surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
I think she picked a bad example. DNF has been given far worse reviews as a quick look at metacritic will comfirm. Imho metacritic is a great starting place to find reviews that you agree with and if you find yourself agreeing with a publication a lot then you can go to them for a reliable critique in line with your own setiments.
I don't want to be harse but she needs stfu.
I don't want to be harse but she needs stfu.
I'm going to have to go with what Scoville keeps mentioning. Quit taking this stuff so seriously, aren't games supposed to be for FUN? And I agree with Jim, Metacritic is not the problem. It is people taking themselves and their reviews a little too seriously instead of taking them as the individual people's opinions they are. I don't see anyone twisting my arm to not buy a game they give a bad score. If fifty food critics tell me pizza is garbage and a website tells me they all agree, I'm still going to eat pizza, cause i LIKE IT and have my own opinions. People are taking themselves too seriously and need to stop forgetting they can make their own decisions, and that reviews are just glorified ways of people you don't even know telling you if they liked something or not. I like Jim's opinions and taste in games, so I generally take his reviews as I would a recommendation from a friend I trust, not as gospel or a slap in the face to my own sensibilities as some seem to.
"I think she picked a bad example."
@Murumasa123: I agree. I didn't think the DNF review was that far off, except maybe the score. Lately the reviews have actually been pretty fair.
@Murumasa123: I agree. I didn't think the DNF review was that far off, except maybe the score. Lately the reviews have actually been pretty fair.
@Shinta
This Jimquisition is not a response to Leigh's article. It was only brought up due to the many negative comments about Metacritics in it.
And where I disagree with Leigh about her opinion that Jim shouldn't write reviews anymore is the fact that she believes Jim's reviews are unprofessionally written and somehow make other reviewers "look bad".
While Jim does act like a narcissistic jackass in Jimquisition, and plenty foul languages are used in his satirical pieces. But you will find none of that in his reviews. I don't even think he swears in them, unless quoting the game. Neither can you find personal attacks nor fabricated critiques. So it begs the question: "How are his reviews unprofessional?", that is, if we are to believe Leigh Alxander is the ultimate judge of a reviewer's integrity.
Is is because of his sometimes harsh words? IIRC, in Jim's DNF review, he suggested the game's humor can only be enjoyed by the sociopathic. Harsh words, indeed. But what's really important here is whether or not he really meant that. Did he find the game's sense of humor so twisted and disgusting to the level of sociopathic? Judging from what I've seen of the game, I don't doubt it.
Oh and also, she is literally saying that Jim should stop reviewing because he is popular, and she doesn't want him to be the voice of the profession. That's awfully close to oppression, if, you know, she actually has any authority or voice in this industry.
Lastly, "reviews translate into game sales, directly"? Did you really think that through? Is this real life??
This Jimquisition is not a response to Leigh's article. It was only brought up due to the many negative comments about Metacritics in it.
And where I disagree with Leigh about her opinion that Jim shouldn't write reviews anymore is the fact that she believes Jim's reviews are unprofessionally written and somehow make other reviewers "look bad".
While Jim does act like a narcissistic jackass in Jimquisition, and plenty foul languages are used in his satirical pieces. But you will find none of that in his reviews. I don't even think he swears in them, unless quoting the game. Neither can you find personal attacks nor fabricated critiques. So it begs the question: "How are his reviews unprofessional?", that is, if we are to believe Leigh Alxander is the ultimate judge of a reviewer's integrity.
Is is because of his sometimes harsh words? IIRC, in Jim's DNF review, he suggested the game's humor can only be enjoyed by the sociopathic. Harsh words, indeed. But what's really important here is whether or not he really meant that. Did he find the game's sense of humor so twisted and disgusting to the level of sociopathic? Judging from what I've seen of the game, I don't doubt it.
Oh and also, she is literally saying that Jim should stop reviewing because he is popular, and she doesn't want him to be the voice of the profession. That's awfully close to oppression, if, you know, she actually has any authority or voice in this industry.
Lastly, "reviews translate into game sales, directly"? Did you really think that through? Is this real life??
Shinta: Yeah ... this video wasn't a counter to Leigh's article. I didn't dodge anything. I already dealt with her article's content in a different area.
And there wasn't even a "showdown." I respectfully disagree with her suggestion.
And there wasn't even a "showdown." I respectfully disagree with her suggestion.
