Lazy Gamers Jungle Adventures Review Is Up

"MidnightAura;c-16356994" wrote:

LGR is purely objective as he's not gaining anything from EA in the process nor does he hope too. I will always trust a review from someone not getting showered with free things from the company in question with anything over someone who is and that goes for anything.

No one is purely objective. We each like what we like and no matter how hard you try to be "purely" objective, it's still going to be colored by your opinions (for instance "the cockroaches of games" is about as unobjective as you can get).

If you think LGR isn't catering to someone, take into consideration the fact that he has fans and a Patreon page. I think @Melpomena has it right. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, he's an internet personality with fans and he's going to play to what appeals to his fans. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with what he's doing at all--more power to him for monetizing something he enjoys without relying on companies to provide the products to review. But that doesn't make him any less human than anyone else, as much as some fans like to put him on a pedestal for it.

Reviewers are more than capable of giving an honest review about something that they've been provided for free, though I do get where he's coming from by refusing that option since the opportunity to be bought by swag is greater once you open that door, I imagine. Doesn't mean everyone who gets the products for review are biased, though, anymore than it means that LGR is unbiased simply because he doesn't receive free products for review.

Personally, I don't watch a lot of reviews and the ones I do watch are purely for entertainment value so the more snark and humor, the more I'm going to enjoy it, which makes LGR views generally very enjoyable even if I don't agree with them.

"simgirl1010;c-16357112" wrote:

"Katlyn2525;c-16357062" wrote:
His reviews usually always land on top. He has a strong following that has followed him throughout the years of the sims. He has never gotten anything for it until EA tried to get him to become part of their pack. He refused. He stands firm on his beliefs. Generally speaking though, he will always be on top. He has had more views in a day, then most have had in 4 or 5 days. That is just the way it is.

You have to take in consideration his audience. Not just simmers but people who follow him for his gaming, computer, thrift, and food videos. His Sims 4 snark is legendary and some tune in just to hear the burn.

Anyway, I thought his review was fair. I wish he liked it well enough to actually play. His Let's Plays would be hilarious.

You have to recognize that he has been fond of the franchise for a very long time. He has reviewed every Sims SP, GP, and EP in it. He did use to play the older games more in depth and they were funny. He is not as enchanted by this game, but he is not alone in that. It is a adjustment for quite a few. . But he is still honest and fair. This is not the only Sims forum that you see his review on. So I think his following by sims players is still very strong, despite the snark. His review of Jungle Adventures was fair. I mean how many times will you explore the temple after you have figured it all out?

@ebuchala Objective in terms of being independent in your judgement is what's clearly meant here. Nobody's objective where it comes to personal taste, but nobody here claims he is.

"ebuchala;c-16357186" wrote:

"MidnightAura;c-16356994" wrote:

LGR is purely objective as he's not gaining anything from EA in the process nor does he hope too. I will always trust a review from someone not getting showered with free things from the company in question with anything over someone who is and that goes for anything.

No one is purely objective. We each like what we like and no matter how hard you try to be "purely" objective, it's still going to be colored by your opinions (for instance "the cockroaches of games" is about as unobjective as you can get).

If you think LGR isn't catering to someone, take into consideration the fact that he has fans and a Patreon page. I think @Melpomena has it right. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, he's an internet personality with fans and he's going to play to what appeals to his fans. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with what he's doing at all--more power to him for monetizing something he enjoys without relying on companies to provide the products to review. But that doesn't make him any less human than anyone else, as much as some fans like to put him on a pedestal for it.

Reviewers are more than capable of giving an honest review about something that they've been provided for free, though I do get where he's coming from by refusing that option since the opportunity to be bought by swag is greater once you open that door, I imagine. Doesn't mean everyone who gets the products for review are biased, though, anymore than it means that LGR is unbiased simply because he doesn't receive free products for review.

Personally, I don't watch a lot of reviews and the ones I do watch are purely for entertainment value so the more snark and humor, the more I'm going to enjoy it, which makes LGR views generally very enjoyable even if I don't agree with them.

He’s not catering to the people who make the game, he does not have to abide by their rules and can say whatever he likes good or bad.

His Patreon has nothing to do with this? He has an audience but his audience is not giving him free things in exchange for a review. His audience isn’t flying him to headquarters for sims camp and his audience isn’t giving him swag.

