Jim was hit with a dmca claim (again) *Updated* the dev response

[StreamerDarkly]

What criticism?
There was no criticism on Jim. The Slaughtering Grounds Dev just made a video to personally insult Jim and then took down the video a good while later when it didn't go his way. The others didn't even contact Jim.

The reason the majority of people take the critic's side in these situations is because these Devs don't have a leg to stand on.

These aren't instances of critics "retaliating against criticism". It's them talking about how devs are trying to hide any negative press about their games.

As they should.
If someone took down something you worked on with no justifiable reason just to mess with you for about a week, wouldn't you be a bit miffed and let people know what happened?

As I recall it, the dev took Jim's review video and dubbed in his own audio / text to show how, for example, Sterling was complaining about not having any ammo but nevertheless couldn't be arsed to go into a building and look for any. It was an attempt to show that some of the criticism wasn't justified. Unless you're in the habit of taking advice from someone who's never played a shooter before, that is.

 

[DoPo]

As I recall it, the dev took Jim's review video and dubbed in his own audio / text to show how, for example, Sterling was complaining about not having any ammo but nevertheless couldn't be arsed to go into a building and look for any. It was an attempt to show that some of the criticism wasn't justified. Unless you're in the habit of taking advice from someone who's never played a shooter before, that is.

I hope you mean the developer in your last sentence, because that exhibited in the game isn't any normal shooter mechanics I've ever seen. Jim was complaining that he never got ammo for his secondary weapon, not that he didn't have any ammo. And the developer said that you have to HOLD THE WEAPON YOU WANT TO GET AMMO FOR WHEN PICKING UP AMMO TO GET AMMO FOR IT. Which is insanely bizarre way to work - ammo pickups are usually for a specific weapon (or for many weapons, like the Serious Sam packs), not just the one you're holding. See, that mechanic means you aren't stuck using the pistol all the time after emptying the clip of your shotgun. Like what happened with Jim.

Oh, and for the record, restarting the level and KEEPING THE OLD COUNT OF AMMO is not a normal shooter mechanic either. Usually, if you restart a level, you also start with the same amount of ammo as before. It's so you don't spawn with no ammo. Like what happened to Jim.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

I find it so amusing that the much hated AAA industry never hits people with strikes(except "glorious" Nintendo) but the supposedly saintly indie devs are the ones who can't take even an ounce of criticism.
I suppose that's what happens when you have a team of 1 or 2. You can't blame another department for failure, so every slight is personal.

Jim has also railed on Square Enix for it and I'm sure Nintendo and Square aren't the only AAA devs who make regular practice of it.

Spoiler

But yeah, the indie devs do seem to take it more personally though, which means the whole situation gets blown out of proportion and becomes overall hilarious. So maybe the PR departments of the bigger companies earn their paychecks after all. They at least know when to stop digging... sometimes.

 

[Redryhno]

snip

I was still talking about Early Access there bud. And there's still a problem there in my opinion. Sterling doesn't really call out AAA all that much, he just calls them out the loudest and makes the biggest spectacle of it after pretty much everyone else has a go at it.

Again, it's playing safe to a fault about industry problems and doesn't inform pretty much anyone else of anything they don't already know. Well, outside of his episodes where he rants for five minutes about pretty much nothing except he name drops a AAA dev every few sentences so you remember who he's rambling about is safe. He doesn't really have a stable niche he can always have and fall back on beyond some dedicated followers that every youtuber has. So he has to make up for that through making as much noise as he can and hope that parts of it are intelligible to people.

I mean, he threw a fit because Square didn't give him a review copy, whether they ran out or they just don't like him, he was not high on the list, big whoop. He seems to think he's still got the same clout being crowd-funded as being a part of a gaming website when he's barely got more subs than Yahtzee's channel where he just drinks, talks with a buddy and plays a game while doing it for free that he doesn't consistently upload to. And has fractions of a fraction of other people who have solely been doing reviews and informative let's plays just basically doing it for fun or just to fuel their hobby for a couple years. He's indie now, but he's acting like he isn't just some dime a dozen now that he doesn't have a platform(a dime a dozen doing better than the average of course, but still just another dude doing games and industry talk).

