that is beyond his control. It is well within his right as a person and as a reviewer to dish out that 1 to games that are flat out broken as this one was for him. Would you have preferred that the game broke within the first five minutes and he gave it a 1? Because really, it's just the same thing isn't it? You get to a point and the game becomes unplayable. It becomes broken. Be it 8 minutes or 8 hours, shit's still broken when you come right down to it.

So no, it doesn't matter how beautiful the game is. It doesn't matter how flawless the mechanics are. If you are unable to continue playing because of a bug, the game is broken. I'm not going to continue repeating this.

Well, you could back-up your saves if that is the only thing holding you back. Still wouldn't be an ideal solution for you, but perhaps it makes it that bit more bearable to try it out. But from what I gather the permadeath doesn't really seems an issue with the amount of times you can die.

Assuming I decide to play it. I'll just roll with it. If it is as lenient as has been said than it's at least worth investigating first hand. Either way, I'm at least going to wait for a patch (or potentially two) to address any issues so that I have less to worry about in terms of bugs making the game unplayable.

 

[NewDust]

I don't see how you see an issue with I was saying. If he's the only one encountering the problem, that means it is more probable than not that something may be wrong with his system instead of the game, yes?

Not that I am saying that the game is flawless, mind you.

It's more likely him being the only reviewer dying there at that spot, running past a torch on respawn and dying beyond a new savepoint, than anything system related.

 

[Loudninja]

Sounds pretty good.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Why can't he just replay the game again? Is it that big of a deal to play a game twice?

Why should he give the game another chance when it already stopped him from progressing and beating it once.

And when a persons job is to review games, replaying a game twice...is a big deal?

 

[ironmang]

I agree, and a reviewer should bring that up.

My point is, far too much credence is given to raw numerical scores (without taking the body of the review into account) and metacritic.

I reviewer shouldn't have to think 'If I give this a 5, it will affect metacritic and someone might not be able to eat', how on earth can someone remain objective with that kind of dagger over their head?

Reviewers have a responsibility to their readers first. Giving it a 1/10 is a great way to bring attention to the bug and make it not be something that can just be ignored.

Why can't he just replay the game again? Is it that big of a deal to play a game twice?

Why can't the game be delayed until the bug is fixed?

 

[Hanmik]

Why can't he just replay the game again? Is it that big of a deal to play a game twice?

https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/894833934810402816

 

[danowat]

Reviewers have a responsibility to their readers first. Giving it a 1/10 is a great way to bring attention to the bug and make it not be something that can just be ignored.



Why can't the game be withheld until the bug is fixed?

We are agreeing...........

 

[Katana_Strikes]

Hmmm will wait on impressions. Reviews sound a little what I was expecting going of fthe trailers so they're a little as feared. It's perhaps a little too pricey to take a punt on, especially as its digital only.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/894833934810402816

Yeah, I can't even believe this has been a point of discussion in this thread.

 

[Sayad]

The problem is not with Jim's review, it's tied with Metacritic and how relying on the average score of a media aggregator for such a niche game makes no sense.

I'm glad it ended up like this, because such a thing probably could have been avoided with early review copies.

 

[shmoglish]

I can tell you that if I lost my only save-file with no way to retrieve it due to a bug that is out of my hands, I would be pissed, no matter how good the game was until then. In fact, the more I liked the game until that point, the more frustrated I would be.

.

Thats what I did when I lost my savegame. But I didnt think "hell, game was shit anyway". It was good or great for most of the time. I dont want to defend de game or the devs, Hellblade has it flaws, no question. I just say that a downgrade von 8 to 1 is to much. Way to much.

 

[ScaryShark]

He's a critic of games. I don't see an issue with him having an opinion on games.

He made a proclamation about a mechanic of a game, which he learned about second hand, and has never played. Video game criticism is such a low bar to climb over and yet TB still managed to squeak underneath it. When you have the audience the size that he does, that's just a super unprofessional way to go about things. I'm sure it will win him some love on reddit. That's most important of course.

I really wish Roger Ebert would have given me some quick hitters on twitter about how he perceived a film without seeing it instead of you know, actually doing his journalistic duty. Ebert died before he could partake in this forward thinking, 'pro consumer' way of critiquing entertainment. Bummer.

 

[ironmang]

We are agreeing...........

Didn't sound like we totally were lol. I think reviewers shouldn't and don't let the wellbeing of the game creators cloud their score. And having scores matter can be a good thing since they're less likely to be able to ignore a 1/10.

