Jim Sterling / James "Stephanie" Sterling / James Stanton/Sexton & in memoriam TotalBiscuit (John Bain) - One Gaming Lolcow Thread

[Oliver Onions]

It's just weird in general because the trademark symbol doesn't appear inside a circle. People write (C) and (R) because those are generally circled symbols. Can't tell if it's incompetence or just too lazy to use symbols.

It never even occurred to me that that's what the parentheses were for, I thought it was because the tm was an ironic aside. He can't do anything right.

 

[Brother Wind]

Just to add to your otherwise comprehensive review-review, when Jim says

this is not in fact a new thing at all, and he's at least 5 years late to the party (but possibly longer, I can't really remember SSBB or SSB4). In Smash Ultimate, Peach's run animation is very clearly intended to give the impression of daintily lifting the front of her dress as she goes along. The hands don't actually make contact for gameplay reasons - picking up items would clip through and be obscured - but at the fairly wide angle you would normally see it you can't really tell.

(you be the judge, timestamp should be 1:20)

On the one hand I don't expect every any game "journalist" to be on top of every small detail like this, but if a) you're going to make such a big deal about it, and b) the counter-evidence is in one of Nintendo's all time best selling games, maybe a tiny bit of research wouldn't go astray

Yeah weird its like she has been depicted doing that since the very start of her playable appearances...

 

[Aaron Costello]

Yeah weird its like she has been depicted doing that since the very start of her playable appearances...

View attachment 5920081

Also lol She's dressed like a fairy tale princess, of course she is going to run like that!

 

[Prince Vegeta]

Hasn't she always held her skirt up to float too? I remember using her hover function to not die in some levels.

 

[Gloria The Glorious]

Jim would think Peach's running animation is sexiest because while he's worn plenty of dresses these days, he's never had to run.

 

[Blonrad Blurze]

Why does Jim pronounce shit in a way that makes it sound like someone shoved a metal rod through his rotting and deformed brain. "dUh GAIMUz arhh uh bUNCh of WANKAzzzzzz"
He constantly sounds like hes in the middle of having a stroke.

 

[Gloria The Glorious]

This is the part with Drinker, MauLer, and this sphere of YouTube in general I don't get - it's not hard to praise something with a woke part. You can say "I enjoy the Amazon Fallout Show despite [Insert stupid cringe here]". The concept of not liking parts of something but enjoying it as a whole is something most adults can comprehend.

EDIT: I posted this in the wrong thread but I'm keeping it here as well. I find it really funny so many people like this comment despite it being "off-topic"

 

[Kulee Baba]

This is the part with Drinker, MauLer, and this sphere of YouTube in general I don't get - it's not hard to praise something with a woke part. You can say "I enjoy the Amazon Fallout Show despite [Insert stupid cringe here]". The concept of not liking parts of something but enjoying it as a whole is something most adults can comprehend.

So damn true. I greatly enjoy Bear Sex Baldur's Gate 3, I think it has an amazingly well designed combat system wherein my stupid brain can understand the mechanics (which I could never do for the Infinity Engine predecessors). I totally forgive the game for having faggotry including giving Philosophy Tube a shitty NPC character and all the general gayness. Why? Because it's a Roleplaying Game and my character was a straight white male and fucked Shadowheart.

It's a good game, it just has stupid shit that's kinda cringe and I looked past it.

 

[The Penultimate Warrior]

This popped up in my recommendations, not familiar with the channel but they did a good job on breaking down Jim's stupid take

TLW - Jim thinks it's fine to review a game without completing it, since if he played it too much he might get bored and the score would go down. As if somehow that's a bad thing.

 

[Decoy St. Chum]

This is the part with Drinker, MauLer, and this sphere of YouTube in general I don't get - it's not hard to praise something with a woke part. You can say "I enjoy the Amazon Fallout Show despite [Insert stupid cringe here]". The concept of not liking parts of something but enjoying it as a whole is something most adults can comprehend.

EDIT: I posted this in the wrong thread but I'm keeping it here as well. I find it really funny so many people like this comment despite it being "off-topic"

Drinker just reviewed the Fallout TV show and was decently positive despite it having stronk independent womyn (moldaver), miscegenenation (depends on how racist you are but still) and a non-binary Brotherhood of Steel squire (yes, seriously)

 

[Gloria The Glorious]

This popped up in my recommendations, not familiar with the channel but they did a good job on breaking down Jim's stupid take

TLW - Jim thinks it's fine to review a game without completing it, since if he played it too much he might get bored and the score would go down. As if somehow that's a bad thing.

Okay... maybe my comment on Drinker/MauLer was so off topic after all.

