At this point, I don't know if this kind of comment is serious or not.I respect Jim's opinion but I believe that a professional reviewer should actually finish a game before making an actually review.
At this point, I don't know if this kind of comment is serious or not.I respect Jim's opinion but I believe that a professional reviewer should actually finish a game before making an actually review.
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?..
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.
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.
Has he stopped them from doing the game they wanted to? He is just having a opinion, it's a big difference.
There are already videos out since yesterday also like i said he can still review like the 95% of the game he played.
There are already videos out since yesterday also like i said he can still review like the 95% of the game he played even if he did not see the ending and go points down.
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.
Jims review score is a little ridiculous, game breaking bugs are unfortunate but trashing their meta critic score forever because of it is too much.
he can still review like the 95% of the game he played
Jim Sterling said:Jim RESISTerling‏ @JimSterling 1m1 minute ago
More
After hours of arguing and thought, I'm displeased with how I've handled the Hellblade thing. Stand by.
Except that he was literally able to play the game for hours. It is "only" unfinishable (at least that one playthrough of it).
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.
You are right, his book analogy wasn't that great. You can't patch books. But you can patch games and turn unplayable game into playable one without customer every having to leave their house or do anything at all, except wait for (usually) small patch file to download.No, your book analogy just straight up doesn't work. It's not a valid comparison. Even the alternative comparison I gave wasn't that great.
Interesting. Curious to see what conclusion he's come to.
![]()
Well at least Jim himself thinks his review wasnt maybe the best way handled.
The plot thickens.
So what will people say when even Jim realizes a 1/10 isn't reasonable?
The plot thickens.
So what will people say when even Jim realizes a 1/10 isn't reasonable?
I would die laughing.0/10
I will defend a reviewer giving a game any score they think it deserves. What's wrong with that?But people here will still defend it anyway lol.
The plot thickens.
So what will people say when even Jim realizes a 1/10 isn't reasonable?
0/10
My guess is he's probably going to withhold a score for now. Which is fine. Very few have said the way he handled this is the only correct way to do so.
So what will people say when even Jim realizes a 1/10 isn't reasonable?
0/10 inc
But people here will still defend it anyway lol.
0/10
You are right, his book analogy wasn't that great. You can't patch books. But you can patch games and turn unplayable game into playable one without customer every having to leave their house or do anything at all, except wait for (usually) small patch file to download.
This kind of stuff is why I prefer reviews that go through a standard editorial process. Beyond Jim, I find too many solo media outlets/reviewers just do what they want without the normal journalistic process I appreciate.
As they should. Reviewers should give the score they feel the game deserves or what's the point of reviewing the media in the first place.
0/10
But people here will still defend it anyway lol.
at the very least a log of save files. One save slot systems make no sense, it means you either make a perfect game or you risk this sort of shit.Most probably you are right.
A game designed with such a harsh penalty should be airtight--it seems like this is an oversight from Ninja Theory.
At least IGN had the decency to give Prey a 4/10 lol.
Yep. Those posts are terrifying.Yeah, I will. I am quite frankly disgusted by people claiming that reviewers should worry about developer MC bonuses. That's utterly absurd and is a literal downward slope that encourages publishers to implement even scummier contracts, with bigger ties to these things, to encourage reviewers being even "nicer" because "they don't want to make developers lose out on their paychecks".
They way we put each other down to empower and encourage exploitative practises is depressing.
At this point, I don't know if this kind of comment is serious or not.