That’s my point. From that perspective he is more objective. I don’t know why that is even debatable. He isn’t gaining in any way personally from the company. That can not be said for game changers.

Of course not everyone that receives a copy is 100% biased but when your in a position of getting the above I think it would have an impact and from watching many reviews where things have been omitted or ignored altogether like say the lack of pet beds whilst there is much squealing over outfits and hair swatches I think there is a lot of biased opinions.

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.

New thread, same story.

I said this last review too, but it'll never cease to amaze me that the guy not being paid/rewarded for his reviews by EA is the one that the community is quickest to question the integrity of. Absolutely backwards.

He calls it "busy work". Isn't laundry and other things that too? Simmers are widely varied in how they play this game. For me, I prefer THIS style of busy work over laundry and mundane household busy work. To each their own.

Sims is always about busy work and the devs have to accommodate a wide variety of play styles. This pack is MY play style. So thank you @SimGuruNinja for thinking about players like me.

"fullspiral;c-16357388" wrote:
He calls it "busy work". Isn't laundry and other things that too? Simmers are widely varied in how they play this game. For me, I prefer THIS style of busy work over laundry and mundane household busy work. To each their own.

Sims is always about busy work and the devs have to accommodate a wide variety of play styles. This pack is MY play style. So thank you @SimGuruNinja for thinking about players like me.

I actually think he said he enjoyed this type of busy work. I don't think that was really a complaint on his end.

Edits:
@kaywilliams I don't actually see anyone getting upset about criticism on LGR here.
I see some discussions about why they prefer him (often relating to opinions on the game changers stuff).
I see a lot of comments saying they agree or disagree with the review.
Nobody really seems to be caring about what others think much though,(otherwise I am sure people would have cared more about your review of him earlier).

Also, he plays the sims, maybe not the sims 4, but hes a long time sims player, to address your question about if he plays or not earlier :)

Separate from the above:
I liked the review as usual, and my thoughts about various reviewers are the same as usual. I am tired of typing out the same thing every lgr review so I'm not going to bother saying a reviewer that works for one person may not work for another again. :) ;)

"MidnightAura;c-16356886" wrote:

"Writin_Reg;c-16356675" wrote:

"Felicity;c-16356492" wrote:
Most of Sims 4 is a rabbit hole, really, at least in function, with only the active lot, well, active. I'm not sure I would call the warp zones on the path rabbit holes.

Well like Sims 1, 2 and 3 - so of course it also has chance cards. Sims always does. They are nothing the game hasn't always had. Are you just now noticing that? I find that hard to believe. At least this time they made it cute and even have little pictures. Bon Voyage just left us standing there as the sims took off with the tour guides - then sims came back either all injured or happy depending on how we answered their chance cards. Sims 3 even had it in regular play - at sims jobs, at kids field trips and tons of other ways. And in that case we couldn't see much of anything. At least in this one we have game play and we get to see and go with the sims. I'd say this time they are the best chance cards ever. Up there with the ones in Sims 1 Making Magic and their Sims 1 vacations that Will Wright made. Will Wright tends to like chance cards judging from many of his games.

Sims 4 does not really have rabbit hole per sec - technically . Again - these are chance cards. A rabbit hole is a space the character goes into and then comes back out of. When sims in Sims 4 goes into somewhere they come out some where else that you can explore with them - so not really a rabbithole. A rabbithole would be like Sims 3 mausuleum in the graveyard or the sims work places in Sims 3, or the tours in Bon Voyage in Sims 2. Those are rabbitholes.

(Keep in mind I love all the sims games - so I am not judging one against the other - Just telling it like it is.)

That's not true, sims 4 has rabbit holes:

School
Majority of jobs not including the active careers
Volunteering opportunities - the sims will disappear off lot to a rabbit hole
City living events like the concerts and circus- disappearing off lot to a rabbit hole

Not saying the first two aren't rabbit holes in previous games but you can't honestly call them a rabbit hole in previous games but consider them not a rabbit hole in that context in this game.

Bon voyage was different, tours yes were a rabbit hole but you had so much more to do on vacation with different community lots. You could actually go in destination and ignore the tours altogether. In JA the text rabbit holes form part of the adventure each time your sim goes to a new area. I consider it a rabbit hole as I can't see where my sim has gone. Sure it's nice to read that my sim has come across an abandoned campsite and if she gets chased by an angry camper I would rather see that! Not just get a piece of text and a picture telling me the outcome and my sim getting a moodlet. That's not game play. All I've done is the player is click a button. I don't see any of these scenarios, I just read about them and I would much prefer to play these scenarios.