Ok, sorry, that last paragraph was sorta really off-topic and probably belongs in the other thread...

 

[CaitSeith]

I find it so amusing that the much hated AAA industry never hits people with strikes(except "glorious" Nintendo) but the supposedly saintly indie devs are the ones who can't take even an ounce of criticism.
I suppose that's what happens when you have a team of 1 or 2. You can't blame another department for failure, so every slight is personal.

Jim has also railed on Square Enix for it and I'm sure Nintendo and Square aren't the only AAA devs who make regular practice of it.

Spoiler

But yeah, the indie devs do seem to take it more personally though, which means the whole situation gets blown out of proportion and becomes overall hilarious. So maybe the PR departments of the bigger companies earn their paychecks after all. They at least know when to stop digging... sometimes.

Usually the AAA strikes are from companies who don't want other people to make money from their work without their permission. These Indies seem to make the strikes against negative criticism instead.

 

[Lightknight]

Wait, Sterling had to disclose his address to these people? That's a non-trivial number of vague threats they keep throwing around.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Spoiler: Blah Blah Blah. You read it already!

What criticism?
There was no criticism on Jim. The Slaughtering Grounds Dev just made a video to personally insult Jim and then took down the video a good while later when it didn't go his way. The others didn't even contact Jim.

The reason the majority of people take the critic's side in these situations is because these Devs don't have a leg to stand on.

These aren't instances of critics "retaliating against criticism". It's them talking about how devs are trying to hide any negative press about their games.

As they should.
If someone took down something you worked on with no justifiable reason just to mess with you for about a week, wouldn't you be a bit miffed and let people know what happened?

As I recall it, the dev took Jim's review video and dubbed in his own audio / text to show how, for example, Sterling was complaining about not having any ammo but nevertheless couldn't be arsed to go into a building and look for any. It was an attempt to show that some of the criticism wasn't justified. Unless you're in the habit of taking advice from someone who's never played a shooter before, that is.

The complaint about the ammo was that it was structured to only give ya ammo for the gun you were holding (not exactly how it's normally done so I don't know how playing more shooters would prepare you for that).

Plus, the Dev blamed Jim for using the worst gun in the game (to which Jim asked "How was I suppose to know it's the worst in the game?" and "Why even have the gun there in the first place if it's so bad?")

The Dev also spent most of the video calling Jim names (though "Jim Fucking Sterling Son!" did have a nice ring ;p), blaming him for things like the games annoying music, mechanics about the game that the game didn't tell him about, and kept calling it a review when it wasn't.

If the dev had been civil, contacted Jim, asked him if he could give the game another go (which Jim actually did do a while later though not because the Dev asked), given him info about the game so he could go in knowing things it didn't tell him, and maybe even replace the first video with the new one, then I'd be on the devs side in this.

But that isn't what went down. The Dev released a video insulting Jim, then used the DMCA to hide the video, claimed their claim was legitimate and that they'd go to court about it, then did nothing as the time for them to do so ran out. The video went back up and it seems people still think it's a good tactic.

This isn't about Devs VS Critics/reviewers. This is about Devs using shady tactics to hide criticism.

I find it so amusing that the much hated AAA industry never hits people with strikes(except "glorious" Nintendo) but the supposedly saintly indie devs are the ones who can't take even an ounce of criticism.
I suppose that's what happens when you have a team of 1 or 2. You can't blame another department for failure, so every slight is personal. But I saw the video in question when he first posted it. He was more amused and confused than angry or critical.
Still, hope this gets resolved without litigation.

Jim has also railed on Square Enix for it and I'm sure Nintendo and Square aren't the only AAA devs who make regular practice of it.