@Jim Sterling: Fair enough. I went back and saw your reply to her on her site. I missed it the first time.
@yenner:
"Oh and also, she is literally saying that Jim should stop reviewing because he is popular, and she doesn't want him to be the voice of the profession."
I don't think anyone would say he is the voice of the profession and be taken seriously, including Leigh. I think her main point is that she feels he's playing "in character" to an audience during his reviews. Part of that character is exaggerating things and making some flaws sound infinitely worse than they actually are.
If you want to know what I personally find troubling about the reviews, it's that 1) they are often exaggerated, 2) the scores are not consistently rational when you rank his reviews side-by-side, 3) little attempt is made to write the review from an objective point of view. Instead he delves into the subjective as much as possible. I don't want a debate about how objectivity is impossible. It's not impossible. It will never be 100% objective, and we want opinions in there, but people at least strive for objectivity. This is what reporters and judges do every day.
I know I'm not the only one that feels that way. A great many people feel that way. I think the general idea is that there's a bit too much subjectivity going on, and not enough of a reverence for the goals of objective reviewing.
At the same time, I keep coming back to Destructoid for the overall reporting. I definitely can tell that Jim is a gamer, and I enjoy reading that. I'm a fan of his articles supporting lesser-known JRPGs, and his pieces critiquing used games and DLC. But I've always had a problem with his reviews. To pretend like I don't would be disingenuous. Lately I'm trying to let it slide and not get so pissed about it. And lately they've been better, so I'll give him that credit, as I said in my earlier post.
"Oh and also, she is literally saying that Jim should stop reviewing because he is popular, and she doesn't want him to be the voice of the profession."
I don't think anyone would say he is the voice of the profession and be taken seriously, including Leigh. I think her main point is that she feels he's playing "in character" to an audience during his reviews. Part of that character is exaggerating things and making some flaws sound infinitely worse than they actually are.
If you want to know what I personally find troubling about the reviews, it's that 1) they are often exaggerated, 2) the scores are not consistently rational when you rank his reviews side-by-side, 3) little attempt is made to write the review from an objective point of view. Instead he delves into the subjective as much as possible. I don't want a debate about how objectivity is impossible. It's not impossible. It will never be 100% objective, and we want opinions in there, but people at least strive for objectivity. This is what reporters and judges do every day.
I know I'm not the only one that feels that way. A great many people feel that way. I think the general idea is that there's a bit too much subjectivity going on, and not enough of a reverence for the goals of objective reviewing.
At the same time, I keep coming back to Destructoid for the overall reporting. I definitely can tell that Jim is a gamer, and I enjoy reading that. I'm a fan of his articles supporting lesser-known JRPGs, and his pieces critiquing used games and DLC. But I've always had a problem with his reviews. To pretend like I don't would be disingenuous. Lately I'm trying to let it slide and not get so pissed about it. And lately they've been better, so I'll give him that credit, as I said in my earlier post.
There are some well... cridics that should not be allowed to publish on metacridic, exspecially when their reveiw does not pop up when clicked on!
Jim,it might not be advisable to give Leigh Alexander's suggestion a moment more consideration than it deserves or else you just might risk the Destructoid readership withdrawing their support just as the PR guys threatened to,sort of the way that some people do after you write a review that shows something other than the precise level of favor that they would prefer that everyone else show the game(whether they played or or not before making such a judgement).
It'd be am awful shame if something were to happen to this fine website due to hasty acquiescence to the demands of a facilitator of corruption in the games journalism industry.
That didn't come out right. That not only made it sound like a lose-lose situation there, it almost sounded like a threat.
Here's another go.
If you lose your integrity just to calm the nerves of a few PR guys, then you'll have lost part of what makes listening to your viewpoints worthwhile (besides the humor value, that is).
It runs the risk of turning this site into another Gamespot or Kotaku.
You don't want to destroy Destructoid, do ya?
It'd be am awful shame if something were to happen to this fine website due to hasty acquiescence to the demands of a facilitator of corruption in the games journalism industry.
That didn't come out right. That not only made it sound like a lose-lose situation there, it almost sounded like a threat.
Here's another go.
If you lose your integrity just to calm the nerves of a few PR guys, then you'll have lost part of what makes listening to your viewpoints worthwhile (besides the humor value, that is).