Drinker just reviewed the Fallout TV show and was decently positive despite it having stronk independent womyn (moldaver), miscegenenation (depends on how racist you are but still) and a non-binary Brotherhood of Steel squire (yes, seriously)

Head to the Mauler Thread for more conversations about it (the link is to the most relevant post from last Sunday), but it's when asked on a live stream why he's fine with this having woke stuff while other stuff having woke stuff he stands by as ruining it that prompted my comment: he had no strong answer despite how easy it should be to answer.

 

[Moja Zemlja]

TLW - Jim thinks it's fine to review a game without completing it, since if he played it too much he might get bored and the score would go down. As if somehow that's a bad thing.

I think its perfectly justifible to review a game without ever completing it because especially back in the day reviews were didn't to be done on a usually pretty short timeframe and its very understandable for someone to stop after they've experienced a good portion of the game, I think a short "this is how much I played, here is where I stopped" would solve most issues of people claiming someone hasn't played enough. Though from what I remember from the video its mostly just him seething and coping about people shitting on him over his Zelda review.

 

[Ibanez RG 350EX]

I think its perfectly justifible to review a game without ever completing it

Very few games become a qualitatively different experience halfway through. You don't have to play Doom or Zelda or Skyrim to the very end to get the gist of what the game going to be like throughout.

If I'm not having fun after five hours, hour 20 is extremely unlikely to change my mind.

 

[FedPostalService]

I think its perfectly justifible to review a game without ever completing it because especially back in the day reviews were didn't to be done on a usually pretty short timeframe and its very understandable for someone to stop after they've experienced a good portion of the game, I think a short "this is how much I played, here is where I stopped" would solve most issues of people claiming someone hasn't played enough. Though from what I remember from the video its mostly just him seething and coping about people shitting on him over his Zelda review.

The “you have to complete a game before you can review” is pure retarded autism. I didn’t have to sink 100% hours into Starfield to know it was garbage and there was no point wasting any more of my own time.

Yes, there are tons of shitty lazy game journalists who hate games, gamers, and desperately want to write for the New York Times instead, but the turbo virgin “ethics in journalism” autists would do just as bad a job.

Think about it it, there’s a massive hole in the whole rotten core of most entertainment journalism which could easily be filled but no one seems to be capable of filling it.

We either get danger hairs who hate us or weird virgins “gamers” who hate women who are just one bad day from trooning out.

Can’t we just get some normal people to network together and just give us some normal decent reviews?

Edit: fixed obvious dumb error

 

[The Scorpion]

Very few games become a qualitatively different experience halfway through. You don't have to play Doom or Zelda or Skyrim to the very end to get the gist of what the game going to be like throughout.

If I'm not having fun after five hours, hour 20 is extremely unlikely to change my mind.

I don't know. A lot of games shit the bed towards the end as the budget dries up or they start getting stupid ideas. Like if I had reviewed FF7 Rebirth, my review would be very different if I had reviewed it in chapter 10 compared to the end of the game, because it gets almost as bloated as Jim in the last couple of chapters

 

[The Penultimate Warrior]

I don't know. A lot of games shit the bed towards the end as the budget dries up or they start getting stupid ideas. Like if I had reviewed FF7 Rebirth, my review would be very different if I had reviewed it in chapter 10 compared to the end of the game, because it gets almost as bloated as Jim in the last couple of chapters

I would agree with Jim on Warhammer Boltgun at least, I know nothing of the lore but had an absolutely blast through the first two chapters. However by the third it was apparent the game was running out of steam and the final boss was such a slog that after the third time of him restoring to full health I ended up turning god mode on just to get it done. So if I was writing a review it would have been very different if I'd only got to the half way point.

 

[The Scorpion]

I would agree with Jim on Warhammer Boltgun at least, I know nothing of the lore but had an absolutely blast through the first two chapters. However by the third it was apparent the game was running out of steam and the final boss was such a slog that after the third time of him restoring to full health I ended up turning god mode on just to get it done. So if I was writing a review it would have been very different if I'd only got to the half way point.

Yeah, I didn't read his review but I had the exact same experience with Boltgun. I absolutely loved the first two chapters but I was bored shitless by the end.

 

[Gravityqueen4life]

I think its perfectly justifible to review a game without ever completing it because especially back in the day reviews were didn't to be done on a usually pretty short timeframe and its very understandable for someone to stop after they've experienced a good portion of the game, I think a short "this is how much I played, here is where I stopped" would solve most issues of people claiming someone hasn't played enough. Though from what I remember from the video its mostly just him seething and coping about people shitting on him over his Zelda review.

true, you can play for 10/20 hours and get the gist of a game. think you still own the people watching you that you tell them you didint finish the game when talking about it.

 

[AngryTreeRat]

There's a difference in how suspect a review is when you're very positive but didn't finish it versus negative and dropped it. Dropping a game is a condemnation in and of itself.

