Jim Sterling Battlefield 3 multiplayer epic troll journalism

#1 Posted by Moreau_MD (401 posts) -

Yep, it's time for another 'I Hate Jim Sterling' forum topic on Giantbomb. But seriously, this time the nazi hambeast has gone too far, if he were in any other line of work he would've been fired for this incident no question but ya know...videogames. So what do you duders/ dudettes think of this sorry situation? Should he be sacked or has he actually finally succeeded in making 'being an unprofessional cake filled cunt' into an art form?

#2 Posted by Mr_Skeleton (5154 posts) -

Just ignore him.

#3 Posted by Marcsman (3294 posts) -

Cake filled cunt actually sounds pretty tasty. What kind of cake goes in the cunt?

#4 Posted by CL60 (16906 posts) -

You should probably explain what he did.

For anybody unaware, he gave BF3 a review of 7.5, and then it was found that he only played for a total of something like 6 hours, and only an hour and a half of that was multiplayer.

#5 Posted by Gargantuan (1887 posts) -

What did he do?

#6 Posted by Barrock (3553 posts) -

@CL60 said:

You should probably explain what he did.

For anybody unaware, he gave BF3 a review of 7.5, and then it was found that he only played for a total of something like 6 hours, and only an hour and a half of that was multiplayer.

Now we know to never trust Jim Sterling.

#7 Posted by BrockNRolla (1694 posts) -

Is there any particular reason playing the game for 6 hours wasn't enough to pass a relevant judgement?

#8 Posted by TheBlindChessman (241 posts) -

Has he confirmed that he played it for such a short amount of time?

#9 Posted by TekZero (2691 posts) -

7.5/10 is still a decent score. What's the big deal?

#10 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@BrockNRolla said:

Is there any particular reason playing the game for 6 hours wasn't enough to pass a relevant judgement?

Relevant judgement isn't a review.

@TekZero said:

7.5/10 is still a decent score. What's the big deal?

That he played a heavily multi-player focused game for less than two hours?

#11 Posted by wolf_blitzer85 (5293 posts) -
@Marcsman said:
Cake filled cunt actually sounds pretty tasty. What kind of cake goes in the cunt?
Red Velvet obviously.
#12 Posted by BrockNRolla (1694 posts) -

@Sooty said:

@BrockNRolla said:

Is there any particular reason playing the game for 6 hours wasn't enough to pass a relevant judgement?

Relevant judgement isn't a review.

What exactly constitutes a review then?

#13 Posted by Rayeth (1071 posts) -

Jim Sterling hates popular game. News at 11.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

#14 Posted by CL60 (16906 posts) -

@TheBlindChessman said:

Has he confirmed that he played it for such a short amount of time?

His battlelog says his total time played.

#15 Posted by Marcsman (3294 posts) -

Of course red velvet. I'll bet it's delicious.

#16 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@BrockNRolla said:

@Sooty said:

@BrockNRolla said:

Is there any particular reason playing the game for 6 hours wasn't enough to pass a relevant judgement?

Relevant judgement isn't a review.

What exactly constitutes a review then?

Something in-depth, relevant judgement can be as little as "Yeah I played it for an hour, it's pretty good so far"

1 hour and 45 minutes isn't enough time to review a multi-player focused game like Battlefield. I doubt he even had any of the vehicle unlocks.

Edit: For the record I'm not actually bothered, I really don't take video game reviews seriously anymore. It's still pretty bad form from someone that is being paid to do this, though.

#17 Posted by BrockNRolla (1694 posts) -

But seriously folks, ballpark, how long should he have played it before writing a review? I'm curious to know people's thoughts.

#18 Posted by Underachiever007 (2468 posts) -

That title. WHAT DOES IT MEAN.

#19 Posted by MetalMoog (908 posts) -

@Marcsman said:

Cake filled cunt actually sounds pretty tasty. What kind of cake goes in the cunt?

Lol. That was a fantastic reply. Thank you for bringing a huge shit eating grin to my face today.

#20 Posted by adoggz (2070 posts) -

people still care what jim sterling says?