Spoiler

But yeah, the indie devs do seem to take it more personally though, which means the whole situation gets blown out of proportion and becomes overall hilarious. So maybe the PR departments of the bigger companies earn their paychecks after all. They at least know when to stop digging... sometimes.

Jim's also actually been blacklisted by Konami over criticism. So yeah. This behavior isn't just from Indie Devs.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Wait, Sterling had to disclose his address to these people? That's a non-trivial number of vague threats they keep throwing around.

<.< He did?

*Reads the Kotaku article*

Well, dang. That's kind of creepy. <.>

Hope they don't use that information to harass Jim after the video is back up. I don't think any Dev who has done this dance before has, so hopefully this one won't be the first.

 

[DoPo]

so not only is he an asshole but a self righteous asshole.

At least the dev knows how to properly address Jim Sterling

some of the greenlight developers too have contact me that saying that does how he do use the law and He will get the the video back running. but that does not mean He will continue to enjoy the HARD WORK of the Indie Game Developers videos forever.

(emphasis mine)

All praise His name, for He is Jim Fucking Sterling son!

 

[StreamerDarkly]

The complaint about the ammo was that it was structured to only give ya ammo for the gun you were holding (not exactly how it's normally done so I don't know how playing more shooters would prepare you for that).

Plus, the Dev blamed Jim for using the worst gun in the game (to which Jim asked "How was I suppose to know it's the worst in the game?" and "Why even have the gun there in the first place if it's so bad?")

The Dev also spent most of the video calling Jim names (though "Jim Fucking Sterling Son!" did have a nice ring ;p), blaming him for things like the games annoying music, mechanics about the game that the game didn't tell him about, and kept calling it a review when it wasn't.

If the dev had been civil, contacted Jim, asked him if he could give the game another go (which Jim actually did do a while later though not because the Dev asked), given him info about the game so he could go in knowing things it didn't tell him, and maybe even replace the first video with the new one, then I'd be on the devs side in this.

You and DoPo have given a good account of the video, and I remember it more clearly now.

Be fair though. Shooters often have a wide range of weapon quality. Quake and Halo immediately come to mind as games that would be easy to label as shit if being in possession of a weak weapon is enough to make that claim. Not knowing about important mechanics is usually a sign that you haven't played a game long enough to be introduced to them or can't be arsed to look at the controls menu. Was the developer negligent in this instance, or was Jim just lazy?

Is it rational to expect more civility from a developer than from Sterling? Those who choose to make their living ridiculing the work of others aren't above reproach. Not sure if he's tried it yet, but how easy it would be for critic Yahtzee to ruthlessly trash the games that developer Yahtzee has made. I too find it hilarious when a reviewer rips apart a game verbally - comments attached to the lowest rated games on Metacritic are a constant source of amusement.

By the same standard, I can't see anything wrong with a developer or a fan taking a run at a critic. Why is this off limits? I really do think plain old fanboyism is part of the reason (when you have as many fans as TotalBiscuit, Angry Joe or even Jim Sterling), and the idea that the developer is out to rip you off if he complains about reviewers.

 

[Sanderpower]

The complaint about the ammo was that it was structured to only give ya ammo for the gun you were holding (not exactly how it's normally done so I don't know how playing more shooters would prepare you for that).

Plus, the Dev blamed Jim for using the worst gun in the game (to which Jim asked "How was I suppose to know it's the worst in the game?" and "Why even have the gun there in the first place if it's so bad?")

The Dev also spent most of the video calling Jim names (though "Jim Fucking Sterling Son!" did have a nice ring ;p), blaming him for things like the games annoying music, mechanics about the game that the game didn't tell him about, and kept calling it a review when it wasn't.

If the dev had been civil, contacted Jim, asked him if he could give the game another go (which Jim actually did do a while later though not because the Dev asked), given him info about the game so he could go in knowing things it didn't tell him, and maybe even replace the first video with the new one, then I'd be on the devs side in this.

You and DoPo have given a good account of the video, and I remember it more clearly now.

