Lazy Gamers Jungle Adventures Review Is Up

"JoAnne65;c-16357613" wrote:

"kaywilliams;c-16357379" wrote:
I think its funny that LGR's fans say that he keeps it honest, but when someone keeps it honest about him, its a problem :D

No it’s not? Why would that be a problem?

At least you've come back to the thread topic. They are entitled to their opinion and don't have to be drawn into a yes/no argument. That leads to bullying in my own opinion.

"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)

Yeah, the problem with using objective that way is people tend to take it meaning he has no opinion -- he does, and he expresses it in an entertaining way. What he doesn't have is a bias towards making sure he keeps his free stuff coming. And frankly, EA by dropping him from the free-stuff program also sent a clear message to other reviewers. Keep it positive.

Really, they're paid well. Not only in free games, but aren't there boot camps as well that they get sent to as well that EA pays for? Or am I wrong about that and it was a one-off thing?

"DeservedCriticism;c-16357623" wrote:

"Sk8rblaze;c-16357574" wrote:

"Writin_Reg;c-16356486" wrote:

"Zeldaboy180;c-16356327" wrote:

"NorthDakotaGamer;c-16356301" wrote:
@Zeldaboy180

I look for gameplay reviews. I have been forced to watch lets plays to get any actual reviews of all the packs. The squeals about objects are unappealing, so that is why I do not trust those anymore and see them as fake. Most of the EA game changers reviews are purely on the look and no longer the gameplay. They "review" CAS and build/buy mode. They do not review gamelay, which informs me better about a pack. LGR reviewed the gameplay.

I do know what you mean, there are plenty of simmers who will say no wrong about the sims packs. There are also those that do speak their mind though, LGR isn't the only one.

I watch Drgluon almost every night, he streams the sims, and he is honest about what he likes and doesn't like.

I also was watching another streamer that said they understand it's a gamepack, but the rabbit hole questions still disappointed them.

Those are chance cards. Every Sims game has had chance cards.

I mean, it's excusable when they're an afterthought in a pack that has three vacation destinations, a hotel system, vacation homes, new lifestates, tons of new items and interactions, building items, etc. -- chances are you've played TS2: Bon Voyage, so I'll spare you the rest.

This is a $20 dollar game pack which is advertising itself as an adventure through a jungle, so you better believe, with a focus so narrow as that, I want to actually be adventuring a jungle. Not reading a text pick-your-own-choice adventure, because I can do that for free online.

I thought the belief was that game packs would allow them more time and development resources to fully flesh out a feature? When I see things like that, it just furthers my opinion this new business model is just EA's attempt to monetize the living plum out of this franchise.

I don't neccesarily take issue with the text-based adventures. My concern just from watching videos is just how long the actual adventuring takes. I clocked someone analyzing a relic and it took one in-game hour. Thing is they have to dig it out of the dirt, they have to get it out of the dirt clump, and then they have to analyze it. Sounds like three hours per thing at a minimum, and all of that is time you're sitting there doing nothing. (and yeah, incidentally that person playing was interacting with the stream and largely ignoring the game while the sim analyzed stuff)

All Sims games have moments where you want a Sim to learn a skill, and you sit there waiting for a bar to fill. However, 1) This seems to be the bulk of the pack's entire experience, and 2) Sims 4 has such a terrible history with Speed x3 that to this day I would not dare to use it. I have no idea if Speed x3 has been properly fixed, I've heard no confirmation of it being fixed, and it's jeoprodizing the stability of an entire save file to even try.

My issues with this pack are:

1) The time spent doing basic actions is absolutely obscene. Why did they make it take so long to do actions that players are expected to do repeatedly for the pack?

2) The outcomes are all luck-based. I loathe fishing in Sims 4 because the baits aren't effective enough. In Sims 3 if I want a deathfish I just need to use an angelfish. In Sims 4 it tells you "USE A SMALL FISH" and omg half the fish population uses small fish as bait so it doesn't matter anyways. Those traps in the temples likewise look luck-based. When I realized some traps are absolute decoys with no function beyond potentially forcing a fail....where's the thought here? It doesn't even seem like the player can plan or try to mitigate failures in any way. I was hoping for skill-based outcomes and that seems to exist to a degree, but it also seems like a certain chunk of the puzzles remains luck-based. The result is you're motivated to examine everything first (which exaggerates the first issue above), you still might fail, and even then you have to question what does any of it matter? The punishments are moodlets too, so the entire thing just feels like a trivial waste of time. I have no idea why the pack's content seems designed to waste time.

