Why is Jim even counted as a legitimate reviewer on Metacritic? He deliberately knocked the game's score down because he found a reason to get righteously indignant and dismiss the developers' efforts over some tiny nitpick he heard about on Twitter. A nitpick in the END CREDITS of the game got it knocked down to a 7.5.
View attachment 4607366
It's even in the fucking title of the review.
What a joyless fuck.
Dipshit reviewers with agendas are a dime-a-dozen, but Jim's entire purpose now is to draw attention to himself by pulling stunts like this. He rated the game just one singular point above Metacritic's yellow "mixed" rating, which is a 74, probably because he doesn't want to risk having too many people's eyes on him, or having Nintendo notice his one singular mixed review and block him from review copies in the future.
View attachment 4607362
God forbid people read game reviews to know if the game they're planning on buying is fun or not. No, we need to be righteously infuriated that Nintendo forgot to individually crediting the team who worked on the original game (but not the remake) one by one. That tiny little "imperfection" means we should throw the whole thing out.
Jim really let the whole Steam Greenlight/asset-flip/digital homicide shit get to his head, now he thinks he's some kind of messianic freedom fighter in the gaming industry, rather than just another twitter troon with a chip on his shoulder.