#21 Posted by Moreau_MD (401 posts) -

@CL60 said:

@TheBlindChessman said:

Has he confirmed that he played it for such a short amount of time?

His battlelog says his total time played.

thanks for the clarification. Too bored to go into it all at the mo. Was hoping most people had a basic idea of what I was talking about anyway :P

#22 Posted by ImmortalSaiyan (4702 posts) -

@Marcsman said:

Cake filled cunt actually sounds pretty tasty. What kind of cake goes in the cunt?

Gross.

#23 Posted by ProfessorEss (7523 posts) -

Another Jim Sterling review that will garner mad hits for Destructoid. 
Followed by another rebuttal to the outrage article that doubles or triples those hits. 
 
Jim wins again.

#24 Posted by BrockNRolla (1694 posts) -

@Sooty said:

@BrockNRolla said:

@Sooty said:

@BrockNRolla said:

Is there any particular reason playing the game for 6 hours wasn't enough to pass a relevant judgement?

Relevant judgement isn't a review.

What exactly constitutes a review then?

Something in-depth, relevant judgement can be as little as "Yeah I played it for an hour, it's pretty good so far"

1 hour and 45 minutes isn't enough time to review a multi-player focused game like Battlefield. I doubt he even had any of the vehicle unlocks.

Edit: For the record I'm not actually bothered, I really don't take video game reviews seriously anymore. It's still pretty bad form from someone that is being paid to write this drivel, though.

But he played long enough to to beat the single player, play through some co-op, and and play 1:45 of multiplayer? I'm not defending here. I haven't played the game so I have no idea whether or not his complaints are legitimate or not. I'm just curious to know what the metric is for "enough time to review."

#25 Posted by ABK_92 (176 posts) -

@Marcsman said:

Cake filled cunt actually sounds pretty tasty. What kind of cake goes in the cunt?

Ask Vinny.

#26 Posted by TheVeteran13 (1219 posts) -

Give him a raise

#27 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@BrockNRolla said:

@Sooty said:

@BrockNRolla said:

@Sooty said:

@BrockNRolla said:

Is there any particular reason playing the game for 6 hours wasn't enough to pass a relevant judgement?

Relevant judgement isn't a review.

What exactly constitutes a review then?

Something in-depth, relevant judgement can be as little as "Yeah I played it for an hour, it's pretty good so far"

1 hour and 45 minutes isn't enough time to review a multi-player focused game like Battlefield. I doubt he even had any of the vehicle unlocks.

Edit: For the record I'm not actually bothered, I really don't take video game reviews seriously anymore. It's still pretty bad form from someone that is being paid to write this drivel, though.

But he played long enough to to beat the single player, play through some co-op, and and play 1:45 of multiplayer? I'm not defending here. I haven't played the game so I have no idea whether or not his complaints are legitimate or not. I'm just curious to know what the metric is for "enough time to review."

10 hours would be a decent figure, at least by then you'd have some of the lower-middle tier unlocks and have at least played a few games across every map.

Games of Battlefield last around 20-30 minutes minimum (Rush games can be shorter, but not always) I find it very hard to believe he even played all the maps, or finished more than a few games in that amount of time. He certainly wouldn't have unlocked much.

#28 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

Mind telling the class what he's done?

#29 Edited by theveej (854 posts) -

@BrockNRolla said:

@Sooty said:

@BrockNRolla said:

@Sooty said:

@BrockNRolla said:

Is there any particular reason playing the game for 6 hours wasn't enough to pass a relevant judgement?

Relevant judgement isn't a review.

What exactly constitutes a review then?

Something in-depth, relevant judgement can be as little as "Yeah I played it for an hour, it's pretty good so far"

1 hour and 45 minutes isn't enough time to review a multi-player focused game like Battlefield. I doubt he even had any of the vehicle unlocks.

Edit: For the record I'm not actually bothered, I really don't take video game reviews seriously anymore. It's still pretty bad form from someone that is being paid to write this drivel, though.