3) The locations being blocked off. I'm sure most of us assumed there were at least two temple entrances and the five layouts occurred in seperate ones. Instead, it seems like the locked off locations are....kinda pointless? The ones I've seen explored were tiny and had zero purpose. They were just....there. To see such a disappointing location and then realized they lock off access to half of them for no reason....why?? I'm a crazy-curious person, and I'm dying to know how they felt this enhances the gameplay. It honestly feels like the decision was made to give the illusion of more content, since if your first trip is disappointing or you only watch one stream and feel disappointed, you can always tell yourself "maybe the other paths are better." They're not and they all seem pointless. Even the temple itself seems to be limited to once per day, and I have to ask why. When I see people play, they do the temple and then spend the rest of the time watching their sim hit a rock with a hammer OR socializing in town. Neither seem really exciting. I wonder if the next point ties into this in regards to the temple....

4) The cash rewards. This one has me wondering if it's a reason they lock off the temple periodically, though again this is a strange design choice. The cash rewards seem absolutely obscene. Explore a temple? He's a minimum of ten thousand dollars. I heard and expected the cash rewards might be high, but holy plum. This seems downright unbalanced. However, if this is the reason for locking off the temple, why not just drop the reward values accordingly in order to allow temple access more frequently? Locking off the temple just seems to encourage wait time. Nobody likes just waiting around and some people (me) hate when cash rewards are too high. What on earth is the motivation for making players spend more time sitting around in exchange for more expensive rewards?

The entire balance and design of the core interactions just seems so backwards it's downright confusing. I legitimately question if the interactions are designed to take ages and the locations are blocked off all with the purpose of drawing the experience out and making it seem bigger. I don't suspect that as a default, but rather I simply cannot think of any other rational motivations for the pack interactions being such a time sink. Surely they playtested it and realized watching a sim hit a rock with a hammer for one hour every time you want to do something isn't fun, and yet here we are. These interactions honestly feel like they take 5-10 times as long as the interactions from World Adventures, and I cannot possibly fathom why they chose to do this.


All I can say is that if playing it is as boring as watching it is, then I honestly question if Outdoor Retreat is actually better, solely on the grounds that Outdoor Retreat at least holds your attention by making you scan the forest floor for plants and insects, not reducing the entire experience into a one hour luck-based interaction by the sims.

I had some degree of hope for this pack, so it's very disappointing to see it looking so dull. I remember the first comment I made about it was that the teaser had me concerned the skeletons weren't a threat, but rather "LOL that skeleton just told me a joke #WeirderStories #BlameSteve," and holy plum I was spot on. I can look past the goofy tone of the skeletons if the rest of the experience seems worthwhile, but now knowing the rewards and seeing how boring the gameplay looks, I'm just left with disappointment and a sense of awe that there were so many bad decisions made regarding time management.

I think the excessive time is designed to draw the experience out, purposefully so the player has to go back and do it again. Believe me, personally I think it is boring. I don’t want to watch my sim dig for several sim hours. Why does everything in this game take an excessive amount of time? This is the first game pack I regret buying.

"happygurl;c-16357729" wrote:

"Sk8rblaze;c-16357721" wrote:

"fullspiral;c-16357621" wrote:
How did this turn in to a discussion about rabbit holes?

The facts of the mater are this:

In sims 3, I spent a good long while watching my sim drive TO the restaurant so that I could watch them disappear in to it and hear something simulating a restaurant environment.

In sims 4, my sims disappear during the travel TO, but once they are there, I get to be there IN the restaurant with them. I prefer that much more.

In sims 2, my sims on vacation disappeared on a helicopter trip. And I played the chance cards that came up that affected their moods when they finally appeared back on the pavement after the trip.

In sims 4, my sim has a couple of choices to affect his mood as he moves in to a new area, but once he gets there, I am THERE with him. I prefer that much more.

Rabbit holes were way worse in Sims 2 and 3 than they are now in sims 4.

It's a discussion about rabbit holes because a good segment of LGR's review covered the text-based adventures.

