@SoldierG654342 said:

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.

That reasoning is really fallacious. At the end of the day, a review should be an evaluation of the worth of a product compared to its cost to the consumer. The singleplayer being shipped in the box has no bearing on the value of the multiplayer, and if the multiplayer is a 10 out of 10, there's not a single reason to not give the game a 10 out of 10 just because they put other stuff on the disc too.

People could try to splutter and say a review score is supposed to be an average of the quality of the content regardless of it's nature as a product for purchase, but that's ridiculous. When was the last time you read a video game review that didn't take price into account? Reviews are, as Jeff Gerstmann says, purchasing advice. What if there was a shitty multiplayer stuffed onto the disc with BioShock 1? Same exact singleplayer. Should anybody have been told less emphatically that they should buy BioShock because of that?

yep, this blog http://sexyvideogameland.blogspot.com/2011/06/tale-of-two-jims.html I feel sums up the issue perfectly. Particularly the 'so hey Jim' section.

@Marcsman said:

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

the venereal kind

@Cretaceous_Bob said:

@SoldierG654342 said:

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.

That reasoning is really fallacious. At the end of the day, a review should be an evaluation of the worth of a product compared to its cost to the consumer. The singleplayer being shipped in the box has no bearing on the value of the multiplayer, and if the multiplayer is a 10 out of 10, there's not a single reason to not give the game a 10 out of 10 just because they put other stuff on the disc too.

People could try to splutter and say a review score is supposed to be an average of the quality of the content regardless of it's nature as a product for purchase, but that's ridiculous. When was the last time you read a video game review that didn't take price into account? Reviews are, as Jeff Gerstmann says, purchasing advice. What if there was a shitty multiplayer stuffed onto the disc with BioShock 1? Same exact singleplayer. Should anybody have been told less emphatically that they should buy BioShock because of that?

It's supposed to be going up against Call of Duty - and those games, say what you will, have usually very exciting setpiece single player along with great multiplayer. I realize that the fast paced, twitch shooter style that is COD multi is not for everyone but it is very good in comparison to the competition out there. Some people buy Call of Duty games just for the single player and never play online. It sounds crazy but it's true - so just basing a score on the multiplayer experience which a large majority of people purchase the game for would be cheating those few individuals out of an honest score.

Wanna know whats best about his review? its actually correct...go around the net to all these forums even giantbomb...all the stuff people playing BF3 are bitching about? is stuff Jim Sterling highlighted in his review...

Seems to me that he was correct in his assertions when almost every player is having the same problems he did to warrant the score.

@Moreau_MD said:

and for those who keep saying he made some decent points in the review (he really didn't)-

1. One of his main complaints was that, as a footsoldier, it took ages to run across the map and, in the end, you just got shot by a tank anyway- false. He probably didn't realise you could spawn on squadmates, vehicles etc. If your lugging it from one end of the map to another everytime you respawn in battlefield, your clearly doing something wrong. The admition of this key feature suggests he didn't spend nearly enough time with MP to pass judgement.

2. He complained that it was basically all over if you weren't lucky enough to nab yourself a vehicle early on- false. Again, he probably didn't notice the spawn feature(i.e. you can spawn inside vehicles) secondly, you could always just pick the engineer class- anybody who's played even a little with this class knows that tanks etc become easy pickings if the rpg is used correctly; the fact that his battlelog shows he spent less than 3 minutes with this class is telling. The admition of these two key features sugggests he didn't spend nearly enough time with MP to pass judgement.

there are others but I'm too bored to type anymore... oh and would his 'fans' please stop calling him MR Sterling...it sounds uber submisive and just a little creepy...

1.he highlights in the review the squad spawn system but guess what if your entire squad is dead you have to run to the objective.

2.He talked about spawning in vehicles.

I find it odd how its obvious to a major degree you read the first 2 lines of his review then passed judgement you didn't read the entire review because he touched upon squad spawning and spawning inside of vehicles.

@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.

long enough so that they get the score they want.

this is the same old shit time and time again, "so and so didn't give the game the review i wanted."

@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.

@WilliamRLBaker: 1. true. this does not however mean you have to spawn from the start point, which is what Sterling made it sound like, that would be stupid. The objective spawn point moves as the game progresses- he failed to highlight this

2. No, he talked about randomly spawning in vehicles- he didn't mention the fact that you could actually choose where you spawned

3. No offense, but your beard is asymmetrical and gross looking- I suggest you shave it off or at least groom it a little...

@CptBedlam said:

@Kazona said:

@jakob187 said:

@McGhee_the_Insomniac said:

If I take a bite of a sandwich and it's full of shit, do I need to eat the whole thing to tell you it's a shit sandwich?

Fantastic point. I wouldn't say the game is "shit", but the analogy is exactly on point.

Best point in this entire thread.