But he played long enough to to beat the single player, play through some co-op, and and play 1:45 of multiplayer? I'm not defending here. I haven't played the game so I have no idea whether or not his complaints are legitimate or not. I'm just curious to know what the metric is for "enough time to review."

I dunno if 6 hours is for only one version of the game or not. But if it is his total time then it is very low. I would say he would need to play at least a couple of matches on each platform to see the differences etc. So atleast 3-4 hours of MP across 3 platform I would say, and thats excluding all the other modes. Specially for a game like BF3 where there is much confusion and ambiguity about the different version I think this will be required to have a good review.

Also jeff and ryan played an hour of game on QL and barely touched all the modes... so it does seem low to me.

#30 Posted by Akeldama (4257 posts) -

Why the fuck should we care what one troll on the internet has to say? Even if that internet troll has a large stage?

#31 Posted by TheSpartanDon (158 posts) -

Why are you getting worked up over one persons opinion?

Oh wait, this is the Internet.

#32 Posted by Vorbis (2750 posts) -

His review says multiplayer is fun but singleplayer is bad. I don't see the issue because that's my exact experience with it aswell.

#33 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@Vorbis said:

His review says multiplayer is fun but singleplayer is bad. I don't see the issue because that's my exact experience with it aswell.

That's not the issue the OP is talking about.

I actually feel bad calling it an issue above there, because it isn't one.

#34 Posted by TehBuLL (615 posts) -

@BrockNRolla said:

But seriously folks, ballpark, how long should he have played it before writing a review? I'm curious to know people's thoughts.

No idea. I think it is completely reasonable to be able to decide in a couple hours how you feel about a section of a game. Just because he didn't play every map, use every gun and play every single type doesn't me his opinion is void.

#35 Posted by Khormouz (21 posts) -

I don't get it? So just 'cause he didn't play more than 1,5 hours of multiplayer, leading me to think that he didn't like it (THE HORROR!), his review is irrelevant? I don't even have to play that game to know that the multiplayer in that game doesn't interest me. I really don't see why people get their panties in such a bunch over bullshit like this. He didn't like it, you did. Move the fuck on.

#36 Posted by SoldierG654342 (1821 posts) -

He docked points for the singleplayer. Playing more multi-player doesn't suddenly make the single-player better. EA felt the need to include it, therefore it must be judged.

#37 Posted by TheBlindChessman (241 posts) -

@Marcsman said:

Cake filled cunt actually sounds pretty tasty. What kind of cake goes in the cunt?
#38 Posted by BrockNRolla (1694 posts) -

@Sooty said:

@BrockNRolla said:

But he played long enough to to beat the single player, play through some co-op, and and play 1:45 of multiplayer? I'm not defending here. I haven't played the game so I have no idea whether or not his complaints are legitimate or not. I'm just curious to know what the metric is for "enough time to review."

10 hours would be a decent figure, at least by then you'd have some of the lower-middle tier unlocks and have at least played a few games across every map.

Games of Battlefield last around 20-30 minutes minimum (Rush games can be shorter, but not always) I find it very hard to believe he even played all the maps, or finished more than a few games in that amount of time. He certainly wouldn't have unlocked much.

Well, I guess I can't muster up the vigor to judge him. Maybe this is an entirely legitimate complaint, but requiring someone to play a multiplayer mode for 10 hours before writing a review on it seems like a long time. If he didn't like the multiplayer, why should he have to continue playing for another 8 hours? Maybe he might turn a corner on it and start enjoying it? I suppose it's possible.

This time critique makes me think of the Final Fantasy XIII defense force though. People saying you had to play the game about 20 hours before it really started to get good. If you don't enjoy it after 10 hours, or 5 hours, or 2 hours, don't you have enough information to decide you don't like it? Maybe not. I'm not taking a side here as I don't have any opinion about Battlefield, but I'm just throwing it out there that maybe the number of hours multiplayer he played isn't the defining factor of the worth of his review.

#39 Posted by BrockNRolla (1694 posts) -

@theveej said:

@BrockNRolla said:

@Sooty said:

Something in-depth, relevant judgement can be as little as "Yeah I played it for an hour, it's pretty good so far"

1 hour and 45 minutes isn't enough time to review a multi-player focused game like Battlefield. I doubt he even had any of the vehicle unlocks.