It runs the risk of turning this site into another Gamespot or Kotaku.
You don't want to destroy Destructoid, do ya?
I've tried 3 times since I've watched this and read Alexander's post (multiple times) and I can't seem to write anything but the same, long, thing each time. Its not flaming or mean, but I also don't think its something one would consider completely "right", so I won't do it -if only out of respect for what Jim said in his tweet reply to her included at the bottom of the post.
I'll just leave it at: She sounds naive about whats going on, quick to tell people how to do their business even when she sounds like she can't handle that business herself, and is ultimately putting her nose into places she doesn't belong, all while pointing fingers when no one else seems to be and jumping the gun for 2 two industries.
As for Metacritic, I agree with Sterling. Its a tool and the industry has corrupted that tool -which is not cool. I'm fine with using it for movies or music (although I rarely do) but I won't even touch it in conjunction to video games knowing what I know. I mean, I've been gaming at least 25 of my 28 years on this planet and I won't blindly believe that every game deserves a 7-10 score, from upwards of 50 reviewers.. Asking anyone to believe that is just ridiculous and shameful, and the fact that some people believe it with riotous fervor is just mind-blowing. No one website should have this much control over peoples lives.
Metacritic isn't to blame, and I've never blamed them, but I do have to cast at least a few stones towards industry, and the people who seem to blindly follow.
I'll just leave it at: She sounds naive about whats going on, quick to tell people how to do their business even when she sounds like she can't handle that business herself, and is ultimately putting her nose into places she doesn't belong, all while pointing fingers when no one else seems to be and jumping the gun for 2 two industries.
As for Metacritic, I agree with Sterling. Its a tool and the industry has corrupted that tool -which is not cool. I'm fine with using it for movies or music (although I rarely do) but I won't even touch it in conjunction to video games knowing what I know. I mean, I've been gaming at least 25 of my 28 years on this planet and I won't blindly believe that every game deserves a 7-10 score, from upwards of 50 reviewers.. Asking anyone to believe that is just ridiculous and shameful, and the fact that some people believe it with riotous fervor is just mind-blowing. No one website should have this much control over peoples lives.
Metacritic isn't to blame, and I've never blamed them, but I do have to cast at least a few stones towards industry, and the people who seem to blindly follow.
Isn't Leigh Alexander called Katherine Leigh McHugh on here? I'm guessing that they're the same. Where's her response?
I've read a lot of the comments in this thread and it sickens me to be a member of this community.
The absolute vitriol being poured at Leigh Alexander over a piece that may be incorrect but is politely framed and well written is disgusting.
The fact that Jim replied in a way which was as polite was completely unexpected but a pleasant surprise nonetheless.
The absolute vitriol being poured at Leigh Alexander over a piece that may be incorrect but is politely framed and well written is disgusting.
The fact that Jim replied in a way which was as polite was completely unexpected but a pleasant surprise nonetheless.
I've never used metacritic for anything more than a repository of links to reviews I might want to read. But then I've never cared about score systems on reviews anyway.
God people are so stupid some times. Awesome vid Jim, keep em coming!
God people are so stupid some times. Awesome vid Jim, keep em coming!
I kind of prefer GameRankings and Rottentomatos for games and movies, respectively. MetaCritic is good, but it's review scores seem to come arbitrarily. Regardless, your argument is 100% valid. MetaCritic isn't the problem, it's the damn industry who can't accept that 70% is still good.
@Natural+20
1) I don't think it was well written, and the tone was very "mmkay?! :)" smug (as she often does).
2) What's respectful about telling someone to stop writing reviews, and that essentially Jim isn't good enough for Metacritic?
3) I think maybe one person here was out of line. The rest called it like they see it: they called out the smugness.
1) I don't think it was well written, and the tone was very "mmkay?! :)" smug (as she often does).
2) What's respectful about telling someone to stop writing reviews, and that essentially Jim isn't good enough for Metacritic?
3) I think maybe one person here was out of line. The rest called it like they see it: they called out the smugness.
@KingSigy
FYI, although Gamerankings used to be separate, they were bought out by the parent company of Metacritic. Although their interfaces are different, most of the same people are on each.
FYI, although Gamerankings used to be separate, they were bought out by the parent company of Metacritic. Although their interfaces are different, most of the same people are on each.
I fucking love you Jim and I am thankful for you. I'm glad that you don't mind telling people to really fuck off.