Ok, maybe he didn't play much of the multiplayer, but it was long enough for him to decide that he liked it. The multiplayer isn't the reason why he deducted points; the single player is. So someone please explain to me how playing more of the multiplayer would have made the overall game more enjoyable for him when, clearly, it's the single player that he faulted the game for.

Nope, bullshit comparison.

It's totally possible that your view on a game changes once you experience the depth of it - which often takes time. More than a handful of hours in many cases. Trying every class for 15 minutes and then closing the book on the mp doesn't mean you know nearly enough to judge the game. Most likely you didn't even get to know how to play the game properly in such a short amount of time.

I have absolutely zero problems with Sterlings score. Actually, I'm not even interested in the game. But if is alleged playtime is real, then that's just weak.

Still doesn't answer my question. The single player portion of the game was the main reason for the 7,5, not the multiplayer, because that's part of the game that he actually liked. Basically you could say that the multiplayer is what saved the game in his eyes. So I really don't see how the score could have increased by playing more of it.

Now if he'd said that he hated the multiplayer then I could understand the argument, but I simply don't understand why people focus so much on the multiplayer part of the review when it's the single player that cost it points.

@WilliamRLBaker said:

Wanna know whats best about his review? its actually correct...go around the net to all these forums even giantbomb...all the stuff people playing BF3 are bitching about? is stuff Jim Sterling highlighted in his review...

Seems to me that he was correct in his assertions when almost every player is having the same problems he did to warrant the score.

I agree. His opinion is largely the same as those of other reviewers. The only difference is that he had the balls to actually deduct points off the game's score for its weak single player campaign.

Like Jeff said on the Bombcast, it's like people opted to just ignore a huge chunk of the game, and scored it only based on its multiplayer, which is doing a huge disservice to your readers. Jim Sterling has reviewed the complete package, and rated it as such.

@Kazona: I don't understand why rating it based on its strongest mode is a problem, especially if it's as major a feature as multiplayer. As long as you mention in the review that you are basing your score on those features and at least mention the weaker qualities I see no issue.

It makes no sense if a product can be rated lower than it would have had been due to it having an optional extra piece of content included for the same price.

@Kazona said:

@CptBedlam said:

@Kazona said:

@jakob187 said:

@McGhee_the_Insomniac said:

If I take a bite of a sandwich and it's full of shit, do I need to eat the whole thing to tell you it's a shit sandwich?

Fantastic point. I wouldn't say the game is "shit", but the analogy is exactly on point.

Best point in this entire thread.

Ok, maybe he didn't play much of the multiplayer, but it was long enough for him to decide that he liked it. The multiplayer isn't the reason why he deducted points; the single player is. So someone please explain to me how playing more of the multiplayer would have made the overall game more enjoyable for him when, clearly, it's the single player that he faulted the game for.

Nope, bullshit comparison.

It's totally possible that your view on a game changes once you experience the depth of it - which often takes time. More than a handful of hours in many cases. Trying every class for 15 minutes and then closing the book on the mp doesn't mean you know nearly enough to judge the game. Most likely you didn't even get to know how to play the game properly in such a short amount of time.

I have absolutely zero problems with Sterlings score. Actually, I'm not even interested in the game. But if is alleged playtime is real, then that's just weak.

Still doesn't answer my question. The single player portion of the game was the main reason for the 7,5, not the multiplayer, because that's part of the game that he actually liked. Basically you could say that the multiplayer is what saved the game in his eyes. So I really don't see how the score could have increased by playing more of it.

Now if he'd said that he hated the multiplayer then I could understand the argument, but I simply don't understand why people focus so much on the multiplayer part of the review when it's the single player that cost it points.

I have no issue with the score whatsoever. I'm a SP guy myself and the game is not a "9" for me when the SP is mediocre.

I'm just saying that you can't give a comprehensive review of a mp focussed game with 1,5 hours mp playtime. The experience is going to change a lot as you get to know how to play with this kind of game - for better or worse. But you need to get to know them. You need to experience the depth that is there. Even if he got it right in the end - it's mostly by guessing and that's not the way it should be done. But it was already pointed out by several people that Sterling had quite a few misconceptions about the mp functionality. So yeah, the thing he did get right was calling the SP mediocre. But mp? nope.

He just thrives on a little bit of attention. It's how pathetic people live.

Ignore him and don't make threads about how much he sucks. I wouldn't be suprised if the op was actually jim sterling in disguise.

You guys act like game "journalists" actually stress credibility in the first place. Should shit like this REALLY come as a surprise to you?

@Kazona said:

@CptBedlam said:

@Kazona said:

@jakob187 said:

@McGhee_the_Insomniac said:

If I take a bite of a sandwich and it's full of shit, do I need to eat the whole thing to tell you it's a shit sandwich?

Fantastic point. I wouldn't say the game is "shit", but the analogy is exactly on point.

Best point in this entire thread.

