Lazy Gamers Jungle Adventures Review Is Up

"jaxie086;c-16357860" wrote:
This is what the sims team thrives on; making packs seem so cool and glorious at first, but then for actual extended sims gameplay they all fall so flat. Notice they were very careful what to show us in those live gameplays of the jungle; because once you actually play all the way through the game is just not worth it.

I don't know if that's true or not. I still go to GF even though it was released in 2015. And I still use DO every time I play the game. I can see how JA has more replayability than even GF though.

What I don't find replayable though, is the festivals or much of anything to do with city living. Or cats and dogs.

Sims 4 game packs are showing up the expansion packs by a long mile.

"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.

"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.

@DeservedCriticism

I agree with everything you have been saying BUT I think we should talk about successes in this case as well, lest we end up sounding like The Sims 4 is in a hopeless state that nothing ever ever is right, which is not the case.

Honestly, at least to me, I don't compare The Sims 4 to past entries anymore, I gave up on that and now, looking at The Sims 4 as a whole, there is things that I like in The Sims 4 that do not exist in previous versions.
Jungle Adventures is awful, like, really bad in my opinion, and I don't say this based on WA or anything, I mean, WA was one of my favourite expansions packs in The Sims 3 but I didn't expect much from a Game Pack anyway. I say this based on The Sims 4's own quality standard.

I mean, there's no way that after Dine Out (yes, it doesn't works out perfectly but that's the engine's fault to begin with, simulation lag is not a Dine Out thing, it's in the entire game), Vampires and specially the Parenthood Game Packs one can play Jungle Adventures for more than one hour and say "yes, this is a good pack".
Everything is recycled, the temples are a total letdown, being random means nothing if it is the same "Choose blindly from 4 meaningless options" every single time, I mean, it is so lazy that they didn't even bother actually providing a good variety of those "puzzles" (and I use the term very loosely) because you'll see the exact same one multiple times in the same temple, they even lock some areas to give the impression that there's more to it, but there really ins't it.

Not to mention the actual lack of polishing in the gameplay part, did they playtest this? what's with the insane amounts of money? what's with all those random moods? you know, not like the Mood system wasn't in a dire state already, but that's really one way that show that you have no idea about how to use moods correctly, how am I supposed to care what mood my Sim is in if my Sim receive mood weighing buffs for the most ridiculous things? there's such a flood of positive ones that even if you do fail in the "puzzles" it doesn't matter, that one uncomfortable buff will get buried under the flood of positive ones real quick, my Sim was poisoned and is dying but he saw a really beautiful waterfall a while ago so he just want to flirt and everything is okay.

"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.

"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.

The difference for me is when they use the pros to overshadow the cons. If they are just glossing over the cons quickly and basically only giving the pro attention or making sure every single con has a pro to go with it, I would consider that countering a con with a pro.

I spent some of the afternoon watching the LGR play Sims 1. I beg to differ. He loves the franchise.

Most of the you tubers you are talking about make their living off you tube. It pays the bills. This includes both the influencers and the LGR. The only difference is he is not sponsered by EA to do reviews. He doesn't tell you to buy it or not to buy it. So what is the problem?

Simple fact is, if you aren't a fan of this iteration, you most likely will enjoy LGR content because he echos what you are thinking. If you get a lot of play and enjoyment out of this version, then you likely won't agree or necessarily like what LGR has to say. Nothing wrong with either.

I'm learning more and more that people will generally surround themselves with like minded individuals, and see others who disagree as "opposition" or to put it bluntly, the enemy. Comes from the pack mentality that animals have.

I don't really have a strong opinion either way. I enjoy the way he puts together his content, but I don't always agree with what he says. It's just funny that his name alone generations a lot of discussion. He is pretty polarizing.

No, I don't believe that. I have been watching him long before the Sims 4 ever existed.

Love LGR. BEST feedback. Even when he isn’t a fan, I still buy the packs. Wish they didn’t cut him off because I’d rather watch him.