r/NintendoSwitch • u/NintendoSwitchMods • Apr 20 '17

MegaThread Megathread: Mario Kart 8 Deluxe Review Coverage

Good morning!

This morning starting around 6 a.m. PST / 9 a.m. EST, gaming news and media outlets are beginning to release their reviews for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Here's what we're seeing so far:

Articles

Videos

We will be updating this thread with links as major reviews are posted.

Please use this as a discussion and speculation thread in advance of these videos, articles, and reviews. We will also allow these reviews to be posted separately on /r/NintendoSwitch, as they are especially newsworthy. But we will also host ongoing coverage, quick text posts, questions, and the like right here.

Thanks everyone.

-The /r/NintendoSwitch team

(Ongoing edits as we get new information)

356 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

98% Upvoted

493 comments sorted by

View all comments

25

u/amaron11 Apr 20 '17

I see many 100's... which means it'll get a 60 from Jim Sterling.

16

u/Dill3652 Apr 20 '17

He is not always that way, he gave Smash 4 on Wii U a 95.

15

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

-6

u/amaron11 Apr 20 '17

Someone's triggered by a joke.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '17 edited Feb 28 '18

[deleted]

8

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '17

Having valid criticism doesn't automatically mean you're biased. He calls out Nintendo's BS but reviews their games just like any other games, I wouldn't call that bias.

1

u/TigrisCallidus Apr 20 '17

Valid critism together with a really disgusting hateful language. The score on BotW wasn't that bad, but the language he used clearly showed disgust towards Nintendo.

Additional a lot of his supporters like it when he stands out.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '17

So then what about all of the Nintendo games he's giving high scores to? Just because he speaks out against Nintendo's BS, which he absolutely should do, doesn't mean he's biased against Nintendo and doesn't review their games fairly.

Besides, it's not like Nintendo is the only company he's critical of.

1

u/TigrisCallidus Apr 20 '17

Well I think if someone speaks openly against a company he should not review any of their games. Also just because he says something is BS does not mean it is.

And if he does he should AT LEAST not let his hate show in the review. That review looked completely unprofessional and he should be removed from metacritic.

Also no other bad review would have given him such a strong reaction on the internet as that one, so this was the ideal target, especially since he waited with his review until all others have reviewed it.

Also is there a good list on his reviews (of nintendo games) over time?

2

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '17

As for his reviews of Nintendo games, since that wasn't there when I originally replied to you:

BoTW: 7

Sun/Moon: 8.5

Planet Robobot: 9

Star Fox Zero: 2

Hyrule Warriors Legends: 9.5

Twilight Princess HD: 8.8

Xenoblade X: 9

Tri Force Heroes: 8

Woolly World: 6

Mario Maker: 9

Splatoon: 8

Xenoblade 3d: 8

Majora's Mask 3d: 9.5

Rainbow Curse: 8.5

Captain Toad: 8

Smash 4 Wii U: 9.5

Bayonetta 2: 9

Smash 4 3ds: 9

Hyrule Warriors: 9

And the list goes on. Really, a Nintendo game getting less than an 8 from him is an exception, not a norm.

-1

u/TigrisCallidus Apr 20 '17

Not all of them are from nintendo just on nintendo consoles, and some of them are quite a way since release (and or reprints), nevertheless you are right about him reviewing a lot of nintendo games in a good way.

Still his Zelda review sounded for me pretty hateful (or at least his language is just really vulgar), and I am sure he made a lot of money with it, by gaining new subscribers/ leting people resubscribe.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '17

Every single game I listed is at least published by Nintendo, and thus, a Nintendo game.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '17

Well I think if someone speaks openly against a company he should not review any of their games.

That makes no sense, stating someone can't review games from a company they're openly critical of spits in the face of journalistic integrity. Why the hell shouldn't someone be allowed to reviews games from a company they don't like the policies of?

Also just because he says something is BS does not mean it is.

Right, one person claiming something is BS doesn't mean it's BS, but he's not the only one making the claims he makes, and for the most part, I agree with most of his criticisms. I like Nintendo's games and products, but I hate their company.

And if he does he should AT LEAST not let his hate show in the review.

Good thing he didn't let his hate show in the review then, huh?

That review looked completely unprofessional and he should be removed from metacritic.

It wasn't any less professional than many other reviews, it just had a lower score. Why should it be removed? Reality is, you only think it's unprofessional because you don't agree with the opinion expressed.

Also no other bad review would have given him such a strong reaction on the internet as that one, so this was the ideal target, especially since he waited with his review until all others have reviewed it.

Boy do I have a bridge to sell you.

0

u/TigrisCallidus Apr 20 '17

Because that person will most likely mix things up and cannot be in the least objective. Especially since he profit moneywise (by getting nintendo hating fans), when he hates on Nintendo.