Ok, maybe he didn't play much of the multiplayer, but it was long enough for him to decide that he liked it. The multiplayer isn't the reason why he deducted points; the single player is. So someone please explain to me how playing more of the multiplayer would have made the overall game more enjoyable for him when, clearly, it's the single player that he faulted the game for.

Nope, bullshit comparison.

It's totally possible that your view on a game changes once you experience the depth of it - which often takes time. More than a handful of hours in many cases. Trying every class for 15 minutes and then closing the book on the mp doesn't mean you know nearly enough to judge the game. Most likely you didn't even get to know how to play the game properly in such a short amount of time.

I have absolutely zero problems with Sterlings score. Actually, I'm not even interested in the game. But if is alleged playtime is real, then that's just weak.

Still doesn't answer my question. The single player portion of the game was the main reason for the 7,5, not the multiplayer, because that's part of the game that he actually liked. Basically you could say that the multiplayer is what saved the game in his eyes. So I really don't see how the score could have increased by playing more of it.

Now if he'd said that he hated the multiplayer then I could understand the argument, but I simply don't understand why people focus so much on the multiplayer part of the review when it's the single player that cost it points.

Wrong. He made several criticisms about the multiplayer which all stemmed from the fact that the didn't fucking play the multiplayer mode enough. I get what you're saying though, but the problem here is this: if the man is going to just pick bits to try out here and there and then try to write an informed review about it, that review is wholly flawed. In fact, it also means that the reviewer has little or no legitimacy or credibility when it comes to his review. Additionally I think the notion that the entire game needs to be taken into account for the review is a bit of a misleading notion: if reviewers were saying that the multiplayer is fantastic and worth the price of admission alone, the game deserves a high score. If they had said that the multiplayer is fantastic but doesn't carry enough weight to be worth $60, then yes take into account the single player when scoring. As it stands though, you're paying $60 for an incredible multiplayer game, with an optional piece of single player and co-op attached to it. The only other thing that bothers me is the criticisms that are getting leveled towards the single player. It's as good, if not better, than CoD's campaigns, yet there seems to be a double standard since CoD will get praised for it's campaign when it comes out but other games are called derivative of its formula. I'm not sure why that happens, but it's kinda sad.

@SlashDance said:

@Bones8677 said:

How do we know he only played a couple of hours on the multiplayer?

This. And if he had given it a better score, nobody would give a fuck.

It's called Battlelog...

@RsistncE: @GS_Dan:

Ok, so let me get this straight. It used to be that multiplayer was considered the optional component of a game, but now single player is? I understand that multiplayer has always been the focus of the Battlefield series, but when you provide both options for players you can't just point out only one of them being optional. Some will purchase Battlefield 3 for the multiplayer, and others will for its campaign. So if you cater the review towards the guy who wants it for the multiplayer, you're doing the one who wants it for single player a disservice, and vice versa.

We aren't talking about some extra bonus content here, but a fully fledged single player campaign. Outright ignoring that fact in your scoring of a game is the same as giving Avatar a 10 because it looks so pretty while completely forgetting about the mediocre story.'

You simply can not ignore a third of a product when reviewing it. That's as bad, if not worse, then playing only two hours of the multiplayer.

@Kazona said:

@RsistncE: @GS_Dan:

Ok, so let me get this straight. It used to be that multiplayer was considered the optional component of a game, but now single player is? I understand that multiplayer has always been the focus of the Battlefield series, but when you provide both options for players you can't just point out only one of them being optional. Some will purchase Battlefield 3 for the multiplayer, and others will for its campaign. So if you cater the review towards the guy who wants it for the multiplayer, you're doing the one who wants it for single player a disservice, and vice versa.

We aren't talking about some extra bonus content here, but a fully fledged single player campaign. Outright ignoring that fact in your scoring of a game is the same as giving Avatar a 10 because it looks so pretty while completely forgetting about the mediocre story.'

You simply can not ignore a third of a product when reviewing it. That's as bad, if not worse, then playing only two hours of the multiplayer.

You've completely ignored the main point. A game is a value proposition just like any other product. It seems that most reviewers out there have felt that the multiplayer alone was excellent enough to be offered on it's own for $60. At this point we can say it's should score very high, because of the fact that the main component of the game, the multiplayer, has already justified it's value proposition. Additionally, you can say whatever you want about what you think is the filler content, but the facts are that Battlefield games never even had real campaigns until the Bad Company games came out, and even then they still took a backseat to the real Battlefield, that is to say the multiplayer. Also if someone is dumb enough to purchase it for a campaign then tough luck; uninformed consumers don't deserve any sympathy as far as I'm concerned.

Also I laughed at the part where you claimed the campaign constituted a third of a product. Utilizing a little bit of fail logic while assigning weightings there I think. Also it's no where near as bad as only playing two hours of multiplayer. What fat tits over at Destructoid did was the equivalent of spending most of his time reviewing the leather interiors of a BMW while barely driving it.