In Sims 3, we had rabbitholes because the open world was incredibly resource demanding, not only for EA, but for our computers, too. Sims 3 does have restaurants as store content, but, IMHO, they're not as good as TS1, TS2, or TS4's. Sims 4 spent a $20 dollar game pack aiming to flesh out restaurants, and it did alright, but even with the closed world, the horrible simulation lag TS4 possesses causes restaurants to be an all-day affair. It's gotten so horrible that it's content I don't even use because it consumes a whole day due to lag alone.

I love when people try to defend a 2018 release by bringing up an expansion pack released in 2007 for a 2004 base game. Yes, we had chance cards in the form of tours in TS2: Bon Voyage. However, the expansion pack came with a humongous amount of content with such a wide range of focus, that those tours were just a little fun side feature. Chance cards in Jungle Adventure are part of the core gameplay of a $20 dollar pack which focuses entirely on one destination, doing one thing. Not very exciting, at least to me.

I much prefer to explore the game with my Sim, as well. But I do think there could have been far more depth and design put into the jungle compared to relying on text-based adventures. Even in the temple, I would have far preferred actually solving a puzzle myself through my Sim, rather than sit in my chair, watch them write on a notepad, and then click an interaction after a few seconds. Boring.

I don't have any problems going to restaurants, such as lag and things like that. It's not an all day ordeal for me, I don't really know what you're talking about.

Considar yourself lucky then, because for many (most?) It takes 8 sim hours or more. If you leave at 9am for breakfast, play it safe and just order lunch.... Because itll be waaay past breakfast by the time you get your food. Then eating while talking always takes forever. And god forbid your server drops your food....
And if i can speak on simulation lag..... I barely have it since the devs patch and since getting a new laptop for Christmas. The night time ultra speed works fine. It will lag a little during parties and if i invite more than 16 people to my sims house, but not as bad as it used to be. And trust me.... I was very very upset with the lag and freezing and time distortion, all of it was terrible. But i think/hope that is behind us.

"Felicity;c-16357642" 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)

Yeah, the problem with using objective that way is people tend to take it meaning he has no opinion -- he does, and he expresses it in an entertaining way. What he doesn't have is a bias towards making sure he keeps his free stuff coming. And frankly, EA by dropping him from the free-stuff program also sent a clear message to other reviewers. Keep it positive.

Really, they're paid well. Not only in free games, but aren't there boot camps as well that they get sent to as well that EA pays for? Or am I wrong about that and it was a one-off thing?

Yes, a strategy I can’t really get my head around by the way. Because it underlines the hunch people have anyway the privileged are biased. EA makes sure not only those influencers realize they better be or else, but on top of that the whole fanbase and the rest of the world can witness it.

"JoAnne65;c-16357761" wrote:

"Felicity;c-16357642" 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)

Yeah, the problem with using objective that way is people tend to take it meaning he has no opinion -- he does, and he expresses it in an entertaining way. What he doesn't have is a bias towards making sure he keeps his free stuff coming. And frankly, EA by dropping him from the free-stuff program also sent a clear message to other reviewers. Keep it positive.

Really, they're paid well. Not only in free games, but aren't there boot camps as well that they get sent to as well that EA pays for? Or am I wrong about that and it was a one-off thing?

Yes, a strategy I can’t really get my head around by the way. Because it underlines the hunch people have anyway the privileged are biased. EA makes sure not only those influencers realize they better be or else, but on top of that the whole fanbase and the rest of the world can witness it.

Remember LGR was never an influencer/game changer. They sent him free copies. But he refused to be part of of the program. The game changer program means you can be selected to go to sims camp which is a yearly event and sometimes other events/meetings. (Some of them have been to California very recently for meetings)

They did stop sending him free copies which does say they prefer postivity.

Whoops this is really meant for @Felicity

"happygurl;c-16357729" wrote:

"Sk8rblaze;c-16357721" wrote:

"fullspiral;c-16357621" wrote:
How did this turn in to a discussion about rabbit holes?

The facts of the mater are this:

In sims 3, I spent a good long while watching my sim drive TO the restaurant so that I could watch them disappear in to it and hear something simulating a restaurant environment.

In sims 4, my sims disappear during the travel TO, but once they are there, I get to be there IN the restaurant with them. I prefer that much more.

