\"simgirl1010;c-16359063\" wrote:

@JoAnne65
His audience concerning Sims videos are mainly simmers

I'm not sure this is accurate. His subscribers receive an email each time he uploads a new video. He has almost 900,000 subscribers. I'm one of them. I have no interest in some of the games he reviews but I love his delivery so I watch.

\"TheGoodOldGamer;c-16359598\" wrote:

\"JoAnne65;c-16358764\" wrote:

\"TheGoodOldGamer;c-16358202\" wrote:

\"Sk8rblaze;c-16358184\" wrote:

\"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. Because they use their own personal bias to make the review. Maybe they aren't influenced by others, which is what I think you mean, but it's not \"objective.\"

Objective would be: \"There are 125 new objects in the pack, and 22 new CAS items.\"

Subjective: (which any real review is): \"There are 125 new objects in the pack, and 22 new CAS items. Since the gameplay offered by these objects isn't that fleshed out, I don't think the pack is worth the money\".

There is no true objectivity in any of LGR's reviews - because there is no objectivity in ANY review, unless all one did was state the facts, which defeats the purpose of a review.

I think the both of you are correct, however, I believe @JoAnne65 and the others are essentially saying LGR tends to be the least biased in his reviews; more objective in the sense he usually presents things as they are, without the EA fanboy sugarcoat.

When you have a partnership with EA, and they’re flying you around the world to see their games, catering you, etc. there is more likely to be a bias towards EA there. Not always, but I’ve seen it myself in a variety of reviews.

I see it in Game Changer reviews. In the ones I’ve seen about Jungle Adventure, they were disappointed, but didn’t harp too much on their disappointments. They’ll explore the temple, say something like, “wow I wasn’t expecting it to be so.. barren” or “umm.. I’m already kind of bored with this” and then they’ll move on and try to counter it with good things about the pack. A review is not supposed to be a video of someone trying to make the pack look good by countering a con with a pro.

Just say what’s bad and what’s good, go into detail of those things, and leave it there. Some of these “game changers” (which is a ridiculous name, because every fan is and should be a game changer) try their best to appear unbiased, but don’t do a great job at it. I don’t think it’s always intentional. When someone gives you something for free, you tend to feel in debt to them, and this could very well be a side effect of that.

How are the bold not the same thing? \"Well it didn't take very long to complete this tomb. The layout is nice though.\" Is this not both 'countering a con with a pro' and saying 'what's bad and what's good'? lol

Also, just a quick sidenote, just because LGR isn't influenced by EA, doesn't mean he isn't influenced. He has an audience. He has his analytics. He has a patreon. And he knows how to cater to that. Just because it's not EA's wallet doesn't mean it isn't somebody's.

Because people like that he's negative about the game, he works that angle. If the large majority of his audience didn't like that, you can bet he wouldn't stick to his guns and keep making videos that get fewer views n all that. He'd adjust his reviews in a more positive light, where he'd still share the negative stuff, but it'd be on the backside of it.

That said, I don't mind his reviews. This last one, like I said earlier, had a weird vibe to it, but don't be blinded into thinking he (or anyone else that makes money off of videos or blogs or whatever) is truly altruistic or something.

His audience concerning Sims videos are mainly simmers so I have no idea what you mean. He’s been highly positive about the franchise in the past, he has been very critical about Sims 3 (and in many cases rightly so). What strikes me by the way is how simmers keep insisting he’s negative, while he isn’t completely negative at all. Seems to me many simmers are the ones being very biased where his reviews are concerned (I even see people commenting in LGR topics saying they are not going to watch it, then have an opinion about it).

I’m curious, in what way did you disagree with his review? Can you give arguments as to why what he says is not true/too biased/too negative? Because all I see is people saying he does, but not actually why exactly. At what points exactly does he give false or biased information about the pack?