You also failed to reply to the point I made about his review having no legitimacy due to the fact that he made complaints which exposed the fact that he didn't play the multiplayer nearly enough. He wrote an extremely flawed review, one that I'm sure he just wanted to put up so he could masturbate in rage in regards to his irrational hate towards Battlelog.

@Kazona: I see your point, but disagree. When a game could have shipped completely without a mode and hardly anyone would have batted an eyelid, then it becomes optional. Before BFBC2, none of the BF games had singleplayer on PC. It's a bonus, because the multiplayer alone fully validates the purchase. As long as the reviewer makes it plain that that is the case, I see no issue.

I'll admit that BF3 is an exceptional case, seeing as it really is so heavily slanted in focus towards multiplayer. I imagine that CoD is now the same way. This ideology wouldn't work on a game that has a more 50-50 split, when each part has a major role (Portal 2 might be a decent example of this).

Perhaps with such a split in focus for some games, it would be more suitable to review the two parts separately, rather than as a whole. There will be people put off by a game's poor score who have no interest in the parts that were criticised heavily, even if the part they looked forward to was perfect. I believe it was IGN who said that BF3 felt like two different games, maybe it should have been reviewed as such. </mental diarrhoea>

That IGN thing where they straight up lied about playing Pixel Junk on normal, and then when they were called out on it continued to state that they did, was worse. And at the very least Jim Sterling and the drama he stirs up is good entertainment value.

I hate people who moan about reviews, it just comes across as really immature. Besides giant bomb gave the game a 4/5, a similar score to jim's 7.5. If you don't like a review just read one that gave it a 9 or 10, or write your own.

@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.

Thanks, I was going to look it up but that would just give them clicks.

@RsistncE: So basically you believe that had they completely stripped out the single player, people would still consider it worth sixty dollars? I'm sorry, but if you really think that, you're delusional. And yes, I know Battlefield has always been multiplayer only until Bad Company, but people expect more nowadays, and if EA had put out BF3 for $60 with only multiplayer as its offering everyone but the BF fans would have flipped their proverbial lids.

And I never said it was smart of a consumer to go into a purchase based on score alone, but I do believe that a game should be rated as a whole, and not just a portion of it. Taking that into account, I find it baffling that the game is getting such high ratings across the board. Might as well give AC:Brotherhood a 9 for its multiplayer only because, you know, that was such a huge focus as well.

Hell, let's forget about single player in games entirely, and just review the multiplayer! Maybe developers can even start selling the two as seperate packages so you can pay $120 if you want to experience both! It's so brilliant!

Oh, and I never said that it was good of Mr .Sterling to spend so little time on the multiplayer. But what I will say is that if he had given it a 9 no one would have batted an eyelid.

Personally I think someone should complete a game before reviewing. Then again he may have in 5 hours because most reviewers play on easy or normal.. Isn't the longest game in the world. I don't get the anger over a review. It is one guy's opinion. Nothing more nothing less.

Example: Everyone gave Bayonetta great reviews.. I on the other hand see the game as nothing more than a coaster to set my beer upon. See how that works?

Personally I think the amount of time Sterling spent with the multiplayer is acceptable, but I think the opinion that he didn't spend long enough with it is entirely valid as well. I could probably write a whole blog on why I get annoyed with people attacking Sterling, but my problem here specifically is that there's a big difference between someone writing a bad review and someone attempting to troll the internet. I'm also annoyed with the assumption that some people seem to be making that once again, because Sterling has written a review which people don't like that means he must just be doing it for the page views and not really care about the review itself. Lastly, I think it's a bit ridiculous for the response to someone writing a review that you didn't think was up to scratch to be calling him a Nazi and a "cake-filled cunt". I'd really like to think we could be a bit more civilised about this but I guess not.

@Gamer_152: I ask you good sir, what could be more civilized than a cake filled cunt? Surely that is the very height of decadence.

@Gamer_152: I ask you good sir, what could be more civilized than a cake filled cunt? Surely that is the very height of decadence.

@Kazona: If you took the time to consider the fact that you're using a double standard right now you'd realize you are the one being delusional. How many superb highly acclaimed single player games have had shitty multiplayer or online portions tacked on to them so that they can have that extra bullet point on the box? Too many to count. Yet those games didn't suffer in terms of critical reception because of it. All of a sudden that same standard doesn't apply to Battlefield. Why? I don't know, but I hear faint whisperings about how single player is supposed the be the main focus, BLAH BLAH BLAH. Again, it doesn't matter to what you think is the main focus, it matters what actually is the main focus and the fact of the matter is that the multiplayer in Battlefield is heftier than the majority of highly acclaimed single player only games out there. The point is that the multiplayer in BF3 alone is worth the $60, since it's by and far one of the best multiplayer games out there right now, something which has been pointed out by many reviewers who have said that the single player and co-op are just tacked on and there. Sound familiar?