I'm sure this has been posted on other Jimquisition videos (maybe even this one; I'm too lazy to read every comment), but please consider the follow changes:
1.) Bring back the aviators
2.) Get rid of the mic stand (so you can drop the mic at the end)
3.) Include footage of you having your way with a Sonic doll in the intro
1.) Bring back the aviators
2.) Get rid of the mic stand (so you can drop the mic at the end)
3.) Include footage of you having your way with a Sonic doll in the intro
You're a metacritic fanboy. That speech was all bias. You know people at metacritic you should have your critics icense revoked cuz your untruthful for being bias for loving metacritic. Kirby's epic yarn was dumb too !!!
For better or worse, the metacritic score has become a backdoor videogame industry standard. So what Leigh points out is definitely worth thinking about. The whole serious, legitimate videogame reviewer "community" should re-evaluate itself before it awkwardly implodes.
Here's the thing with Metacritic:
It serves one of two groups: Gamers, who probably will not bother to look at Metacritic before purchasing a game (when has anyone really sat down and looked up a Metacritic score before they go out the door to Gamestop?), and non-gamers, who don't know wtf a metacritic is.
My point is that the site itself is useful for mostly providing fodder for game debates. In and of itself, it's not bad a site. However, its effects and influence on the purchasing habits of these two groups of people is vastly overstated and overblown, giving whiners of all ages more tears to peddle.
...I mean honestly, again: When has anyone looked at Metacritic to do anything other than complain or argue on a forum?
It's a convenient excuse for fanboys and developers.
It serves one of two groups: Gamers, who probably will not bother to look at Metacritic before purchasing a game (when has anyone really sat down and looked up a Metacritic score before they go out the door to Gamestop?), and non-gamers, who don't know wtf a metacritic is.
My point is that the site itself is useful for mostly providing fodder for game debates. In and of itself, it's not bad a site. However, its effects and influence on the purchasing habits of these two groups of people is vastly overstated and overblown, giving whiners of all ages more tears to peddle.
...I mean honestly, again: When has anyone looked at Metacritic to do anything other than complain or argue on a forum?
It's a convenient excuse for fanboys and developers.
I find it hilarious how Jim thinks nothing, and also everything, is relevant. Metacritic is at fault, whether you want to see it or not. Want to see someone with way more intelligence and an actual understanding of the industry explain it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QsXrswJ-yM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QsXrswJ-yM
I agree with a lot of what Leigh said. I understand her point of view regarding metacritic and Jim, both of which I agree with. A true game reviewer doesn't go overboard in their reviews as Jim did in his DNF review. The way I see Leigh's deal with this Jim is I think she would rather see Jim's Reviews changed to something like "Jim's take on DNF" and "Jim's take on Final Fantasy 13." Some of his reviews don't sound like honest reviews, and if he can't bring a professional air to all of his reviews, then he should not be trying to be seen as a professional reviewer. Even if he is not trying to be seen as a professional reviewer, he is in the wrong place for that. If all he wants to do is play with his fan base and do shock reports, then he should label himself as an entertainer, not a reviewer, and should make it very easy to tell the difference for any reader who reads his stuff.
As for the metacritic stuff, that is what got me annoyed at Jim's review for dnf. I know what metacritic does to games, and while it is a crap system, its a system we have to live with at present. Due to how this system works, it is hard for game companies to take risks and/or continue interesting series whose first games got a low score. I see people pointing out how Destructoids 2 isn't a 2, but has a little caption that describes what the 2 means. That means jack shit when it comes to metacritic, as the 2 is the representation of the review from Jim, not destructoid's version of a 2. DNF did not deserve a 2, no matter how bad the game was from a personal standpoint as it was for Jim. I played the game from beginning to end and I had 0 issues. My only gripes would of been from lackluster graphics, which I don't give a damn about, the guns systems, which I kind of cared about, and the humor, which I kind of cared about because the game wasn't quite good enough at delivering the one liners at points where it would be really funny. This does not make a game a two, and I think that is most people's issue with Jim's review and why his professionalism is being doubted.