I didn't have an issue with his review, other than I thought he had a weird vibe to it (i.e. it seemed pretty obvious to me there were parts he liked about it, but at the same time he really really hated having to say it, lol). All I meant to say was, as with any YouTuber, I keep in mind where his biases are, because yes, he has them, just as anyone does. I don't blindly follow him any more than I would with anyone else. I weigh what he says, how he says it, who is watching, etc.

(Personally, his Sims 4 videos are the least appealing to me. I love LGR for his other stuff, mainly his videos about old tech and his thrifting. I didn't know thrifting was a big thing for collectors until I saw his series on it, lol.)

For the simplicity of discussion, let's say he has 100 patreons. Lets say 98 of those patreons really don't care for his reviews about the Sims 4 games. Maybe they don't watch the videos. Maybe they're vocal to him about it. In some way or fashion, he figures out that it's hurting his bottom line, as a business man, a brand, etc. There's no doubt in my mind he would either change how those reviews go, or he would stop making them altogether.

On the flip side of that, I do believe that due in large part to how he's been recieved (especially since that 2 Years of Meh video or whatever it was called), he has kept his reviews with a certain narrative that appeals to that audience boost or whatever. He is more than well aware enough of how he, as a brand, 'stands out' if you will from other Sims reviewers, and works that angle. It's good publicity. Brand recognition and all that.

It's all well and good to think he's being 'more honest than anybody else' just because you happen to like his style, or agree with most of his views, or just because he's different from everyone else and you wanna be that contrarian that goes against the grain, that's all fine and good. But it's not because he's being 'more honest' than anyone else. He runs a brand and a business and he's doing what he can to stand out with it.

I'm not saying he's falsely being more negative than he might naturally be, or falsely less positive than he might naturally be. All I'm saying is that he's focusing where the draw for the audience is. The audience right now likes his current narrative. But if they didn't? That would change or he wouldn't keep making those videos. To be quite honest, I believe if it were up to him, he wouldn't even bother continuing to make Sims 4 videos. A lot of times it comes across like it's a chore for him. But there's a significant enough draw to them from his audience that he can't just drop them. It would be a bad business move.

\"simgirl1010;c-16359063\" wrote:

@JoAnne65
His audience concerning Sims videos are mainly simmers

I'm not sure this is accurate. His subscribers receive an email each time he uploads a new video. He has almost 900,000 subscribers. I'm one of them. I have no interest in some of the games he reviews but I love his delivery so I watch.

\"TheGoodOldGamer;c-16359598\" wrote:

\"JoAnne65;c-16358764\" wrote:

\"TheGoodOldGamer;c-16358202\" wrote:

\"Sk8rblaze;c-16358184\" wrote:

\"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. Because they use their own personal bias to make the review. Maybe they aren't influenced by others, which is what I think you mean, but it's not \"objective.\"

Objective would be: \"There are 125 new objects in the pack, and 22 new CAS items.\"

Subjective: (which any real review is): \"There are 125 new objects in the pack, and 22 new CAS items. Since the gameplay offered by these objects isn't that fleshed out, I don't think the pack is worth the money\".

There is no true objectivity in any of LGR's reviews - because there is no objectivity in ANY review, unless all one did was state the facts, which defeats the purpose of a review.

I think the both of you are correct, however, I believe @JoAnne65 and the others are essentially saying LGR tends to be the least biased in his reviews; more objective in the sense he usually presents things as they are, without the EA fanboy sugarcoat.

When you have a partnership with EA, and they’re flying you around the world to see their games, catering you, etc. there is more likely to be a bias towards EA there. Not always, but I’ve seen it myself in a variety of reviews.

I see it in Game Changer reviews. In the ones I’ve seen about Jungle Adventure, they were disappointed, but didn’t harp too much on their disappointments. They’ll explore the temple, say something like, “wow I wasn’t expecting it to be so.. barren” or “umm.. I’m already kind of bored with this” and then they’ll move on and try to counter it with good things about the pack. A review is not supposed to be a video of someone trying to make the pack look good by countering a con with a pro.

