This is exactly what I'm talking about. Jim has a specific way of talking and writing that makes him relatively unique in the field, but this review feels like a cover letter for a job application; it just moves from one plainly stated fact to another without any kind of connective tissue or personality. I have no idea what Jim's writing process is, but this seems like the rough draft you'd lay down just to get the facts straight before you punch it up with your own style.
I wonder if he wanted to push it out quickly after mentioning it in the DD2 review and during a video. Though I've noticed it lacking from some of his other more recent reviews as well, it is just more distinct here.
All I've heard about it is that it isn't that good, relative to Team Ninja's other work, so I'm wondering if this is
A) Jim trying to be a contrarian once again by praising something most other people are saying is only okay
B) A deliberate attempt to piss of Dragon's Dogma 2 fans even more
I'm leaning towards option B because there were more than a few lines in the review that seemed to be taking shots at DD2, when he repeatedly brought up convenience and how streamlined things were. Maybe it's all in my head though, maybe he really did like the game and his review is lazy because everything he does is minimal effort now.
I think it is mostly option B. Though I do believe his contrast between them is something he genuinely is feeling. I don't think Jim is actually just an outright contrarian all that often.
Jim does actually have predictable tastes, I can actually use a disrecommendation from him as effectively to know I should pick something up as a recommendation. It was actually the real value of Jim as a reviewer before he went completely batshit a few years ago, he is just one guy running his own site with his own distinct tastes and preferences. When you know someone's tastes and preferences relative to your own, you can actually use their judgment as a way to predict your own opinions relative to them. Nowadays, Jim has gone a little bit crazy and he cares more about the message and making his statements than anything else at times.
Jim prefers games he can move on from, He really doesn't want more than a 120-hour commitment at the absolute worst and tends to have a preference for 40 hours and under. This is because to him a certain portion of these games are, in fact, his job. He has to play a lot of games, and he just much rather get onto the next one, especially if he's gotten what he needs from it or it's just something he doesn't particularly like. This gives him a distinct preference for straightforward linear games, novelty, and convenience.
He is also a fan of simpler pleasures. The type of thing that he can play with his brain only half on the game and the other half on something else (like taking notes for a review) or just completely shut off after he does put in some critical thought with another game. Between something like Devil May Cry and Dynasty Warriors he will always prefer Dynasty Warriors. This is just because he wants that cheap small brain action that isn't too demanding and that he can just enjoy the power fantasy that it represents.
I have noticed he prefers beat-em-ups, arcade shooters with silly weapons that are more gimmick than trying to simulate an actual battlefield, and the slightly easier members of the souls-like genre where each boss will take five or less attempts but you aren't going to have a complete cakewalk. He also seems to be a fan of sillier games that don't take themselves too seriously over more serious games, and he's a fan of the gorier horror titles. He also seems to have a certain fondness for collectibles in games and unlocking just the goofier types of nonsense.
His primary dislikes seem to mostly be things like open world games, cutscene heavy games, competitive multiplayer, and anything that is particularly slow moving. He seems to be fairly apathetic towards cooperative experiences in most cases, viewing it more as a goofy way to hang out with friends than something that should be proposing a distinct challenge, and it seems like he actually prefer single player experiences.
This type of context and more can help me look at one of his scores and the genre of game that it is and predict whether or not I'll like it based on my own tastes. There's a catch though, if he is playing a game that services his tastes at the same time or immediately after one that goes very strongly against his preferences or vice versa then his scores become inflated in both directions. He might might bump one game up by 2 to 3 points or down by the same amount Just due to the contrast he is immediately feeling with the other game. This only gets worse if he genuinely just has an unpopular opinion. I think a little bit of that is at work here.
Reviewers in general tend to not like games that will demand a lot of their time. They tend to not enjoy the more by the numbers entries in a genre unless they are a standout representative of the genre, unless that particular genre is fairly barren. They tend to prefer something new, but not so new that they need to unlearn a lot of behaviors from the more standard representatives of the medium, simply because it mixes things up. This is mostly because they just have to play so many games that they get jaded quickly. This will cause a certain friction between them and the average gamer.
The average person is not playing every single open world Ubisoft game. They have one franchise that they like and they pick that one up each release if any. I personally am more likely to pick up a new Watch_Dogs than I am to play any FarCry games and I checked out of Assassin's Creed after the fourth game and that's only because it was the pirate game, otherwise I would have checked out after the third one. The average person isn't as sick of that Arkham style combat like I am, because the average person doesn't play that many games with it. I spent a while where I had to play all of them. It wasn't a choice for me. It was work. It was part of my 9 to 5, and it wasn't something I personally find enjoyable. It looks pretty in motion but it's not that engaging. However, my job was to make sense of the system and really get a deep in-depth understanding of what the appeal is and how it works under the hood and how you could potentially improve on it for a client, and I'm a professional who did my job and did the fucking research. Most people probably only play a few games that catch their eye with that mechanic set, so while it is probably familiar to most gamers, it isn't something they have experienced too many times.
The vast majority of gamers have their competitive multiplayer game they play, the open world franchise they pick up every entry to, and a chosen big budget narrative heavy cutscene simulator for that year that they will play They might have two such games if two come out in the same year and they aren't too long. They might have a co-op game they play with their friends as well, but this isn't as universal to your core audience as the previous three games. If they happen to like RPGs then something really slow and with absolutely zero regard for your time like DD will be perfectly fine to them, likely replacing the story-based game and the open world game both. It's probably the only game they are going to buy for the next 4 months. A reviewer needs to get through one game and on to the next one before the audience moves on. At least if you want to be covering modern games. Every single minute of inconvenience is far more distinctly felt. You are going to resent a game that you don't particularly like far more if you are stuck dealing with it for longer then you would normally play it due to the fact that you have to deal with certain inconveniences. Nothing makes me groan more than when I have to play a game that I don't find particularly enjoyable and I see that it has some lengthy progression system. Especially if I'm looking at it and I realize that a lot of the bread and butter of the game is locked behind it and the system is just there to pace things out and drag out the game longer. In a game I do enjoy though a particularly in-depth progression system is an absolute treat and a selling point.
Now that I want you to look at all of that context there and wonder: If Jim was playing DD2 at the same time is RoR and he was really feeling the inconvenience of and really enjoying the convenience of the other, could they have been tinting his view of one another polarizing his scores more than they normally might be? Absolutely. Him being able to spite the people who disagree with him is just a cherry on top.