As for the metacritic stuff, that is what got me annoyed at Jim's review for dnf. I know what metacritic does to games, and while it is a crap system, its a system we have to live with at present. Due to how this system works, it is hard for game companies to take risks and/or continue interesting series whose first games got a low score. I see people pointing out how Destructoids 2 isn't a 2, but has a little caption that describes what the 2 means. That means jack shit when it comes to metacritic, as the 2 is the representation of the review from Jim, not destructoid's version of a 2. DNF did not deserve a 2, no matter how bad the game was from a personal standpoint as it was for Jim. I played the game from beginning to end and I had 0 issues. My only gripes would of been from lackluster graphics, which I don't give a damn about, the guns systems, which I kind of cared about, and the humor, which I kind of cared about because the game wasn't quite good enough at delivering the one liners at points where it would be really funny. This does not make a game a two, and I think that is most people's issue with Jim's review and why his professionalism is being doubted.
Phobos-UAC
I thought you said more intelligence? While All I see is a dude with a grudge, and very little actual points besides him just trying to insult and blame Metacritic.|
The ONLY objective and valid point he makes *against metacritic* is that the 100 scale is BS. The rest is directed at publishers, in which his opinion is pretty much the same as jim. So your post makes no sense whatsoever
I thought you said more intelligence? While All I see is a dude with a grudge, and very little actual points besides him just trying to insult and blame Metacritic.|
The ONLY objective and valid point he makes *against metacritic* is that the 100 scale is BS. The rest is directed at publishers, in which his opinion is pretty much the same as jim. So your post makes no sense whatsoever
Say, what makes Jim's reviews any less "professional" than those of his peers? We've heard the opinion of Leigh Alexander and that's fine, but is there a consensus amongst the reviewing community to want Jim out or 'nerf' his reviews to mere "opinions"? If this is a problem, then I want to hear it from more than one reviewer.
And even if there were a problem, do you think it would stop Jim from writing reviews and voicing his opinions? If he were to stop (which I highly doubt) I believe developers, publishers, reviewers and all of us would be much worse off for it. From what I have read of his work, Jim puts a lot of effort into his writing and perhaps that's why it is so effective and often polarizing. It would be a shame to censor his writing by making it less of a deviation from the those of the masses.
And even if there were a problem, do you think it would stop Jim from writing reviews and voicing his opinions? If he were to stop (which I highly doubt) I believe developers, publishers, reviewers and all of us would be much worse off for it. From what I have read of his work, Jim puts a lot of effort into his writing and perhaps that's why it is so effective and often polarizing. It would be a shame to censor his writing by making it less of a deviation from the those of the masses.
I don't pay much attention to the scores. Metacritic's best aspect is that it collates review summaries pretty well. There are a handful of game sites whose opinions I respect, and I can see all of them in one place. If I want to read more than just the conclusion from those sites, I can click on the link provided by Metacritic. And since not all games are reviewed by all sites, it is an important way to see reviews for games that aren't Call of Halo Gears Zone Resistance of Fantasy.
I doubt people will ever stop staring blindly at numbers, sad as it is. I do personally think that the kind of 1/5 Stars ratings that go around in movie reviews would make things more simple for everyone.
"when Jim doesn't like something, PR has got no choice but to take the hit"
Deary me...
Isn't the whole point that if reviewers don't like games, they should "take a hit"? Maybe I'm crazy but ALL reviewers should "dare" deal these "hits", else they're quite useless as far as influence goes.
Some people really, really have a problem understanding/appreciating/separating different opinions as well as humour. One could almost, almost just call them the "anti-Sterling" side, because that's often (if not always) how it seems...
I've previously strongly "defended" (not insinuating he "needs" it) Jim, and it's just too easy (although one might say impossible as some minds are simply closed) to counter all arguments for why he's Satan incarnate. Because the arguments range from non-existant to not very well thought through / conclusions reached using highly selective variables.
Blargh. Go Sterlimaniacs! ;)
Deary me...
Isn't the whole point that if reviewers don't like games, they should "take a hit"? Maybe I'm crazy but ALL reviewers should "dare" deal these "hits", else they're quite useless as far as influence goes.
Some people really, really have a problem understanding/appreciating/separating different opinions as well as humour. One could almost, almost just call them the "anti-Sterling" side, because that's often (if not always) how it seems...
I've previously strongly "defended" (not insinuating he "needs" it) Jim, and it's just too easy (although one might say impossible as some minds are simply closed) to counter all arguments for why he's Satan incarnate. Because the arguments range from non-existant to not very well thought through / conclusions reached using highly selective variables.