Also, I would have batted an eyelid if fat tits had written a review full of really stupid shit and gave it a 9, because that's the main point we're getting at here: any criticisms he did level at the multiplayer stemmed from the fact that he didn't play it enough. He's a fat moron and a troll to boot that has a habit of being overly harsh when it comes to big name titles but overly generous when it comes to games from lesser known developers.

@Gamer_152: How can you figure he played enough when he made complaints about vehicles making infantry play very difficult...without having played anti-tank for any amount of time? Isn't that a pretty critical lack of time played when he makes a false assertion as a result? His playtime for a Battlefield game was horribly anaemic and produced nothing but a shit review as a result.

@Gamer_152: Since you also mentioned the fact that you often get annoyed when people attack Sterling, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts, or the thoughts of any of the other GB crew memebers for that matter, on this blog post. http://sexyvideogameland.blogspot.com/2011/06/tale-of-two-jims.html. Finally, as I've stated numerous times previously, my issue wasn't with the score (I actually thought it was about right) but with the careless and limited way he went about reviewing the game. My essential point, cake and lady-parts aside, is that Sterling provides what some consider to be a valid and entertaining service, but as the manner in which he reviewed this game and many others shows, he shouldn't be considered a professional and should thus be removed from Meta-critic as his work often inflicts needless damage on the industry- to clarify, I'm happy for a review to result in a games company going out of business but only if it truly deserved such a fate. I go into detail as to the why's and wherefores of that position in an earlier post.

@RsistncE: Nope, I'm not using a double standard. If a game has multiplayer and single player, I will rate it with both taken into account. If one or the other is crap, I will deduct points off the score. Maybe that's not how reviews work, but these days, with more and more games providing both options, they really should.

@MrOldboy said:

@Andorski: I dont really want to find and then link to a bunch of his reviews that describe why I feel that way. Googling around a bunch of "odd" reviews will probably pop up immediately.

I dont really like Leigh Alexander's writing, but she at least has a perspective working with him in the past.http://sexyvideogameland.blogspot.com/2011/06/tale-of-two-jims.html

She basically gives a passive-aggressive BS response to Jim's work. What's more, she wrote the very thing that invalidated everything she could have said: she, like publishers and fans, put too much weight in metacritic. I'd also like to point out that she contradicts her viewpoint, saying that while she respects what Jim does, and leaves him to it, he has to respect what people like her do...which is write a section in an article basically attempting to invalidate Jim's review style, the exact opposite of what she was writing initially. Her flowery, 'respectful' tone has underlying venom because she simply doesn't like what Jim does, and by some backass logic, believes that it's hurting the relationship reviewers have with publishers. This is bullshit. Publishers are big boys, and reviews are subjective. Games have many more complex elements to them that any other form of media, and this means that at times, people will have differentiating opinions. Publishers have to learn that, consumers have to accept that, and what's more, we need to take a step back and understand that multiple reviews with conflicting positive/negative points are more than valid, they're healthy. Comparing reviews by their pros and cons can give us all a more complete understanding of the game we're interested in. It hardly harms people when you point out flaws that people could have an issue with. If you don't then grand, you can disregard it, but if that element is something that pisses you off, then you're going to be thankful that someone had the sack to mention it, as it could be a deal-breaker for you, or, at least an element that won't surprise and annoy you at the same time.

All Jim did was deduct points based on what seems to be generally viewed as a lackluster campaign. There's no harm in that. In fact, if BF3 didn't have that element to it, then I would imagine it would be a damn fine game, of much better quality. The length of time he played to review the game was based on competitive reviews from other sites, and the fact that EA had only really sent review copies to sites that gave positive coverage of the game itself. But even then, a single game on a good map of MP can give you all the info you need for a review. Sorry, but I have a hard time understanding the outrage about this. I've seen games get high scores when they shouldn't have, much like Dragon Age 2, which basically got a free pass because it was a Bioware title with the Dragon Age brand on it, despite it's glaring flaws and badly constructed story. Red Dead Redemption was a great game, but he Mexico section was pretty unfocused and confused. SSFIV's interface is insultingly bad, and bases most of its mechanics in the insane special moves that have stupidly complicated button inputs at times. They're points that should be mentioned in a review, and should effect the score. MVC3 takes flak for what it doesn't have, but should have. Why can't BF3 be judged for what it has that, in my view, it didn't need?

@BrockNRolla: As many as they need to get out of it... I know what Jim Sterling's tastes are, and so does he. It's very possible for a guy who plays a lot of first person shooters to play a new one and get a full idea of what a game has to offer quickly. He's clearly made up his mind about this game after 6 hours, and that tells me something, in conjunction with what he said, and his score. Here's the thing, if I didn't know what Jim Sterling's taste was, I wouldn't care about his review at all.

