Lazy Gamers Jungle Adventures Review Is Up

"MidnightAura;c-16356994" wrote:

"SimTrippy;c-16356966" wrote:

"NorthDakotaGamer;c-16355998" wrote:
So me sensing the EA game changers reviews as sounding very fake is offensive? It is just they way seem to come off as. I don't agree with every review from any specific Youtuber, but I can honestly tell when they do not appear to be honest. Honest reviews have both negative and positive in them. This particular one stated the gameplay was good, if you already like the limitations of Sims 4. So for those that dislike the limitations, it sounds like it will not improve the game.

No, I did not say it's offensive :) I said it's annoying for people to assume that a) "EA game changers" (which people seem to despise for the name alone) are fake because they like the game and get excited about B&B additions (so do others, just FYI), or god forbid make money this way, or that b) LGR is fake (since some other people seem to think he just caters to the "negative vibe", which is an equally weird assumption) just because he's got certain issues with the game he's trying to address. I don't see why people nowadays have to call everything that doesn't support their feelings "fake" or manipulative. Especially when it's about what games we like.

And again, cause this kinda keeps popping up: yes, most EA game changers make money on YouTube (not even necessarily from EA, but in the many complex ways content creators on YouTube get paid). But many of them probably made vids before actually earning enough to make a living from it, and EA liked what they were doing for the sims and invited them into their program, just like they invited LGR. And if you've ever worked in marketing you know you're not gonna send free products to people for no reason at all, but for the sole purpose of reaching their audiences. They pick them because they're popular, it's rarely the other way around. People have to stop saying that LGR declining to be a part of EA's chosen early reviewers, makes him any more or less honest than anyone else.

Someone who likes the game might just have less qualms about signing up for this than someone who doesn't & wants that to remain clear. But really, I doubt EA would've forced him to change his reviews. Why would they ask him at all if they were too afraid of what he had to say? He's got audiences they want to connect with, that's why he got invited. He declined, life goes on. Other people didn't. And that doesn't make them any less trustworthy. If I love something and a company asks me if I want to get it for free early so I can write about it, I'd say yes in a heartbeat, too. And that wouldn't suddenly make me 1000% more critical about the product, just you know, because. Maybe you can tell when someone's being dishonest, but I'm afraid when it comes to this particular topic, people often equate dishonesty with disagreement.

@MidnightAura I wasn't trying to derail the thread, sorry you feel that way.

As much as I hate to say this I feel it needs to be said: LGR refused to be a part of the programme because he didn't want to compromise the integrity of his channel. He is by default more objective than a game changer because he is not getting their products for free, he is not getting free gifts off EA, he is not getting flown to events run by EA not does LGR have a channel that solely depends on the sims and only the sims.

So many game changers are not very balanced that's all I will say and I know what @NorthDakotaGamer is referring too. I'm not saying anything further on that topic.

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. I watched a youtuber recently do a review of a new shooter game that is getting panned heavily for loot boxes and believe it or not charging people for a save slot. This youtuber said the game was not that bad and criticised the "fanboys" of the game who were rightfully upset at this latest game.

Then lo and behold it turns out the company had sent the youtuber a big box of free swag. Hoodies, and other items. I refuse to believe that box did not sway their opinion and defence of the game especially when the youtuber previously was critical of loot boxes. Suddenly they weren't.

Same principle applies to the sims.

Anyhow back on topic.

I personally don't trust LGR's reviews, because he's gotten a reputation for being negative on sims games. His viewers expect him to be negative, which they see as 'honest', so as a result, he's more inclined to look for the negative, because that's what his subscribers, ake the people mostly paying for his games, want to hear. If he were too positive about something, he'd fear losing subscribers.

"liliaeth;c-16358926" wrote:

"MidnightAura;c-16356994" wrote:

"SimTrippy;c-16356966" wrote:

"NorthDakotaGamer;c-16355998" wrote:
So me sensing the EA game changers reviews as sounding very fake is offensive? It is just they way seem to come off as. I don't agree with every review from any specific Youtuber, but I can honestly tell when they do not appear to be honest. Honest reviews have both negative and positive in them. This particular one stated the gameplay was good, if you already like the limitations of Sims 4. So for those that dislike the limitations, it sounds like it will not improve the game.

No, I did not say it's offensive :) I said it's annoying for people to assume that a) "EA game changers" (which people seem to despise for the name alone) are fake because they like the game and get excited about B&B additions (so do others, just FYI), or god forbid make money this way, or that b) LGR is fake (since some other people seem to think he just caters to the "negative vibe", which is an equally weird assumption) just because he's got certain issues with the game he's trying to address. I don't see why people nowadays have to call everything that doesn't support their feelings "fake" or manipulative. Especially when it's about what games we like.

And again, cause this kinda keeps popping up: yes, most EA game changers make money on YouTube (not even necessarily from EA, but in the many complex ways content creators on YouTube get paid). But many of them probably made vids before actually earning enough to make a living from it, and EA liked what they were doing for the sims and invited them into their program, just like they invited LGR. And if you've ever worked in marketing you know you're not gonna send free products to people for no reason at all, but for the sole purpose of reaching their audiences. They pick them because they're popular, it's rarely the other way around. People have to stop saying that LGR declining to be a part of EA's chosen early reviewers, makes him any more or less honest than anyone else.

Someone who likes the game might just have less qualms about signing up for this than someone who doesn't & wants that to remain clear. But really, I doubt EA would've forced him to change his reviews. Why would they ask him at all if they were too afraid of what he had to say? He's got audiences they want to connect with, that's why he got invited. He declined, life goes on. Other people didn't. And that doesn't make them any less trustworthy. If I love something and a company asks me if I want to get it for free early so I can write about it, I'd say yes in a heartbeat, too. And that wouldn't suddenly make me 1000% more critical about the product, just you know, because. Maybe you can tell when someone's being dishonest, but I'm afraid when it comes to this particular topic, people often equate dishonesty with disagreement.

