Lazy Gamers Jungle Adventures Review Is Up

"Pegasys;c-16357912" wrote:

"JoAnne65;c-16357593" wrote:

"Felicity;c-16357309" wrote:
LGR got a few packs free; however, it didn't change his tone, and so it didn't last very long. I think the word people are looking for is not objective (his reviews, like everyone else's, are subjective) but he doesn't have the bias that a reviewer who wants to keep getting their rewards has. In fact, LGR being dropped from the free-game program so quickly shows that his brand of honesty is not appreciated.

It's weird because he reviews are never "all negative." He has issues with the game play of Sims 4, but he does try to point out what he likes, what he doesn't like, the stuff from CAS, and he will say what he thinks is good within the limitations of the game engine.

Edit: Huge typo.

Is, in fact: objective. Objective in the meaning (looked that up) “undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena”. That is exactly what he does. Which is why I value his reviews even in those cases he has a different opinion than me, because he always explains why he feels a certain way*. Enabling me to judge whether I share his opinion or not. He is not biased. And indeed, his reviews aren’t overall negative, also not in this case. Still people feel very threatened by him somehow. Maybe because he presents facts before giving his personal view?

(*example, I remember him being very enthousiastic about GT, but it became clear to me that it was for reasons I don’t care for myself so I didn’t buy the pack until much later when it was on sale)

But by definition, nobody can be "objective" for a review.

There is nothing productive about arguing a hyperbole or arguing extremes. To make your above argument, you're basically making no attempt to understand their arguments and simplifying an entire scale into "subjective or objective," where 100% of reviewers belong to subjective by default.

The point is that on the objective-subjective scale, yes, LGR is more objective in his methods. He does not take bribes from the developer, he does not show a reluctance to be positive or negative, he has both positive and negative reviews under his belt (here's a challenge: link me a game changer with a negative review of a pack), and he often tries to articulate why he did or didn't like an aspect of the pack to the best of his ability.

His competition takes bribes, many of them absolutely show a reluctance to be negative, as I said I think a Game Changer with a negative pack review might be about as real as the loch ness monster, and half of them only have commentary to the extent of "omg I love it."

There is a reason LGR remains the most talked-about reviewer and a reason he's regarded as the most objective: because he is.