And that's where the issue lies. Why are people reading reviews from people whom they don't know? Either you trust/like Jim Sterling, or you don't... What score he gives shouldn't matter after that.

@MrOldboy said:

@Andorski: I dont really want to find and then link to a bunch of his reviews that describe why I feel that way. Googling around a bunch of "odd" reviews will probably pop up immediately.

I dont really like Leigh Alexander's writing, but she at least has a perspective working with him in the past.http://sexyvideogameland.blogspot.com/2011/06/tale-of-two-jims.html

She basically gives a passive-aggressive BS response to Jim's work. What's more, she wrote the very thing that invalidated everything she could have said: she, like publishers and fans, put too much weight in metacritic. I'd also like to point out that she contradicts her viewpoint, saying that while she respects what Jim does, and leaves him to it, he has to respect what people like her do...which is write a section in an article basically attempting to invalidate Jim's review style, the exact opposite of what she was writing initially. Her flowery, 'respectful' tone has underlying venom because she simply doesn't like what Jim does, and by some backass logic, believes that it's hurting the relationship reviewers have with publishers. This is bullshit. Publishers are big boys, and reviews are subjective. Games have many more complex elements to them that any other form of media, and this means that at times, people will have differentiating opinions. Publishers have to learn that, consumers have to accept that, and what's more, we need to take a step back and understand that multiple reviews with conflicting positive/negative points are more than valid, they're healthy. Comparing reviews by their pros and cons can give us all a more complete understanding of the game we're interested in. It hardly harms people when you point out flaws that people could have an issue with. If you don't then grand, you can disregard it, but if that element is something that pisses you off, then you're going to be thankful that someone had the sack to mention it, as it could be a deal-breaker for you, or, at least an element that won't surprise and annoy you at the same time.

All Jim did was deduct points based on what seems to be generally viewed as a lackluster campaign. There's no harm in that. In fact, if BF3 didn't have that element to it, then I would imagine it would be a damn fine game, of much better quality. The length of time he played to review the game was based on competitive reviews from other sites, and the fact that EA had only really sent review copies to sites that gave positive coverage of the game itself. But even then, a single game on a good map of MP can give you all the info you need for a review. Sorry, but I have a hard time understanding the outrage about this. I've seen games get high scores when they shouldn't have, much like Dragon Age 2, which basically got a free pass because it was a Bioware title with the Dragon Age brand on it, despite it's glaring flaws and badly constructed story. Red Dead Redemption was a great game, but he Mexico section was pretty unfocused and confused. SSFIV's interface is insultingly bad, and bases most of its mechanics in the insane special moves that have stupidly complicated button inputs at times. They're points that should be mentioned in a review, and should effect the score. MVC3 takes flak for what it doesn't have, but should have. Why can't BF3 be judged for what it has that, in my view, it didn't need?

• There is no logic to deducting points for a supossedly lackluster singleplayer campaign when it's not the focus of the game and never has been.  It's a bonus for those who want to enjoy and can be ignored by others instead.
• SSFIV's interface is fine & SSF games have always had crazy special moves.  All SF games work that way.  Your complaint holds no water when whole competitive circuits are built around the series.  Noob.
• The Dragon Age 2 aspect is the only one I agree with and that's only because it was shit, not because you have anything new to add.
• There's nothing passive-aggressive in her summation of Jim and frankly you don't understand the term so don't use it until you do.

@Gamer_152: How can you figure he played enough when he made complaints about vehicles making infantry play very difficult...without having played anti-tank for any amount of time? Isn't that a pretty critical lack of time played when he makes a false assertion as a result? His playtime for a Battlefield game was horribly anaemic and produced nothing but a shit review as a result.

@Gamer_152: Since you also mentioned the fact that you often get annoyed when people attack Sterling, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts, or the thoughts of any of the other GB crew memebers for that matter, on this blog post. http://sexyvideogameland.blogspot.com/2011/06/tale-of-two-jims.html. Finally, as I've stated numerous times previously, my issue wasn't with the score (I actually thought it was about right) but with the careless and limited way he went about reviewing the game. My essential point, cake and lady-parts aside, is that Sterling provides what some consider to be a valid and entertaining service, but as the manner in which he reviewed this game and many others shows, he shouldn't be considered a professional and should thus be removed from Meta-critic as his work often inflicts needless damage on the industry- to clarify, I'm happy for a review to result in a games company going out of business but only if it truly deserved such a fate. I go into detail as to the why's and wherefores of that position in an earlier post.

Blame EA for being shady and not handing out copies to everyone on time because they feared negative remarks.

Such a dumb thread...

In short, if you couldn't be assed to read the whole thread, basically the OP is complaining that Jim Sterling of Destructoid gave Battlefield 3 a 7.5 out of 10 even though he only played the multiplayer for a few hours.

Yeah, I know, massive care.