Edit: For the record I'm not actually bothered, I really don't take video game reviews seriously anymore. It's still pretty bad form from someone that is being paid to write this drivel, though.

But he played long enough to to beat the single player, play through some co-op, and and play 1:45 of multiplayer? I'm not defending here. I haven't played the game so I have no idea whether or not his complaints are legitimate or not. I'm just curious to know what the metric is for "enough time to review."

I dunno if 6 hours is for only one version of the game or not. But if it is his total time then it is very low. I would say he would need to play at least a couple of matches on each platform to see the differences etc. So atleast 3-4 hours of MP across 3 platform I would say, and thats excluding all the other modes. Specially for a game like BF3 where there is much confusion and ambiguity about the different version I think this will be required to have a good review.

Also jeff and ryan played an hour of game on QL and barely touched all the modes... so it does seem low to me.

That sounds legitimate. If he is professing to speak for the game on all platforms, then maybe he should have tried them all out for a bit. Tough to know what extent a reviewer should have to go though to have done their due diligence for a review though with the cross platform question.

#40 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@BrockNRolla said:

@Sooty said:

@BrockNRolla said:

But he played long enough to to beat the single player, play through some co-op, and and play 1:45 of multiplayer? I'm not defending here. I haven't played the game so I have no idea whether or not his complaints are legitimate or not. I'm just curious to know what the metric is for "enough time to review."

10 hours would be a decent figure, at least by then you'd have some of the lower-middle tier unlocks and have at least played a few games across every map.

Games of Battlefield last around 20-30 minutes minimum (Rush games can be shorter, but not always) I find it very hard to believe he even played all the maps, or finished more than a few games in that amount of time. He certainly wouldn't have unlocked much.

why should he have to continue playing for another 8 hours?

2 hours isn't enough time to complete a game on every map, it's certainly not for Conquest mode.

I was going to edit my post to say 5-10 hours, but this site is unbearably slow lately so I didn't bother. Still, 1 hour and 40 minutes for a Battlefield game is a joke.

#41 Posted by Branthog (5597 posts) -

A 7.5 seems pretty good.

#42 Posted by BrockNRolla (1694 posts) -

@Sooty said:

@BrockNRolla said:

why should he have to continue playing for another 8 hours?

2 hours isn't enough time to complete a game on every map, it's certainly not for Conquest mode.

I was going to edit my post to say 5-10 hours, but this site is unbearable slow lately so I didn't bother. Still, 1 hour and 40 minutes for a Battlefield game is a joke.

If the game requires more time to fully understand it, then maybe it isn't enough time. If it's the same sort of stuff with different spawn points and varying map sizes, maybe it is enough? Haven't ever played Battlefield multiplayer, but I find the notion of "Must have played a game for ____ long to write a review" interesting. (Not saying you are professing that opinion, but others certainly are.)

#43 Posted by Jayzilla (2571 posts) -

how dare that guy have an opinion.

#44 Edited by jakob187 (21762 posts) -

@BrockNRolla said:

Is there any particular reason playing the game for 6 hours wasn't enough to pass a relevant judgement?

This. The campaign so far (even though I'm only three missions in) is nothing particularly special. As a matter of fact, playing it on the "normal" setting is like playing against a team of bots that hit every step of the idiot ladder on their way down. I can stand in front of enemies, DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THEM, and they will completely ignore my existence around them unless I hit a specific scripted area. If anything, I think the scripting in the campaign for BF3 is worse than the scripting in Medal of Honor!

As for the multiplayer, it's good, but there are definitely issues. The more urban maps like Grand Bahzar and Seine Crossing suffer because of a general lack of destruction allowing you to create alternate routes to reach objectives. On Grand Bahzar in particular, there is a Rush point that is literally in a room no bigger than 8x8, 10x10 maybe. You can fit your whole squad in there with two assaults and two supports and hold that point forever because there are only two entrances that can be camped from the inside to the point that those trying to attack the point will NEVER get in once your team is buried in that spot. If you were capable of blowing out the walls of that room, things would be different...but you can't. I've tried on multiple occasions now. It's quite unclear without playing a good amount of the multiplayer what surfaces are able to be destroyed and what can't be. There are chain link fences that can be destroyed with a knife hit, while there are others that can't be destroyed with a C4 blast. It makes little sense.