Be fair though. Shooters often have a wide range of weapon quality. Quake and Halo immediately come to mind as games that would be easy to label as shit if being in possession of a weak weapon is enough to make that claim. Not knowing about important mechanics is usually a sign that you haven't played a game long enough to be introduced to them or can't be arsed to look at the controls menu. Was the developer negligent in this instance, or was Jim just lazy?

Is it rational to expect more civility from a developer than from Sterling? Those who choose to make their living ridiculing the work of others aren't above reproach. Not sure if he's tried it yet, but how easy it would be for critic Yahtzee to dump all over the games that developer Yahtzee has made. I too find it hilarious when a reviewer rips apart a game verbally - comments attached to the lowest rated games on Metacritic are a constant source of amusement.

By the same standard, I can't see anything wrong with a developer or a fan taking a run at a critic. Why is this off limits? I really do think plain old fanboyism is part of the reason (when you have as many fans as TotalBiscuit, Angry Joe or even Jim Sterling), and the idea that the developer is out to rip you off if he says anything bad about reviewers.

Because there's a way to go about it. There is a huge difference in being overly critical of somebody for laughs or being overly critical of somebody to be nasty. Want an example? Look at The Nostalgia Critic and how he reviews the movies he and his friends have made. He's over the top, he's sarcastic, and it's a typical Nostalgia Critic review. But he also knows where the line is and people know he's doing it for entertainment, not for him to be purposefully nasty.

The difference between a critic and a developer/producer/director, is that the former's JOB is to entertain others by being critical of the work of the latter. The latter's job is to produce to there work and let it be consumed and criticized by others. When a developer decides to start attacking or criticizing his critics, they aren't doing it out of entertainment or because they're just trying to be have fun. They're doing it because there having a temper tantrum and don't like the fact that others are criticizing there work.

It's pathetic. It's unprofessional, and often times it's the developer themselves trying to shift the burden of the creation of a quality product on the critics, as if critics are automatically supposed to be on there side. Producers who criticize there critics like the developers of Slaughtering Grounds, believe that they are entitled to praise or that if people don't like what they do, then they should just be quiet. Which is absolutely absurd when they then expect others to pay money for there product.

 

[esserin]

Is it rational to expect more civility from a developer than from Sterling? Those who choose to make their living ridiculing the work of others aren't above reproach. Not sure if he's tried it yet, but how easy it would be for critic Yahtzee to dump all over the games that developer Yahtzee has made. I too find it hilarious when a reviewer rips apart a game verbally - comments attached to the lowest rated games on Metacritic are a constant source of amusement. By the same standard, I can't see anything wrong with a developer or a fan taking a run at a critic. Why is this off limits?

The problem isn't about a critic being criticized. It's about a critic being silenced. That's the whole point of the DCMA. If he'd just said that he thinks Sterling is a horrible critic because of this and that, then it would be understandable.

I don't really watch his steam greenlight playthroughs but, if you go on check out his latest video, his showing a game that he thinks has potential. I don't know how frequently that happens compared to the "Look at this horrible game" that he is more known for. I do, however, feel it would be beneficial for him and greenlit games if he showed some of the good but obscure stuff out there. Show some of the good to contrast with the bad.

EDIT: What sanderpower just above me said. Explains my views on this matter much better.

 

[StreamerDarkly]

It's pathetic. It's unprofessional, and often times it's the developer themselves trying to shift the burden of quality on the critics. Producers who criticize there critics like the developers of Slaughtering Grounds, believe that they are entitled to praise or that if people don't like what they do, then they should just be quiet. Which is absolutely absurd when they then expect others to pay money for there product.

Or they're just reminding us that most game critics are failed developers. It's similar to the idea that most school teachers are there because they couldn't achieve anything in their field of specialization. I wager these things are true about half the time.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Spoiler: Bah! Ya saw it! YOU ALL SAW IT! Except you, but you shouldn't have blinked.

:x

You and DoPo have given a good account of the video, and I remember it more clearly now.

