What do you think about the last Jim Sterling video?

Isnt he a bit harsh here, http://www.thejimquisition.com/hellblade-senuas-sacrifice-review-for-the-damaged/

Sure the game seems a bit broken upon release, but it surly will see a patch. Maybe a score of 40% or something is more valid?

 

In general terms you can't score a game based on a patch until the patch actually exists and is deployed.

In specific terms I refuse to watch anything done by Jim, so I have no idea if you are right or wrong.

 

There are multiple early access games on Steam that have been completely abandoned.

 

Ok, but then we should give all games from Dice etc 1/10 because they are always broken upon release. 1/10 should be reserved for games we know can never be fixed, like real asset flips.

edit: Hellblade is not in EA btw

 

Some of us would love to do that too. Unfortunately those companies would rapidly lose early access to games.

 

It's been said before: force the Unity logo on Plus/Pro - remove it from Personal

 

It's been said before ALSO: the stigma is already there. Don't push good games into the dirt.

 

It's not too late to repair the image for the brand. They need to associate pro games with Unity also.

They could have a 'pro' unity splash version to show how this differs from the old personal splash screen.

 

Forcing paying customers into being billboards for their brand is not a good idea... We allready sport the logo btw

 

One especially bad thing in this case was how Metacritic works combined with the really low score. The Metacritic system only accepts the first score each reviewer gives a game. So with Jim Sterling giving that game a 1/10 score, Metacritic will maintain that 1/10 score no matter what. For example, Jim Sterling mentions he was considering a 7/10 or 8/10 score until he ran into a game breaking bug. If the developer fixes that bug and Jim Sterling changes his score to a 7/10, then the Metacritic score will still be 1/10 for Jim Sterling.

It would have been nice for Jim Sterling to give the developer a heads up and a few days to patch the bug before deciding on a score, but ultimately it was Jim Sterling's choice to handle the scoring for that game the way he did. He mentions that he has reached out to Metacritic and they did change the status of his review, but who knows if Metacritic will make an exception and let him actually change his score.

 

But that would require believing Jim Sterling really gives two S***s about you. People think he's the protector and champion. He is just person like anyone else and isn't really that bothered.

If he was that militant as people believe, then I would recommend he change profession to reduce stress.

 

He do have a point in his follow up video "Release it now, fix it later"

More so since these TripleA games never are early access.

That said giving it a 1 might be a bit harsh, sure it was a big game breaking bug, since it ruined his only save. So maybe 4/10?

 

He absolutely does have a valid point regarding the "release it now, fix it later" concept. But he also has some responsibility, given his high profile, to reach out to developers instead of only attacking them. Does he want to help get a major bug patched quickly, or does he want to cause lasting damage to the perception of a game?

 

How many of those have gamebreaking bugs? And how many of those have a deliberate design which, combined with the gamebreaking bug, causes you to lose ALL of your progress in the game?

Jim retracted his score to my knowledge, but in my opinion he's entirely justified.

They not only retracted his review, but retracted the score (and his score's effect on the overall Metacritic score).

He has no such responsibility. This isn't an old boys club. It's his "job," if anything, to rate a game based on his experience with it. No more, no less. Now, critics being more harsh may cause them to lose out on some benefits. And they may change in response to that. But there's no moral impetus for them to scratch the back of devs, especially when those developers do things like release day (or one day before release) review embargoes.

 

By the way, if this is a 3rd party asset, this is breach of unity's rules regarding brand and logos.
https://unity3d.com/public-relations/brand

 

Hellblade looks awesome but I don't feel comfortable with the lives concept (its basically having some lives and that's your lot) or the concept of using mental illness as a narrative. Look, I get it. It's edgy, it's adult, it really is. But I'm an older adult who's life has been impacted by mental illness in the family and I don't really want more of it in the name of entertainment!

I'd have preferred an amazing celtic fantasy adventure.

 

From what I understand they're really trying to approach it respectfully. Apparently they consulted with doctors about it. It's not something they threw in there for no reason, and from what I understand it's certainly not meant to just be "entertaining."

"Hellblade: Senua’s Sacrifice appears to be a mainstream video game that approaches the subject of mental illness thoughtfully and sensitively – which may well be a first."

 

They are from the store so have passed their screening process