No - those you listed the sims did not disappear in side of anything - they just disappeared off their lot - so those are strictly chance cards.

A rabbit hole is an actual place - like sims 3 schools, Sims 3 buildings, etc that leave you the player just standing there seeing Sims disappear and then later come out of the same place( a building or place) but you never accompany the sim - but in Sims 1 and Sims 4 it was different - like in Sims 1 your sim actually jumped in a hole and re-appeared at one of the carnivals or MM areas where you then engaged with your sims doing things - some with chance cards - some just exploring the areas. But in Sims 2 and 3 - were true rabbit holes - like being left outside the sea captains shanty and staring at the building as chance cards offer you choices for your sim - but you the player never get to accompany the sim inside the shanty, or go on the tour. You (the player) are stuck outside of a place your sims goes into in order to make choices from a chance card for the sim - with no visual reward, and not ending somewhere else like you do in Sims 1 and 4.

Sims 1 and 4 though you end up going with your sim after a single chance card - as part of the game to get to another spot or action that you engage in with your sim. In sims 1 & 4 when your sim disappears into what in Sims 2 and 3 is an actual RABBITHOLE - You never get to join the sim on the adventure - just like a rabbit going into his hole - you see it go in and you see it go out the same place it went in - and you never see the other side. In sims 4 ( like Sims 1) your sim goes in a tree, in a cave, in a forest, in a jungle gate - you the player comes out the other side with the sim whether it is meeting the hermit, seeing the grotto, getting to another spot on the jungle trail toward the temple - you do join your sim so it is not a rabbit hole. It is a door with chance cards that take you some where else. That is not a rabbit hole and as I said neither are the things you never leave the sims house for them to do - like school, jobs, zoos, circuses, opera house, - soley because they do not disappear into some place and leave you just waiting for them. Those are chance cards period - not rabbitholes.

Chance cards are in most games where there is activity - and when there is nothing visible to you like in the cases you listed - those are not rabbit holes - just chance cards. All of that IS game play - it's interractive game play - and a part of many games.

ETA - This is the definition of a video game rabbithole - A rabbit hole is an object, generally massive in size, that characters can enter or do activities in, but which the game camera cannot enter. Rabbit holes fade away when the camera gets closer to them, and characters cannot be seen while they're inside one.

"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.

That's the whole thing people seem to miss. Kind of repeating myself here since I already said this last time but they want to build an echo chamber of social media influencers that praise their game and only criticize it in comparatively trivial ways like objects and aesthetics but never get around to the core of the problem which is gameplay.

I know some of y'all find this shocking but imo the look of a game is a secondary concern, the primary one being gameplay. If you like looking at pretty colors and moving things and think that justifies paying ( in this case ) 20 bucks then go watch a movie or a play, go to a museum, art gallery or the botanical garden. But a game is supposed to be more interactive, more involved and in some ways more challenging or just challenging in a different way than these.

Also, concerning the whole "fake" thingy, I think that's because a lot of these influencers squeal, use "yaaaas", "slay" "queeeen" and other words associated with overly dramatic people and often show a certain affection for drama and lifestyle, even in their games. They always have to have model-esque Sims and if they play out stories they're mostly very superficial and basic, like a soap opera. And here lies the crux of the matter. This overacting, this focus on superficial attributes and certain lifestyles makes them seem - you got it - fake. As in, they don't seem trustworthy or reliable because they seem to enjoy intrigues and backstabbing a bit too much. They seem manipulative because they try to trick you into thinking they're sooooooo relatable while also trying to uphold their perfect and presentable instagram lifestyle.

LGR doesn't need that because he's got personality. And his own opinions. Some of which I agree with, some of which I don't. He doesn't have to do much to be appealing because he doesn't try to please everyone while creating an image of himself that's far away from reality.

Also, if you watch a variety of these influencers and they all seem to have the same personality because aside from their "haha I'm so quirky and funny and kooky" and "YAS gurl slay those heels!" there's nothing left about them as people, then it just gets kinda uncomfortable and boring. But that's just me.