Blargh. Go Sterlimaniacs! ;)
It goes like this.....
Game_01 comes in to reviewer, reviewer plays it. Now it goes one of multiple ways....
Game plays well, but is just mediocre. Graphics are kinda dated for today's games, it uses outdated systems, and seems like it was a game that was made in a bit of a rush. It has no noticeable bugs, nothing prevented the reviewer from being able to go forward and beat the game, other than the reviewer just doesn't care much for those kinds of games.
What kind of score does a game like that deserve? Based on everything but the reviewer not being into those kinds of games, it sounds like a 6 or so.
I am not going to make a scenario for every possible game, I am just going to go straight to Jim's DNF review.
Jim gets DNF, all excited, gonna play Duke "Fuckin" Nukem and go kick some ass. He plugs in the game, he dislikes the graphics asap. He hears Duke talk, he doesn't like his one liners. He realizes it takes him 30 minutes to get a hold of a weapon, that sucks. He finds a 2 weapon limit being forced on the player, ok enough of this shit, review time.
Now, as far as DNF goes, the game isn't a bug ridden mess. It has dated graphics, dated one liners, and isn't comparable to today's AAA titles. As a game, it isn't bad, it could be better, but it is far from a horrible mess. It was made for pure Duke Nukem fans, and most of those enjoy the game.
Now, what exactly makes the game deserve a 2? I have never heard a single good arguement for that as of yet. Why should Jim Sterling be allowed to give a vile diatribe about the game, one that most people can't see where its coming from. Yes, the game sucks compared to AAA titles, but there is nothing wrong with the game other than that.
This tells me Jim's review was grossly negative beyond the scope it should of been. He called the entire game's fanbase sociopath's and a few other unkind things. He took the review from the realm of reviews to personal grudge territory with his review, and that is why he should not do reviews. He is a sensationalist, a person who loves to be in the spot light. If he feel's people are getting bored with his normal antics, he will do something about that, be it throw a temper tantrum ( Duke Nukem ), make a new Jimquisition, or any number of other things. Due to this, he should not be labeled a reviewer, and his reviews should not be meta critic material.
Anyway, I will stop here.
Game_01 comes in to reviewer, reviewer plays it. Now it goes one of multiple ways....
Game plays well, but is just mediocre. Graphics are kinda dated for today's games, it uses outdated systems, and seems like it was a game that was made in a bit of a rush. It has no noticeable bugs, nothing prevented the reviewer from being able to go forward and beat the game, other than the reviewer just doesn't care much for those kinds of games.
What kind of score does a game like that deserve? Based on everything but the reviewer not being into those kinds of games, it sounds like a 6 or so.
I am not going to make a scenario for every possible game, I am just going to go straight to Jim's DNF review.
Jim gets DNF, all excited, gonna play Duke "Fuckin" Nukem and go kick some ass. He plugs in the game, he dislikes the graphics asap. He hears Duke talk, he doesn't like his one liners. He realizes it takes him 30 minutes to get a hold of a weapon, that sucks. He finds a 2 weapon limit being forced on the player, ok enough of this shit, review time.
Now, as far as DNF goes, the game isn't a bug ridden mess. It has dated graphics, dated one liners, and isn't comparable to today's AAA titles. As a game, it isn't bad, it could be better, but it is far from a horrible mess. It was made for pure Duke Nukem fans, and most of those enjoy the game.
Now, what exactly makes the game deserve a 2? I have never heard a single good arguement for that as of yet. Why should Jim Sterling be allowed to give a vile diatribe about the game, one that most people can't see where its coming from. Yes, the game sucks compared to AAA titles, but there is nothing wrong with the game other than that.
This tells me Jim's review was grossly negative beyond the scope it should of been. He called the entire game's fanbase sociopath's and a few other unkind things. He took the review from the realm of reviews to personal grudge territory with his review, and that is why he should not do reviews. He is a sensationalist, a person who loves to be in the spot light. If he feel's people are getting bored with his normal antics, he will do something about that, be it throw a temper tantrum ( Duke Nukem ), make a new Jimquisition, or any number of other things. Due to this, he should not be labeled a reviewer, and his reviews should not be meta critic material.
Anyway, I will stop here.
At times like this, I wish you were gay Jim. I fucking love these videos, and I'm totally going to show up at that funeral.
follow