Just say what’s bad and what’s good, go into detail of those things, and leave it there. Some of these “game changers” (which is a ridiculous name, because every fan is and should be a game changer) try their best to appear unbiased, but don’t do a great job at it. I don’t think it’s always intentional. When someone gives you something for free, you tend to feel in debt to them, and this could very well be a side effect of that.

How are the bold not the same thing? \"Well it didn't take very long to complete this tomb. The layout is nice though.\" Is this not both 'countering a con with a pro' and saying 'what's bad and what's good'? lol

Also, just a quick sidenote, just because LGR isn't influenced by EA, doesn't mean he isn't influenced. He has an audience. He has his analytics. He has a patreon. And he knows how to cater to that. Just because it's not EA's wallet doesn't mean it isn't somebody's.

Because people like that he's negative about the game, he works that angle. If the large majority of his audience didn't like that, you can bet he wouldn't stick to his guns and keep making videos that get fewer views n all that. He'd adjust his reviews in a more positive light, where he'd still share the negative stuff, but it'd be on the backside of it.

That said, I don't mind his reviews. This last one, like I said earlier, had a weird vibe to it, but don't be blinded into thinking he (or anyone else that makes money off of videos or blogs or whatever) is truly altruistic or something.

His audience concerning Sims videos are mainly simmers so I have no idea what you mean. He’s been highly positive about the franchise in the past, he has been very critical about Sims 3 (and in many cases rightly so). What strikes me by the way is how simmers keep insisting he’s negative, while he isn’t completely negative at all. Seems to me many simmers are the ones being very biased where his reviews are concerned (I even see people commenting in LGR topics saying they are not going to watch it, then have an opinion about it).

I’m curious, in what way did you disagree with his review? Can you give arguments as to why what he says is not true/too biased/too negative? Because all I see is people saying he does, but not actually why exactly. At what points exactly does he give false or biased information about the pack?

I didn't have an issue with his review, other than I thought he had a weird vibe to it (i.e. it seemed pretty obvious to me there were parts he liked about it, but at the same time he really really hated having to say it, lol). All I meant to say was, as with any YouTuber, I keep in mind where his biases are, because yes, he has them, just as anyone does. I don't blindly follow him any more than I would with anyone else. I weigh what he says, how he says it, who is watching, etc.

(Personally, his Sims 4 videos are the least appealing to me. I love LGR for his other stuff, mainly his videos about old tech and his thrifting. I didn't know thrifting was a big thing for collectors until I saw his series on it, lol.)

For the simplicity of discussion, let's say he has 100 patreons. Lets say 98 of those patreons really don't care for his reviews about the Sims 4 games. Maybe they don't watch the videos. Maybe they're vocal to him about it. In some way or fashion, he figures out that it's hurting his bottom line, as a business man, a brand, etc. There's no doubt in my mind he would either change how those reviews go, or he would stop making them altogether.

On the flip side of that, I do believe that due in large part to how he's been recieved (especially since that 2 Years of Meh video or whatever it was called), he has kept his reviews with a certain narrative that appeals to that audience boost or whatever. He is more than well aware enough of how he, as a brand, 'stands out' if you will from other Sims reviewers, and works that angle. It's good publicity. Brand recognition and all that.

It's all well and good to think he's being 'more honest than anybody else' just because you happen to like his style, or agree with most of his views, or just because he's different from everyone else and you wanna be that contrarian that goes against the grain, that's all fine and good. But it's not because he's being 'more honest' than anyone else. He runs a brand and a business and he's doing what he can to stand out with it.

I'm not saying he's falsely being more negative than he might naturally be, or falsely less positive than he might naturally be. All I'm saying is that he's focusing where the draw for the audience is. The audience right now likes his current narrative. But if they didn't? That would change or he wouldn't keep making those videos. To be quite honest, I believe if it were up to him, he wouldn't even bother continuing to make Sims 4 videos. A lot of times it comes across like it's a chore for him. But there's a significant enough draw to them from his audience that he can't just drop them. It would be a bad business move.