The US are also at an incredibly distinct disadvantage on Noshahr Canals, as they start on an aircraft carrier that can easily be camped by the enemy team, leading to many matches where people won't progress past the first two attack points on Rush and very few honest assault possibilities for capturing on Conquest mode if...yet again...the team is already dug in on those points. Metro is another map that suffers from this DRASTICALLY! The US are at an extreme disadvantage, as the ways to get into the Ticket Hall are INCREDIBLY easy for the Russian troops to camp on and ensure that no one gets through to cap the bases. The only chance the US team has is to completely bypass their starting base and go straight to the Ticket Hall, then hope the Russians don't get the base capped before them. Even then, it's much easier for the Russians to overtake it due to how close they start to the point in comparison to the US troops.

Overall, I can say that it's shitty that Sterling is dropping a review after six hours of gameplay where only 25% of that time was dedicated to multiplayer. At the same time, I honestly can't say that I totally disagree with his scoring. The campaign has been weak so far, and unless the AI becomes drastically improved, I couldn't recommend that portion to any single person on the planet for more than achievement whoring. As for the multiplayer, newbies are going to have an incredibly tough time breaking into it, and many of the maps have poor design choices that could've easily been avoided if DICE had been given more time to properly spend on the game's development.

Also, I would like to point out that my 11 hours or so with the multiplayer is virtually the same experience I was having after about an hour and a half of the multiplayer. In turn, I will defend Jim in giving the multiplayer judgment of it.

#45 Edited by hinderk (690 posts) -

Jim's response to this

All told, I think I did about fourteen online matches, crashed a helicopter in co-op about eight times, and beat the campaign. I did enough.
#46 Posted by Khormouz (21 posts) -

@Sooty said:

@BrockNRolla said:

@Sooty said:

@BrockNRolla said:

But he played long enough to to beat the single player, play through some co-op, and and play 1:45 of multiplayer? I'm not defending here. I haven't played the game so I have no idea whether or not his complaints are legitimate or not. I'm just curious to know what the metric is for "enough time to review."

10 hours would be a decent figure, at least by then you'd have some of the lower-middle tier unlocks and have at least played a few games across every map.

Games of Battlefield last around 20-30 minutes minimum (Rush games can be shorter, but not always) I find it very hard to believe he even played all the maps, or finished more than a few games in that amount of time. He certainly wouldn't have unlocked much.

why should he have to continue playing for another 8 hours?

2 hours isn't enough time to complete a game on every map, it's certainly not for Conquest mode.

I was going to edit my post to say 5-10 hours, but this site is unbearably slow lately so I didn't bother. Still, 1 hour and 40 minutes for a Battlefield game is a joke.

I fail to see what completing a game on every map would add to one's opinion of a game. I really don't think any of the maps would change one's opinion of the multiplayer. It's still the same damned thing on every map isn't it?

#47 Posted by gunslingerNZ (1928 posts) -

@BrockNRolla said:

Is there any particular reason playing the game for 6 hours wasn't enough to pass a relevant judgement?

It's more the multiplayer time that's an issue, an hour and a half is barely enough time to play 4 matches let alone experience any real progression.

#48 Posted by onarum (2301 posts) -

Why must people keep paying attention to this guy? just effin ignore him, done.

#49 Posted by JoeyRavn (4983 posts) -

Someone said something negative about Battlefield 3, the best game ever, the second-coming-of-Christ-in-game-form game? The nerve of some people.

#50 Posted by chrissedoff (2167 posts) -

jim sterlin is a garbage writer and an idiot, but i don't really think he's going to do any better of a job even if he spends a more appropriate amount of time playing a game for review. just one of many reasons to hate this guy, and destructoid, i guess.

Online

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.