Be fair though. Shooters often have a wide range of weapon quality. Quake and Halo immediately come to mind as games that would be easy to label as shit if being in possession of a weak weapon is enough to make that claim. Not knowing about important mechanics is usually a sign that you haven't played a game long enough to be introduced to them or can't be arsed to look at the controls menu. Was the developer negligent in this instance, or was Jim just lazy?

Is it rational to expect more civility from a developer than from Sterling? Those who choose to make their living ridiculing the work of others aren't above reproach. Not sure if he's tried it yet, but how easy it would be for critic Yahtzee to dump all over the games that developer Yahtzee has made. I too find it hilarious when a reviewer rips apart a game verbally - comments attached to the lowest rated games on Metacritic are a constant source of amusement. By the same standard, I can't see anything wrong with a developer or a fan taking a run at a critic. Why is this off limits?

"but how easy it would be for critic Yahtzee to dump all over the games that developer Yahtzee has made." Um, sorry I didn't get what ya meant with this bit.

Do you mean how would Yahtzee deal with someone reviewing his games? Or someone reviewing Yahtzee's ZP's?
Well, Yahtzee kind of went though a few of his own games recently in his "Lets Down Out" podcast/lets play. Otherwise I do remember him mentioning a long while ago that someone reviewed one of his games. I think. It's been a bit.

Anyway, back to Jim.

As I said, the video Jim did wasn't a review, but a first impressions video. Part of that means he jumps into the game as someone who just got would. Jim did try to use the in game menu to find out how it was working, but there wasn't much to it (also it didn't pause the game so he had to quit it so he wouldn't die).


He looked at it twice in fact. At about 2:27 and 5:40. It didn't really offer much info about how to play.

If a game can't educate the player on the game, that is a legitimate issue. A "first impressions" video is a good way to test out a game. See if it can hook someone into it or support them enough that they can figure out what they're doing.
In this case, Slaughtering Grounds didn't really do a good job at all. If Jim didn't know how to play a shooter with Zombies in it (because we defiantly don't have a shortage of those), it probably would have went even worse.

As for how the Dev's response vidoe is different from Jim's video. Jim was doing a first impressions video for the product (the game), and giving his opinion based on what he was seeing going into the game after reading just a bit about it on it's Steam page. Giving his opinion of the game as he goes though it.

The Slaughtering Grounds Dev made his video to personally attack Jim as a person. Jim was mocking the game and the company. It can sometimes be a thin line between what is mockery and what is an insult, but in this case I believe the line is clear.

Also, the Dev using the DMCA to get rid of the video (along with the other shady things they were doing. Check Jim's Jimquisition on the game for more details on that), and was just generally being pretty unprofessional.
As I said, if they hadn't done that and approached Jim civilly (the other devs including the latest one didn't even contact him) then this probably wouldn't have even gotten talked about and could have even ended well (or at least better) for these devs.

As it stands, what they did on the whole is deplorable.

 

[Sanderpower]

It's pathetic. It's unprofessional, and often times it's the developer themselves trying to shift the burden of quality on the critics. Producers who criticize there critics like the developers of Slaughtering Grounds, believe that they are entitled to praise or that if people don't like what they do, then they should just be quiet. Which is absolutely absurd when they then expect others to pay money for there product.

Or they're just reminding us that most game critics are failed developers. It's similar to the idea that most school teachers are there because they couldn't achieve anything in their field of specialization. I wager these things are true about half the time.

Except Jim has never attempted to make a video game and therefore the comparison with school teachers doesn't even apply to him. He basically said on one of his Jimquistion's (I think the one about the Slaughtering Grounds) that he knows he can't produce a good video game and he isn't going to try too. Developers who likewise can't produce a good video game shouldn't try to either. IF they're really determined, then they should be criticized just like any other developer who produces bad games.

A critic isn't a teacher, a critic is a critic. I don't need to be a good chef to tell a person that the food i'm eating is crap. I don't need to be a movie director to tell you that The Last Airbender is a shitty movie. If you're going to sell somebody something, then critics have to determine if it's worth spending money on it. That's there JOB. For a critic to not do so would mean they are acting against the best interests of consumers.