In sims 2, my sims on vacation disappeared on a helicopter trip. And I played the chance cards that came up that affected their moods when they finally appeared back on the pavement after the trip.

In sims 4, my sim has a couple of choices to affect his mood as he moves in to a new area, but once he gets there, I am THERE with him. I prefer that much more.

Rabbit holes were way worse in Sims 2 and 3 than they are now in sims 4.

It's a discussion about rabbit holes because a good segment of LGR's review covered the text-based adventures.

In Sims 3, we had rabbitholes because the open world was incredibly resource demanding, not only for EA, but for our computers, too. Sims 3 does have restaurants as store content, but, IMHO, they're not as good as TS1, TS2, or TS4's. Sims 4 spent a $20 dollar game pack aiming to flesh out restaurants, and it did alright, but even with the closed world, the horrible simulation lag TS4 possesses causes restaurants to be an all-day affair. It's gotten so horrible that it's content I don't even use because it consumes a whole day due to lag alone.

I love when people try to defend a 2018 release by bringing up an expansion pack released in 2007 for a 2004 base game. Yes, we had chance cards in the form of tours in TS2: Bon Voyage. However, the expansion pack came with a humongous amount of content with such a wide range of focus, that those tours were just a little fun side feature. Chance cards in Jungle Adventure are part of the core gameplay of a $20 dollar pack which focuses entirely on one destination, doing one thing. Not very exciting, at least to me.

I much prefer to explore the game with my Sim, as well. But I do think there could have been far more depth and design put into the jungle compared to relying on text-based adventures. Even in the temple, I would have far preferred actually solving a puzzle myself through my Sim, rather than sit in my chair, watch them write on a notepad, and then click an interaction after a few seconds. Boring.

I don't have any problems going to restaurants, such as lag and things like that. It's not an all day ordeal for me, I don't really know what you're talking about.

This is one of those things I refuse to believe until I uncover video evidence of someone flawlessly eating at a restaurant in under 5 hours. Whether you experience it or not, it's clear this is a game issue and it's frequent enough to not be a user issue, as it affects an unacceptable quota of people.Issues like this need to be addressed, lest they pop up again in future packs. After all, they seem to love recycling content and systems.

I once attempted to complete the collection for experimental foods, and the problem was basically both that the wait staff/cook did not move as efficiently as they could for some reason, and then your sim spends more time oooh'ing and aaah'ing at the plate rather than actually eating it. I think I was even fascinated once because by the time my Sim finished their meal, their hunger need wasn't even maxed out because they took so long to eat it. I explicitly remember having that Sim take vacation days off work just to eat, and often returning home dead tired.

This is a serious problem moving forward too. Jungle Adventures recycles food stalls, merchant tables and many of the core gameplay elements for the puzzles. In it's case, it's just a bit boring to see the same things used over and over. Other cases though, such as the vet career, they readily recycle features that have been broken since their creation. Go look up feedback for Get To Work's Retail, Dine Out and the vet career, and not a single one runs perfectly smooth and not a single one is without serious issues. Dine Out is probably the best of the three since it's flaws are ignorable with random customers just not being served, but Vet and Get To Work both suffer from reports of employees simply not doing anything. They seem eager to recycle content though even IF the content doesn't work.

And I find it absolutely concerning to see packs like Jungle Adventures release and despite the amounts of recycled content, the pack still looks like a dud. If they're recycling content to conserve time to use on other new features, an argument can be made it's worth it. Here though, I have no idea what their focus went into. It seems to be the world itself and the build mode objects, but then I have to wonder how that could be since Vampires also did a great job at providing nice build mode objects and didn't suffer in quality for it. I cannot tell if there's poor planning going on or just a feeling of apathy about the pack by the development team.

Random tangent too, but another thing I find concerning is how animations seem to be getting worse. I happened to see that the laundry pack has a "frame drop" when Sims do laundry. Initially I thought this was a stream issue, but it seems Sims consistently have a poor-quality animation when interacting with laundry machines. I've seen a similar thing now occur when players try to assemble totems. (or use them? I forget) Why are the animations losing quality? Does this game just have a budget of absolute zero? It's very strange too because the new dance animations actually look good and fleshed out. It's rare they provide new animations (presumably due to cost) so on one hand seeing the dance is surprising, but then it's paired with more choppy animations and I sit here wondering what's going on at Maxis.

