I've seen them both, I've been reading Sterling since his Destructoid days and support him on Patreon when he decided to strike out on his own. Along with Schilling he's one of my go-to reviewers.
You don't also seem to know that Sterling gets DDoS'ed constantly. His views about inclusivity in video games seem to be the attack point though he was also vocal on GamerGate and other issues, he's commonly termed as a SJW. He was "attacked" after the No Man's Sky review, after his CoD reviews, after his MGS reviews. He's also constantly attacked by game publishers and game developers for different reasons.
Essentially people don't like him and he's a lightning rod. The idea that "this is what happens when you don't review Zelda well" is absolutely ludicrous. This is what happens when Jim posts a controversial review regardless of what game he's playing.
It's funny really isn't it? You're doing the climate change denial thing. There's 500 reviews that get it at 10/10 and one of if not THE best game ever made, and there's one bloke who says "yeah it's pretty good" and gives it 7/10 and your response is LOOK THIS ONE GUY IS TELLING THE TRUTH IT'S A GLOBAL CONSPIRACY THE REST ARE SCARED. About video game scores.
Jim has his own taste in games. His adores the Dynasty Warriors series which I happen to believe is badly designed trash. He likes most first person shooters whereas I think many of them are terrible. He's fully entitled to his views on a game but it doesn't overrank the masses of other critics who are also just as entitled to their review and scored it so highly.
To be honest I find your conspiratorial idea of game reviewers bowing to pressure about a score to be a bit bizarre all around.