 

[Necro900]

Stop. Books aren't video game software. They aren't comparable and you aren't going to make them so. Reviews are subjective experiences and if you experience a bug that makes your game literally unplayable, you can reviews how you want.

You get one save. You can not revert this save. The auto save function literally put his game in an unplayable loop. He would have to start over and hope it didn't happen again. Eight more hours of doing it all over again. For some people, that isn't going to be something they are up for. Nor should it be. So he scored it how he experienced it. Unless Ninja Theory literally reverts his save? He has to start over.

For some, you get one chance to make your impression. This is a blessing and a curse. Also, it is on Metacritic to adjust their stupid policy on not updating reviews, not the reviewer's.

I guess that's what these youtube/patreon/whathaveyou-reviewers write about, at least.

Professional journalists need to strike a balance between own tastes/experience and the objective qualities of a given product. So let's not subvert the job of an actual reviewer just because of this rampant "he tells it like it is" trend is the defining trait of critique in the era of social media.

This aside, I do believe the developers put themselves in a tight spot with the permadeath system, which also allowed the bug to be gamebreaking.

The reason why Metacritic does not allow updating is the site is an aggregator of professional scores (or at least that's what they want it to be) and those generally don't change.
This way of treating reviews and scores is probably heritage of printed media and not flexible enough for software nowadays but I don't think they're going to change it anytime soon.

 

[Kintaro]

Thats what I did when I lost my savegame. But I didnt think "hell, game was shit anyway". It was good or great for most of the time. I dont want to defend de game or the devs, Hellblade has it flaws, no question. I just say that a downgrade von 8 to 1 is to much. Way to much.

And what would you put it at?

 

[Blablurn]

Glad to see so many good reviews. I hope that the idea of a Triple A Indie title works in the end.

 

[danowat]

Didn't sound like we totally were lol. I think reviewers shouldn't and don't let the wellbeing of the game creators cloud their score. And having scores matter can be a good thing since they're less likely to be able to ignore a 1/10.

I reviewer shouldn't have to think 'If I give this a 5, it will affect metacritic and someone might not be able to eat', how on earth can someone remain objective with that kind of dagger over their head?

Is what I said, it's basically the same thing.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

Necro900's book analogy is horrible in this context. It'd be akin to scoring a game a 1/10 because you received a scratched disc. THAT would be unfair.

 

[Shiggy]

I'm not a fan of Sterling's videos and don't follow them, but if there's a game-breaking bug making finishing the game more or less impossible, then that's a big issue - even if it's rare to encounter that bug. Giving 6/10 despite not being able to finish the game without replaying from the start (and then not knowing for sure if the bug won't happen again) is not really an option.

Why can't he just replay the game again? Is it that big of a deal to play a game twice?

Not sure if serious.

 

[Soul of the Beast]

Does the game suffer from the same eye-rolling writing and over-dramatic acting that Ninja Theory always have in their games?

Oh you have no idea, now it also features non-stop voices in your head.

 

[SomedayTheFire]

The book analogy is horrible in this context. It'd be akin to scoring a game a 1/10 because you received a scratched disc. THAT would be unfair.

Yep. It was directed to me. It's not worth responding to.

 

[CortexVortex]

Why can't the game be delayed until the bug is fixed?

Because of a bug that one single user encountered? It's not like it has a solid 3/3 repro.
Jim just wanted to get some attention with that silly review/ verdict.

 

[ironmang]

Is what I said, it's basically the same thing.

It's not though lol. I don't think it's even something that enters their mind. Not even in the back of their mind.

 

[ZeroX03]

Would you have preferred that the game broke within the first five minutes and he gave it a 1? Because really, it's just the same thing isn't it? You get to a point and the game becomes unplayable. It becomes broken. Be it 8 minutes or 8 hours, shit's still broken when you come right down to it.

I mean in my mind you still get 80% of a great game?

 

[Kain-Nosgoth]

how long is the game?

 

[Theblackrain]

Jim may increase his review later on but it has effected metacritic badly which is not fair especially for a mood budget games like these

He never revisits reviews

 

[Karak]

Mine for ACG rated it a Buy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAvgHU2lu80
Just a damn unique title. One crash, no gamebreak

 

[Hanmik]

how long is the game?

seems like reviewers finished the game in 7-11 hours..

 

[DarknessTear]

I wonder if Jim is aiming to be the Armond White of games journalism.

Spoiler

Hyperbole.

I'm still torn on if I want this game after these reviews.

 

[TSM]

I'm trying to figure out why people think a reviewer should care about metacritic. Even if they cared about metacritic, that makes even a better case for giving a 1 to give the experience he had given that his review would be averaged into the aggregate score. A game breaking bug of that magnitude should clearly be made aware to the buying public.

 

[Salty Rice]

https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/894833934810402816

Isnt the game supposed to be 6 hours long?

Also if it really buged out at the end for him it makes him not able to review the game even dumber.

Just look up the last 10 min if thats the case and ignore it from the review and go 2 points down or something.

 

[Hasney]

I wonder if Jim is aiming to be the Armond White of games journalism.

No, Armond White just purposefully disagrees with people. Actually reading the review, Jim enjoyed the game in line with other people until it literally broke.

 

[Soul of the Beast]

Funny how gamers keep taking game critics seriously.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

According to Total Biscuit's Twitter, the game delete your save file if you die too much, is that true ?

What??

Nah man, I'm out

 

[shmoglish]

And what would you put it at?

Cant tell you that in a score. I would be pissed about it and rate it down, but I would not forget how much I enjoyed the game so far. And thats my point.

 

[pagrab]

This is why I believe Karak's system of scoring (buy, rent/wait for sale, don't buy) to be optimal. He can appreciate a game and then say something like: and then I encountered this one game breaking bug, so wait until it is patched.

 

[DarknessTear]

No, Armond White just purposefully disagrees with people. Actually reading the review, Jim enjoyed the game in line with other people until it literally broke.

I've seen other reviews where a game broke and they couldn't finish the game because of it. they didn't give it a score that low.

 

[Tapejara]

I mean in my mind you still get 80% of a great game?

Hellblade is also a very narrative focused game, and I think it's fair to say that being unable to see the narrative - one of the game's biggest selling points - to end due to a game breaking bug should weigh more heavily on the score.

 

[kiguel182]

This game hasn’t entered my radar all of a sudden.

Jim’s review score is a little ridiculous, game breaking bugs are unfortunate but trashing their meta critic score forever because of it is too much.

 

[Kintaro]

I guess that's what these youtube/patreon/whathaveyou-reviewers write about, at least.

Professional journalists need to strike a balance between own tastes/experience and the objective qualities of a given product. So let's not subvert the job of an actual reviewer just because of this rampant "he tells it like it is" trend is the defining trait of critique in the era of social media.

This aside, I do believe the developers put themselves in a tight spot with the permadeath system, which also allowed the bug to be gamebreaking.

The reason why Metacritic does not allow updating is because it's an aggregator of professional scores, or at least that's what they believe they do, and those generally don't change.

A critic and a journalist are two separate things. Always has been, always will be. At time they can go hand in hand. Many times, they don't. You do not have to be a journalist to be a critic. So let's just set that aside.

Now if you looked at Jim's timelime, he States that's the torch he needed to pass an area, DID NOT SPAWN. The game autosaves past that point and he dies every time in an infinite loop because the game didn't spawn something he needed. It isn't even related to the permadeath thing. His save is there, it just kills him.

Metacritic should adapt to game reviews as games can change over time which can allow reviews to do so as well.

 

[Hanmik]

Isnt the game supposed to be 6 hours long?

Also if it really buged out at the end for him it makes him not able to review the game even dumber.

Just look up the last 10 min if thats the case and ignore it from the review and go 2 points or something.

his save got deleted after 8 hours.. so he would have to replay those 8 hours (which he might do faster, now that he has played them once..) but he should not have to do it.. and he does not have the time.

the review embargo is today.. the game is out today... there are NO ending videos out there.. wtf?..

 

[KiNolin]

The bug has literally made it so that he cannot finish the game.

I don't know what you would consider "unplayable" but that's about as damn close as you can get to a textbook example.

Except that he was literally able to play the game for hours. It is "only" unfinishable (at least that one playthrough of it).

 

[Necro900]

Necro900's book analogy is horrible in this context. It'd be akin to scoring a game a 1/10 because you received a scratched disc. THAT would be unfair.

Would you prefer a pristine dvd disc with playback issues? Or anything else that is obviously not intended to happen, but happens and hinders user experience?

At least bugs can be fixed. And fast, too. If anything, my analogy is too harsh since a book can't be fixed, and the reviewer would need to be sent a new one.