@Gamer_152: I think conflicting reviews are healthy. Much like on this site, we know what type of games the staff like, what elements of gameplay they enjoy or not. It's worthwhile to have conflicting reports on games, and the more there are, the better informed a persons decision can be. As with anything, you have to take the good and the bad, but publishers seem never to want the bad highlighted. In the case of BF3, we can clearly see that a SP campaign, of which all games are pretty much expected to have, was lackluster at best. As this is a section of the game that people are drawn to, be it to learn the controls, experiment with weapons, or to just see what the story is like, it really is an important element to the overall product. To a guy like Jim, a lacking SP is going to get hammered, and while MP may be enjoyable, it doesn't warrant hundreds of hours of gameplay to write a review about.

That article, as I've said before, is a passive-aggressive rant against Jim, and a piss-poor one at best, as the writing tip-toes around the main point in an obvious fashion. I watched the metacritic episode of the Jimquisition, and I have to agree with him, too much weight is placed in the metacritic score by publishers who are fools, and the fanboys who take it all too seriously, when the entire site is set up to better inform consumers of the products they're buying. Jim does some great work, his online pass arguments are holding a lot of water as of late, and I respect the man for having the sack to never back down from his opinions, no matter how topical they may seem. The fact that people want him silenced is a testament to just how far our industry has fallen. People no longer seem to want to hear differentiating opinions, publishers don't want to own up to their mistakes, devs aren't willing to accept that their game isn't the best thing ever, and great reviews are viewed as 'trolling' when they go against the general consensus of multiple sources. That article enforces the most self-entitled and hated opinions of the gaming community, and seeks to do nothing more than justify the cowering of some reviewers behind bureaucratic nonsense, which in turn justifies the ridiculous review scores given to games while ignoring their faults.

As for the score, I think I commented here before by quoting a line from an escapist employee, basically asking why people felt they had such a vested interest in a game's success, as measured by it's metacritic score, and since we live in the days of day one patches and DLC, that either makes the game unfinished, or the people aggressively defending the game's score wrong, the game can't be perfect by that evidence alone. It's a good point, and it applies to situations like this. We all know that this isn't about the time Jim put into the game, but the score. The time is just an excuse to justify the anger over the score. It's in the same vein with Cliffy B's comments on Gears of War 3. I think it's about time that the coddling stopped. I assume that the majority of EA's publisher-squad are of voting age, and the same goes for devs. Hitting the perfect score leaves no room for improvement. What drives us is the need to do better, to improve and grow. Why is it so hard for devs to accept their games aren't as good as they thought in some respects, and would benefit from improvement? Why do publishers need huge metacritic scores to judge their games on, when sales seem to be what mattered not 6 months ago? And why are people so obsessed with a games success? Great games are great games...shouldn't that be enough? I'm willing to debate a lot involving gaming, but this is something that is barely relevant. Because of some fanatics, metacritic has turned into the stick all games are measured by, and that wasn't the intention. Being so out of touch with reality is what boggles my mind. Sorry about the length of this btw, I just can't understand the mentality of people in this day and age.

The only problem I see is the way people are reacting this. It's just a fucking video game at the end of the day.

@kishinfoulux said:

Blame EA for being shady and not handing out copies to everyone on time because they feared negative remarks.

I wouldn't give Sterling a copy either.

After reading most of the thread I now know why some reviewers don't care enough to actually give their games any reasonable amount of time and play fast and loose with the facts hoping no one will notice. Most of the people in this thread don't seem to give a fuck about holding reviewers to any sort of standard whatsoever. You people don't deserve a credible and responsible games press.
 
Look; I occasionally defend Jim Sterling. I like that he uses the review score properly; even if some of his reviews are obvious trolling. I enjoy his Jimquisition videos because, under all the ranting and raving bluster that is obviously deliberately going too far, he makes an excellent point and his personality actually gets people to listen. But an hour and ahalf in multiplayer in a multiplayer focused game is ridiculous by any interpretation. It's not about whether or not he played enough to form an initial opinion; he's a game reviewer, he gets paid to do this sort of thing for a living. He's supposed to take it more seriously than the rest of us jackoffs. 
 
I can form an opinion of a game in an hour. Does that make me qualified to write a review? If so, you're an idiot with absolutely no standards, but if no, what exactly is the line, then? An hour and ahalf? Two hours? Four? If I were to review a game, I would play it for a reasonably long time, keeping a notepad of my thoughts on the game as I went along, and spent enough time with the game as I needed to articulate exactly my problems or praise with the game. That time wouldn't be single player + an hour of multiplayer in a multiplayer focused game. 
 