I digress though, that's a lot of tangents I just went off on. My point is we cannot just sweep past issues under the rug and pretend they don't exist. When we do that, they absolutely resurface. Get To Work's Retail was non-functional, and yes Dine Out and Vet career have similar issues. Laundry day had choppy animations, now Jungle Adventure does too. City Living sold despite recycling base game content and providing minimal new content like food stalls and market tables, lo and behold Pets and Jungle Adventure recycle those to pad their content count as well.

We should not be focusing on the moments when things do work. We should be focusing on when they don't. If you're trying to land a person on Mars and one of your two spaceship launches crashes and burns, you don't sit and dwell on the one that worked, you try to figure out why the other one failed. Focusing on the success doesn't solve the problem, focusing on the failure helps pinpoint the problem. As such - no offense intended - but I don't see the value in saying "my game works fine" when it's clean a non-insignificant amount of the population doesn't have your great fortune.

"MidnightAura;c-16357774" wrote:

"JoAnne65;c-16357761" wrote:

"Felicity;c-16357642" 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)

Yeah, the problem with using objective that way is people tend to take it meaning he has no opinion -- he does, and he expresses it in an entertaining way. What he doesn't have is a bias towards making sure he keeps his free stuff coming. And frankly, EA by dropping him from the free-stuff program also sent a clear message to other reviewers. Keep it positive.

Really, they're paid well. Not only in free games, but aren't there boot camps as well that they get sent to as well that EA pays for? Or am I wrong about that and it was a one-off thing?

Yes, a strategy I can’t really get my head around by the way. Because it underlines the hunch people have anyway the privileged are biased. EA makes sure not only those influencers realize they better be or else, but on top of that the whole fanbase and the rest of the world can witness it.

Remember LGR was never an influencer/game changer. They sent him free copies. But he refused to be part of of the program. The game changer program means you can be selected to go to sims camp which is a yearly event and sometimes other events/meetings. (Some of them have been to California very recently for meetings)

They did stop sending him free copies which does say they prefer postivity.

Whoops this is really meant for @Felicity

Yeah, you're right -- he wasn't a part of their influencer program, he just got a few free games. And that's what I thought, that they give free trips to their reviewers along with sneak previews even before review copies are ready. And that's on top of what they make for their videos, which they get paid, provided they have advertisers, CPM (clicks per thousand), which can be in and of itself pretty decent pay. One of my kids does youtube videos, and even with just a few over 100k subscribers, he gets a decent amount for the videos he releases.

Really, the only Sims reviewer I watch is LGR, and that's because he doesn't squee. I get an overview of what's in the pack, and that's really all I want. Given that I own ever single Sims pack, obviously he's not scaring me off. But he's funny, and I don't take what he doesn't like as a personal insult.

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.

Everyone knows this game pack harkens back to the world adventures of sims 3. New games should always be an improvement. So to make jungle adventure a game pack instead of an expansion pack is a horrible business decision; to choose to make this a game pack, when they knew that most people would be comparing this to world adventures, and some to sims 2 bon voyage. This to me is just more proof of how horribly they are doing. You can have all the data on the internet that you want, but the proof is in what they delivery. This is awful. They have such talented people on the team and they could be doing leaps and bounds better than what we see in sims 4.

"SimTrippy;c-16355863" wrote:
You agreeing with someone's opinion is not the same as them being the only "honest" reviewer. As if, when it comes to taste, there's only one single true answer (and that just happens to be the one you agree with xD). I don't understand why it is so hard for some simmers to understand that there are people who actually enjoy this game for what it is. And that not all the reviewers you disagree with are "fake" (even if, yes, EA, and pretty much any other company in the world, is more likely to work with YouTubers that like their products since these are "mutually promotional" relationships if you will). These reviewers just have a different view of the game than you do. And I think you underestimate their intelligence when you think they never point out the things they don't like. All that being said, why can we never get an LGR review and accept it for what it is: a review. Not a reason to attack other people or calling them fake or wrong or stupid (for liking or for not liking one man's review). And yes, I do like them, but these responses are kinda annoying anyway.

It's no secret that there are plenty of sims "reviews" who are payed to give a positive review. They just don't necessarily say it. Many simmers respect this guy because he is one who is honest in the regard that he hasn't accepted bribes/support in exchange for good reviews.