@MidnightAura I wasn't trying to derail the thread, sorry you feel that way.

As much as I hate to say this I feel it needs to be said: LGR refused to be a part of the programme because he didn't want to compromise the integrity of his channel. He is by default more objective than a game changer because he is not getting their products for free, he is not getting free gifts off EA, he is not getting flown to events run by EA not does LGR have a channel that solely depends on the sims and only the sims.

So many game changers are not very balanced that's all I will say and I know what @NorthDakotaGamer is referring too. I'm not saying anything further on that topic.

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. I watched a youtuber recently do a review of a new shooter game that is getting panned heavily for loot boxes and believe it or not charging people for a save slot. This youtuber said the game was not that bad and criticised the "fanboys" of the game who were rightfully upset at this latest game.

Then lo and behold it turns out the company had sent the youtuber a big box of free swag. Hoodies, and other items. I refuse to believe that box did not sway their opinion and defence of the game especially when the youtuber previously was critical of loot boxes. Suddenly they weren't.

Same principle applies to the sims.

Anyhow back on topic.

I personally don't trust LGR's reviews, because he's gotten a reputation for being negative on sims games. His viewers expect him to be negative, which they see as 'honest', so as a result, he's more inclined to look for the negative, because that's what his subscribers, ake the people mostly paying for his games, want to hear. If he were too positive about something, he'd fear losing subscribers.

He really wouldn’t. He has a reputation for being honest which means not squealing over a colour swatch , calling it the best game ever and telling you to buy laundry even if you don’t like laundry. Yup a game changer actually said that.

The sims is a tiny part of his channel, he does not have a channel dedicated to the sims. Also you clearly haven’t watched his pets, laundry, vampire and jungle adventures review as they were fairly positive.

Love his reviews, there always honest and don't sugar coat anything.

@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.

I think he liked the pack overall - but the longevity of it in game is eh to me. Won't be buying it. I love his reviews though

"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.

What cockroachery is this?!? Nah, just joking. He definitely has a unique delivery. The world would be a sadder place without him. :)

"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.

"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).

With all due respect, I think you are imagining things. If someone likes something, they have no motivation to pretend otherwise. This type of persona you're describing simply doesn't exist, unless we're talking about 6-year-olds showing dissatisfaction so they can get more stuff when their parents try to apologize to them.

His ending statement is "But I felt like I had my fill after only a few hours of playing...," "For me it's a neat distraction and I'll always welcome more ways to make sims perish, but I also don't think it's a vital expansion either. What it is though is good for a bit of fun, and I'm fine with that."

That's his only closing statement summarizing his thoughts, and I see no reason to doubt him on that. The tone of the whole review seems to match that. "Had some fun, but this is nothing game-changing or long-lasting," more or less.

"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.

Yeah but you seem to be saying he has to be negative but his vampires and parenthood reviews (from what I recall) were positive pets was decent and JA seemed like he liked it to me (I don't feel like hes having a hard time liking it here so could be difference of perception) all of these were since his 2 years of meh, so the idea that he has to be negative for his audience seems to be contradicted by his reviews of everything except sp in the last year.

I also don't think his sims videos are his bread and butter, the reviews for them are to far and few between compared to his other stuff and his recent stuff is getting about the same amount of views as his modern reviews and only slightly more than his thrifts and tech tales. (Actually only the base game review for the sims 4 makes into popular uploads for him at 6th place GtW in 24th)

He also does that other stuff more frequently meaning it is, over all, getting him more money, based on what I know about youtube money making I wouldn't say ts4 is overly important for his channel, he does it because it made him famous and the series is dear to him (I suspect) not because it is what is supporting him financially (it couldn't do that with how infrequently he can do a review on it)

I agree business is what business is he will do what he needs to to support himself. But, he is just one guy so he can chose to be a little less efficient if he wants (it's based on his whims/wants/needs not others) and I think you are overstating the importance of having a specific attitude for a specific type of his content when there is so many other things he has done that get comparable view amounts.

"Grynn;c-16358822" wrote:

"KatyJay88;c-16358290" wrote:
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.

You must be young to have such a black or white view of humanity, nothing wrong with that, but human beings aren't this one-dimensional, in fact someone who simply doesn't like The Sims 4 doesn't spend their time on a forum about The Sims 4 or making so many videos about The Sims 4.

I'll give an example, Paradox is a game studio which has many passionate fans since they are basically the only ones making large scale grand-strategy games, like The Sims they essentially have no competitors. One of their recent games released a highly controversial 2.0 patch which changed the entire game, a lot of people complained when it was announced, a lot, the forums were 99% people complaining about the game, but they released it anyway without listening to any feedback whatsoever and guess what, people didn't keep posting on the forum, they just changed their Steam reviews to negative and just left for good, the only ones that still care about the game are the people who still like the game despite the shortcomings, threads are just suggestions about small things that could adjusted here and there now but there's no sense complaining about something that will never change anymore.

The people who straight out hate The Sims 4 already left, they are playing previous versions, the people here are the ones who still think The Sims 4 has something to offer despite its flaws, if we complain it's because we want the game to get better.

I'll second this -- the part about people just not bothering to visit forums of games they're not playing. That's me in a nutshell. Sometimes I'm extremely active on this forum because I'm playing the game and having fun with it. Then I get bored, uninstall it, go play something else and post of those forums instead. Life is too short to post in the forums of games I don't play.