Have you even seen the skate man video? Because that game is completely terrible. I'm not a video game developer, but I know when shit I see shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c4LaD874ck

Hell most of the video he isn't even reviewing it! He's mostly just laughing at the video because he honestly doesn't need to say anything else. The poor quality speaks for itself.

 

[DoPo]

Not knowing about important mechanics is usually a sign that you haven't played a game long enough to be introduced to them or can't be arsed to look at the controls menu.

What game describes its mechanics in the controls menu? Well, aside from control related, that is: what game would have "oh, and btw, you only pick up ammo for the current weapon" somewhere in the controls section?

At any rate - the game DIDN'T HAVE A CONTROLS MENU. Even if it was common practice, you wouldn't have been able to see it. The menu literally had a toggle for music, GUI[footnote]yes, GUI. Dafuq, I know. I assume it's supposed to be the HUD as opposed to toggling between picture and command line.[/footnote], radar and then an option to go to character select and finally: quit.


Moreover, yes, Jim was literally playing the game for the first time. Something that should have been quite clear because he explained this in the beginning of the video. That's on top of the fact that his Squrty Play series are just about picking a game and playing it blind.

So it's not negligence - it was quite clearly advertised.

Was the developer negligent in this instance, or was Jim just lazy?

It was the developer. It's quite clear - there isn't much Jim could do in-game that would make things more clear. Jim basically did a brilliant "hallway test [http://www.joelonsoftware.com/news/fog0000000118.html]" (credit for it goes to Mr Joel Spolsky) which the developer ignored in order to rant and throw fits. The game was shit. On multiple levels. I don't see how Jim could make it any worse. Remember, it was apparently Jim's fault that the mines didn't work...somehow. The developer claimed that it was quite clearly a bug (which it was) and that was somehow Jim's fault for not instinctively understanding that.

The music is about two minutes long and endlessly looping. Which was Jim's fault again...since Jim didn't stop the music - if he did, he would have apparently been able to hear a supply plane flying over. I remind you this is, according to the developer, not the fault of the developer that the game doesn't work as it should[footnote]where "it should" would be "soundtrack shouldn't mask important audio cues".[/footnote]

I also remind you - when you die, you don't get any ammo back. The level is restarted but the state of the game isn't.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: the game basically fails to be Death Illustrated [http://www.acid-play.com/download/death-illustrated]. The major differences are - DI is awesome. DI has awesome soundtrack. DI looks amazing, even if it's in black and white. DI is free. DI hasn't even been released in (the end of) 2014 but about 10 years prior. DI is awesome.

But back to the "hallway test" bit - as I said, it was brilliant. It did highilight lots of issues and it took 10 minutes. It also showed that that's 10 less minutes the game was ever tested. And were those issues to be addressed it may actually have been worth the money.

Is it rational to expect more civility from a developer than from Sterling?

Yes observe how real developers handle it [https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/PYTHON-532]. And here is an answer from Stack Exchange [http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/273969] that's pretty applicable.

Remember, we are software professionals. The best way to deal with rude or angry customers (even if they are not paying customers) is to respond politely and professionally.



There are two very important points to keep in mind:




Reputation is critical in any business. Do you want to be known as "that guy [http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/07/15/331681041/comcast-embarrassed-by-the-service-call-making-internet-rounds]" who is rude to customers? That is a good way to lose business, both current and future.


Responding in any other way than completely polite and respectful will escalate the situation. It will devolve into very nonconstructive behavior: see my first point.




Sometimes you need to swallow your pride and tell people what they want to hear, not what you want to say.

The first paragraph is something I want to frame and put on my wall - it's that brilliant. But the whole thing is brilliant.

By the same standard, I can't see anything wrong with a developer or a fan taking a run at a critic. Why is this off limits?