For example, I love the Monster Hunter franchise. I've never finished all the post release Monster Hunter Rise Sunbreak content. A game unique in the fact it is the only one I've never felt the urge to wrap up in the series and I've been there importing Japanese releases we never got in the west. This is because Rise just isn't as fun as previous entries. Something feels off about it under all the flash and crazy attacks. It's the failed experiment of the franchise. It might have the most pleasant UI experience in the series, but the moment to moment is lacking. Someone like me who regularly views those games as my comfort series dropping it to go back to World and Gen U shows a certain degree of condemnation for the game. This is despite that, by all accounts, the final fights I have never seen are some of the best in the game, but if I can't stick it out to get to them does that really matter?

For a different example of why me dropping a game might show something wrong with the game I had a high opinion of Boltgun until near the end where my opinion of it dropped. I eventually just ended up not finishing the game after putting it down one night to go to bed. I would've given it a high review if it didn't just fall off near the end. I just never felt the urge to pick it back up. I wasn't having fun by that point and the important parts of why it is good for the portion that is good can be found all at the start.

Another game I dropped and would never pick up is Alien Isolation. A game that I adored until the halfway mark where I was just getting bored and it never picked back up for me so I dropped it and never picked it back up. Despite that, it was a really fun for the start of it. I normally hate the horror stealth genre, but that proved to me that if it was done well you could enjoy it so long as it didn't overstay its welcome. Up until then I associated the genre with the likes of Outlast, a game that was only frustrating and boring after the first 25 minutes.

Other times you get the games that you can find yourself feeling compelled to pick back up. I often find myself going an extra hour or two later on nights that I play BG3 than I intended and trying to find time to pick it back up each day. A point of praise to that game. I found myself completing Metal Gear Rising in one sitting when I first played it, getting so sucked in a was exhausted for work the next day. I had to actively stop myself from immediately diving into a DLC. Super Mario Odyssey is one of the few 3D Mario games I felt The urge to play for Morgan just an hour or two each evening while I work in the way through. The game was good enough that I actually 100% it.

I don't think you need to finish a game to give a negative review, I do think you need to finish it to give a positive review. You don't need to do 100% of a game to give it a positive review, just the core content and properly try out multiple aspects of the game. As an example I don't think you can review something like Skyrim positively unless you have actually played through the major questlines beyond just one of the factions, the main quest, and have done a reasonable bit of different playstyles to really see what they are like beyond the surface. But I would say that goes for most RPGs. Some RPGs are really fun if you are playing one class but are a disaster for the rest. You can't really base them off of one playthrough. You also typically can't base opinion of more dynamic aspects without actively trying multiple runs through a game either, but that takes time. Sometimes a game pushes you through its strongest version and tries to hide how weak it is to try to play in a non default manner. Mass Effect for example is a franchise that doesn't feel as great if you aren't hardlining paragon or renegade. Knights of the Old Republic suffers if you don't commit to light or dark side.

If you have a deadline however, I will forgive you saying you only did one playthrough because you don't have the time to dedicate to more than one. That's valid. Just don't give a game shining praise when you haven't experienced most of the content that the majority of players would experience who actually followed through with a game that they spent money on. A great example of this is once again Skyrim: A game that if you aren't looking at it as a modder paradise you might notice very quickly that the positivity of the reviews for that game directly correlate with if somebody played warrior, assassin, or mage with the opinions decreasing as you move from one side of that spectrum to the other. This is because of while the melee and stealth experiences are fine enough, if you play a significant amount of mage you will realize that the game becomes a slog unless you set it to the lowest difficulty. You can't review that game quickly. This could be alleviated for the major websites by putting multiple people on the major RPGs of the year to cover different run throughs and collaborating.

I am just going to remind everyone most video game critics and YouTube channels do not pay for a significant amount of the video games they cover and for a good number of them it is a tax write-off and a business expense. They are not viewing the value of picking up that game the same way you are. This means it is more important that their recommendations be solid and based on sufficient playtime than it does for their unrecommendations.

It is a lot harder for something to be good and stay good all the way through to justify its price than it is for something to put its best foot forward so that you don't notice that the back end is garbage before recommending it or by pushing people away from your poorly supported playstyles for their first run through the game.

Disclose how much you played before you review.

 

[LecherousGranolaBar]

Head to the Mauler Thread for more conversations about it (the link is to the most relevant post from last Sunday), but it's when asked on a live stream why he's fine with this having woke stuff while other stuff having woke stuff he stands by as ruining it that prompted my comment: he had no strong answer despite how easy it should be to answer.

Because, much like the opposite side of the spectrum, if you are not 100% in lockstep with the gospel the anti-woke crowd has, they'll skin you alive for it. Wouldn't want to lose the free YT money after all.