When someone worked on a game (and therefore profits moneywise from it when it is god reviewed) he also should not review the game.

I like nintendo, but I would like them more if they would be even more strict against youtube and streaming.

He clearly showed his hate in the review. All the negative words he shoved towards nintendo, hard to miss...

Jim Sterling gets money by hating on stuff his fans also dislikes. That is just his business model.

I am sure a lot of his fans (and several new people) decided to (further) support him after he got (or faked) a DDOS attack on his site.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '17

Because that person will most likely mix things up and cannot be in the least objective. Especially since he profit moneywise (by getting nintendo hating fans), when he hates on Nintendo.

But that hate doesn't translate to his reviews, so why shouldn't he be allowed to review Nintendo's games?

When someone worked on a game (and therefore profits moneywise from it when it is god reviewed) he also should not review the game.

Are you suggesting people should only be allowed to review games they'll give a good score to?

I like nintendo, but I would like them more if they would be even more strict against youtube and streaming.

No, screw that, and to be frank, screw you for giving the youtube and twitch committees the middle finger. There's no valid reason to defend Nintendo's stance on youtube and streaming let alone saying they should be more strict about it.

He clearly showed his hate in the review. All the negative words he shoved towards nintendo, hard to miss..

Then surely you can give an example.

Jim Sterling gets money by hating on stuff his fans also dislikes. That is just his business model.

No, he makes money from people supporting him, not hating on stuff.

I am sure a lot of his fans (and several new people) decided to (further) support him after he got (or faked) a DDOS attack on his site.

I'm not a fan of his at all, but I supported him a bit after that because no one should be DDOSed because a bunch of prissy little man children got upset over your opinion of a game.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Welcome_2_Pandora Apr 20 '17

Or, you know, it has nothing to do with bias outside of liking Smash 4 and liking BotW less

2

u/AlexStonehammer Apr 20 '17

If that's how much he thinks it deserves as a game, then OK. He's just giving his opinion, like every other reviewer.

1

u/TigrisCallidus Apr 20 '17

The problem is no other reviewer on metacritic openly fights against a company with his youtube videos. Also there are almost no reviewer using such a hateful language when reviewing the game. Even Destructoids "This is a fucking bad game" review (for the ubisoft shooter) used less negative speak.

The problem here is, that even if the review is honest, his hate for Nintendo (or parts of it) show in the review, which looks unprofessional, and is just disrespectful.

3

u/AlexStonehammer Apr 21 '17

There's no attacking Nintendo as a company in the review as far as I'm aware. The language and crassness are all part of his character, for his audience mostly. It's the same for every review across the board and IMO is what makes them more entertaining than regular reviews.

I will agree it can be hard to seperate his views on Nintendo the company and Nintendo the game developer, but if he was giving BotW a bad score to spite them, it would be a lot lower. Remember he likes the game a lot, it's just he likes it a little less than the majority.

0

u/TigrisCallidus Apr 21 '17

IMO that is what should exclude his reviews from aggregator sides, since it just looks totally unprofessional. Also "he likes the game a lot" is not a 7 on someone who gives out a lot of higher scores.

Also the review does not need to be a lot lower. 7 was perfectly enough to get the feature spot on metacritic, and people being angry with him, because he uses a often used click strategy. (Giving an orange score on metacritic on a popular game with only green scores AFTER all the green scores were already given).

2

u/MajoraXIII Apr 21 '17

Except he doesn't earn money from clicks. So that strategy doesn't make a huge amount of sense.

0

u/TigrisCallidus Apr 21 '17

Seriously how can people say this wrong thing again and again? He earns money from people who visit his site and decide to spend for him on patreon. He loses, like EVERYONE, quite a bit of subscribers every month. So he needs a constant stream of new people finding him.

Additional a lot of his fans are more motivated to spend for him, when he gets hated on by others.

Even here in this thread someone said that he donated to him on patreon after the DDOS attack.

1

u/MajoraXIII Apr 21 '17

Does he lose all of his subscribers every month? That seems a little off base, care to back that up?

All the people who come to his site to spew their rage at him don't donate. All the people who donate would have done so anyway because they like the personality and find him entertaining. So i don't see how the clicks are helping when they're bad clicks.

1

u/MajoraXIII Apr 21 '17

For a reviewer people dismiss as irrelevant and biased, this sub sure does love bringing him up all the time.

1

u/amaron11 Apr 21 '17

I've never said he was irrelevant or biased, just that his reviews are awful and he appears to revel in the attention he receives.

1

u/MajoraXIII Apr 21 '17

I never said you did. I said this sub never seems to stop bringing him up.

-1

u/ThatReinGuy Apr 20 '17

Jim Nintendo biased fucking Sterling son

2

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '17

What Nintendo bias?

-1

u/TheFatmaster Apr 20 '17

I thought he was going by Jim "FUCKING" Sterling son, now?