This has nothing to do with people whining about Jim Sterling; I actually like him most of the time. It has nothing to do with Battlefield 3 fanboyism; I couldn't care less about playing that game at the moment. It's about having this industry taken seriously and actually having the people paid to do their jobs take their jobs seriously. I want this industry to be better, and I want the people in it to be credible. Giant Bomb exists because the people who founded it wanted to be better than the rest of the game sites, because the integrity of other game sites left much to be desired. The continuing apathy by so many people here to actually care about whether or not he takes his job seriously is incredibly depressing. There are so many problems in the world, and apathy is the worst enemy to progress in all of them. I wish some of you people could be better than that, or if you're not, at least don't try to encourage it.

@Gamer_152: I should really clarify what I meant by passive-aggressive: the way she talks about the situation, her language itself, is just a mask for what she really means. She's using the flowery language to make it seem like she isn't putting Jim in a separate category to other game journalists. In fact, I'd go so far to say that she's rather demeaning towards him in the way she talks about his style. To me, all she's saying is that Jim's reviews aren't real reviews, she's putting him in a separate box to everyone else straight off the bat, by referring back to that 'I let him get on with it' statement. I still think that an hour and a half is enough to play in terms of MP, if you want to write a review. Time is relative to the player really, and apparently he also played the console and PC versions, so however that time is split. Also, from my days of of BC2, I got through anything up to 3 matches in the space of an hour. If someone hasn't decided their standpoint in the space of a few matches, then that also speaks volumes about the game. The score issue is something I would have a problem with, because in truth, people would still be annoyed if the game got a 7.5 after 50 hours gaming, but they'd just be angry with the score alone. And think about it: how desperate does someone have to be in order to look up apparent length of time a reviewer played a game for to prove them wrong? This entire situation stems from the mindsets of individuals who seem to think they have stock in the publisher or dev doing well.

I'm going to have to disagree on the separate audiences. In this situation, the games industry is relying on the audience and the journalists, as well as the games success. Journalists have a vested interest in the industry, now more than ever, because giving a game a bad review is blasphemy in the industries eyes, once again, I refer back to Cliffy B, and the audience has a vested interest in both the games success, and the review score. We can no longer separate any of these specific sections of gaming anymore, because they're all in a symbiotic relationship. Also, journalists are the audience too. This also leads onto the conflicting opinions, which are more differentiating in terms of reviews, conflicting in terms of the audience reactions. In politics, you have a standpoint, a set of views that you defend. In this case, it's just a bunch of people getting annoyed over a metacritic score, justifying it by any means they can pluck out of an arbitrary pile of pointless excuses. Even EA and Activision got into the childish, albeit entertaining, area as they attempted to talk up their own titles, while simultaneously talking down the opposition. Publishers are only interested in making money? So why do they live and die by metacritic scores? A good ad campaign can sell more games than a metacritic score, i.e. Assassin's Creed. The self-entitled attitude of developers has only recently arisen, and when it comes to sequels, that could be years after the initial games release, at that stage it really doesn't matter to them. But the knee-jerk reaction seems to be that they are shocked and appalled when they don't get a specific score.

As I've stated before, great games being great games is pretty much self explanatory. People love the game, they buy it, what does the score matter after that? Shouldn't that be enough for devs and publishers to be happy with, they're making money, which, as you stated, is the important aspect publishers focus on. It isn't subjective, selling 7 million copies is a pretty solid number, and gives you the sales that you need. It doesn't all ride on metacritic scores, it doesn't need to. They don't look at metacritic for quick, albeit ignorant solution to problems with their game, they look at it because if it doesn't score a particular percentage, they fire people, or hang them out to dry on crappy projects. At least that's the view I've gotten. The situation has gotten out of hand, where people, and even other journalists complain about certain scores, along with the publishers and devs. The system no longer has barriers between the groupings, and the crossovers are starting to emerge. This is a recent phenomenon, but it is also a highly relevant one. We really can't write it off.

I'm kind of done hating on Jim Sterling since he clearly writes what he writes to get hits on his site, but does anyone know how that dude got his job in the first place?

I didn't read the whole thread, but his review was pretty funny. He complained that tanks are sluggish, I loled pretty good at that.

The funniest thing though is that he loved the large maps but then said vehicles take away from the game which led him to complain that vehicles must used to get across the large map otherwise you have to run it. Absolutely no logic to his opinion haha. Also, he said that you have to be in a tank to get kills and be competitive. I thought that was really funny because tanks are usually a death trap.

It is definitely worth a read.

It's a retarded double standard. He will say how shit it is that an obviously single player game has multiplayer tacked on yet it does not overly effect the score of the game which he is mostly judging as a single player game ie Dead Space 2. Yet if an obviously multiplayer game like Battlefield 3 has a tacked on Single player it takes up half the "review" and somehow makes the whole experience sour. I appreciate his real reviews but his troll reviews are just lame. I mean he said as a negative point that tanks control is sluggish, they ain't exactly the Porsche of the war world yet if they were he would obviously say they aren't sluggish enough.

It's just some guy writing for a paycheck and he's pretty good at getting that attention, if you hate him just ignore him and you'll be fine.