It is not. It's just...let's say "bad form" to issue criticism against legitimate complaints. And also your defence to be ridiculously mishandled.

Basically, you'd have to have some ground to stand on when issuing criticism back. Lest that ground becomes a slaughtering one.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

It's pathetic. It's unprofessional, and often times it's the developer themselves trying to shift the burden of quality on the critics. Producers who criticize there critics like the developers of Slaughtering Grounds, believe that they are entitled to praise or that if people don't like what they do, then they should just be quiet. Which is absolutely absurd when they then expect others to pay money for there product.

Or they're just reminding us that most game critics are failed developers. It's similar to the idea that most school teachers are there because they couldn't achieve anything in their field of specialization. I wager these things are true about half the time.

PFFFTTT! :x

Jim ain't a failed game developer who became a games journalist.

He's a games journalist who became a successful voice actor.


;p

 

[StreamerDarkly]

If a game can't educate the player on the game, that is a legitimate issue. A "first impressions" video is a good way to test out a game. See if it can hook someone into it or support them enough that they can figure out what they're doing. In this case, Slaughtering Grounds didn't really do a good job at all. If Jim didn't know how to play a shooter with Zombies in it (because we defiantly don't have a shortage of those), it probably would have went even worse.

As for how the Dev's response vidoe is different from Jim's video. Jim was doing a first impressions video for the product (the game), and giving his opinion based on what he was seeing going into the game after reading just a bit about it on it's Steam page. Giving his opinion of the game as he goes though it.

Hold on a second. You're saying it's OK to lower the bar even further on making strong points in game reviews - the failure to do so often being brushed off as "just an opinion!" - by calling it a "first impressions" video? That's a pathetic cop out. If you don't have a handle on the game, why make a video about it?

Sterling flat out says in his defense "I'm supposed to know these things in a first impression video?", as if this is an unreasonable expectation. Why yes, if you're going to make fun of certain mechanics, you're expected to understand them.

The faux hysterical laughter during this video makes evident how childish Sterling is. These guys clearly pissed him off with their response, and he couldn't wait to escalate the drama. Having a legion of supporters to stroke your ego and tell you how right you are makes it all very easy.

Also, the Dev using the DMCA to get rid of the video (along with the other shady things they were doing. Check Jim's Jimquisition on the game for more details on that), and was just generally being pretty unprofessional. As I said, if they hadn't done that and approached Jim civilly (the other devs including the latest one didn't even contact him) then this probably wouldn't have even gotten talked about and could have even ended well (or at least better) for these devs.

This issue has already been covered. No one defends false DMCA claims. It shouldn't cloud the argument of whether it's OK for developers to fight back if they feel they've been unfairly criticized.

 

[StreamerDarkly]

Jim ain't a failed game developer who became a games journalist.

He's a games journalist who became a successful voice actor.

Yes, I was aware of this. Calling it successful is another matter entirely.

 

[DoPo]

Hold on a second. You're saying it's OK to lower the bar even further on making strong points in game reviews - the failure to do so often being brushed off as "just an opinion!" - by calling it a "first impressions" video? That's a pathetic cop out. If you don't have a handle on the game, why make a video about it?

If a game fails in the first 10 minutes, I'd be interested to know.

Sterling flat out says in his defense "I'm supposed to know these things in a first impression video?", as if this is an unreasonable expectation. Why yes, if you're going to make fun of certain mechanics, you're expected to understand them.

How are you supposed to know the mechanics when the game fails to explain them? If the game fails to explain them, how is this beyond criticism?

It shouldn't cloud the argument of whether it's OK for developers to fight back if they feel they've been unfairly criticized.

They weren't unfairly criticised. I can write an essay on how much the game fails based on just viewing that 10 minute video. Would you like to explain how the problems of the game weren't problems? Because I pointed out some of the glaring ones in my previous post - try starting with those - why is a monotone looping soundtrack that hides important information from you UNLESS YOU TURN IT OFF not a failure? How is the mine not working, not a failure? How is the persistent state of the game not a failure?