There's a reviewer by the name of Jed Presgrove who writes for Slant Magazine, something i've seen been called a "hipster" publication. If a otherwise critically acclaimed game has a score that drags it down, it's from Slant Magazine. And it's written by Jed Presgrove. And honestly...that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that, or even being someone whose overly critical towards everything. If something is good, then the majority that knows it good, it drowns the other reviews out, but keeps the critical ones so people can see other people's viewpoints on them. Tom Chick (though I can never tell if he's trolling) has that reputation. However, Presgrove is pure bile and toxicity. His Slant reviews are often times questionable, little know fact he owns his own blog...in which things going from questionable, to insanity. He's discussed a bit in review threads, but I thought it would be okay to shed some light on him.
The entire review is pretty much a bunch of linguistic purple prose, and pop culture references on steroids.("Notwithstanding the gaming world's deification of Miyazaki, Bloodborne is a hack's version of Dark Souls. The former is noticeably faster due to the increased speed and stamina of the protagonist. In another way, Bloodborne turns its heritage into Looney Tunes. In Dark Souls, sneaking up on a black knight is a welcome discovery and builds mystery about the creature. In Bloodborne, stealth is expected, instructed, and even unintentionally humorous as you turn a sword into a big hammer and, as a depressing Foghorn Leghorn, smash the giant stone end of the weapon into enemies who might as well be sleeping dogs.") This kinda of stuff reads like mad ranting of a bad shitposter, but from the fact all of his reviews are consistently like this I think show's he's a little unhinged. In his Wolfenstein 2 ( https://gamebias.wordpress.com/2017...white-resistance/comment-page-1/#comment-4093) review he's angry the Nazi's are being portrayed as "simply monsters", and goes onto tangents about how he hates they didn't accurately portray the KKK true to history (basically them being associated with Nazis. Whatever the fuck that means).
It goes from bad, him trying to sound smart, to really toxic. He unironically calls Bloodborne a "disease" (I am not paraphrasing), claims it's sexist and gets upset at the fact it "attacks the Church" (Whatever the hell that means. He would also give a title a 1/5, for "offending his religion", so I think he's a religious individual ). He begins to personally attack the director of the game (alot of his reviews are him attacking individuals) and his Sekiro review (in which he gave the title a 2/5) is practically zero gameplay related, it's just him ranting about how he despises Miyisaki as a "auteur and hack". The fact Slant thought he was an objective source to do the review say's quite a bit about the site, considering the fact the review is basically revenge (for some reason.)
Metacritic is publishing his reviews, Opencritic is publishing his reviews. I find it odd, because these sites are putting up Reviews that are filled with childish attacks on people, an ego the size of a mountain, insane toxicity, and sometimes impotent rage. Because clearly, his reviews aren't professional to put it a tad bit mild.
The entire review is pretty much a bunch of linguistic purple prose, and pop culture references on steroids.("Notwithstanding the gaming world's deification of Miyazaki, Bloodborne is a hack's version of Dark Souls. The former is noticeably faster due to the increased speed and stamina of the protagonist. In another way, Bloodborne turns its heritage into Looney Tunes. In Dark Souls, sneaking up on a black knight is a welcome discovery and builds mystery about the creature. In Bloodborne, stealth is expected, instructed, and even unintentionally humorous as you turn a sword into a big hammer and, as a depressing Foghorn Leghorn, smash the giant stone end of the weapon into enemies who might as well be sleeping dogs.") This kinda of stuff reads like mad ranting of a bad shitposter, but from the fact all of his reviews are consistently like this I think show's he's a little unhinged. In his Wolfenstein 2 ( https://gamebias.wordpress.com/2017...white-resistance/comment-page-1/#comment-4093) review he's angry the Nazi's are being portrayed as "simply monsters", and goes onto tangents about how he hates they didn't accurately portray the KKK true to history (basically them being associated with Nazis. Whatever the fuck that means).
It goes from bad, him trying to sound smart, to really toxic. He unironically calls Bloodborne a "disease" (I am not paraphrasing), claims it's sexist and gets upset at the fact it "attacks the Church" (Whatever the hell that means. He would also give a title a 1/5, for "offending his religion", so I think he's a religious individual ). He begins to personally attack the director of the game (alot of his reviews are him attacking individuals) and his Sekiro review (in which he gave the title a 2/5) is practically zero gameplay related, it's just him ranting about how he despises Miyisaki as a "auteur and hack". The fact Slant thought he was an objective source to do the review say's quite a bit about the site, considering the fact the review is basically revenge (for some reason.)
Metacritic is publishing his reviews, Opencritic is publishing his reviews. I find it odd, because these sites are putting up Reviews that are filled with childish attacks on people, an ego the size of a mountain, insane toxicity, and sometimes impotent rage. Because clearly, his reviews aren't professional to put it a tad bit mild.
Last edited:
