What am I supposed to say to this?Because I don't think I can be "challenged" by reading a review where I don't agree with the reviewer. I've nothing to "learn", it's just someone presenting their subjective opinions about the game. If they don't fall in line with mine, that's fine, and I'd gladly read the review if I find the content interesting. But if my goal is to get a sense of whether I'll buy a game or not, then reading a review from someone on whose opinions I don't usually agree with, makes no sense to me.
But just to be clear, I'm not saying I'm like the original person you've quoted, I watch a variety of reviews simply because I enjoy watching people talk about a game, and enjoy watching game's footage. I'm just playing the devil's advocate as to why I think people my prefer watching content from a reviewer they tend to agree with.
Your response is waay too defensive man. I'm not attacking, just joining in on the conversation.Never said they weren't. I have no idea what you're referring to here. You want to stay in your bubble? Do it, I don't care.
It's not. Regarding this part I was making a comparison. Something about what that poster initially said provoked you to post and question why he would want to read something in line with what he prefers.I have no idea what you're talking about here. All I said was that only reading media that serves you up opinions that you believe you will already agree with is a waste of time. It's really not a difficult concept to understand.
It's not defensive. It's disinterested. When you reply to a very simple proposition with stuff like this:Your response is waay too defensive man. I'm not attacking, just joining in on the conversation.
That's a really, really weird thing to say in response to a pretty basic point about avoiding being siloed online.I will say though, your argument reminds me of people here who don't understand the fun in walking simulators, Animal Crossing, and build/craft games, because those gamers aren't sweating to death on Sekiro or some CoD match.
I found it interesting because both share a similar argumentative structure, that's allThat's a really, really weird thing to say in response to a pretty basic point about avoiding being siloed online.
They really don't. But okay. You do you.I found it interesting because both share a similar argumentative structure, that's all![]()
Because I don't think I can be "challenged" by reading a review where I don't agree with the reviewer. I've nothing to "learn", it's just someone presenting their subjective opinions about the game. If they don't fall in line with mine, that's fine, and I'd gladly read the review if I find the content interesting. But if my goal is to get a sense of whether I'll buy a game or not, then reading a review from someone on whose opinions I don't usually agree with, makes no sense to me.
But just to be clear, I'm not saying I'm like the original person you've quoted, I watch a variety of reviews simply because I enjoy watching people talk about a game, and enjoy watching game's footage. I'm just playing the devil's advocate as to why I think people my prefer watching content from a reviewer they tend to agree with.
"Yeah, I'm going to read the review of this new Mexican restaurant by a guy who hates Mexican food. I love Mexican food and so do others, but I can't risk an echo chamber, I need to know what people who hate it think."Thanks for posting what I wanted to write.
Esepcially with reviews, I read/watch from people who I know will report to me things about the game I want to know and have - if not the same then at least - similar tastes to mine.
Why would I want to be challenged by a reviewer that doesn't align with my tastes or who spends 90% of the time talking about performance if that is one of the last things I'm interested in?
This is the way. For me at least. I pay 8 bucks per month for a German gaming website hosted only by a former editor in chief of one of the biggest German games outlet that got sold to a new parent company who fired everyone and is now spitting click bait and ads left and right. I come to hate this reach journalism everywhere, financed by lobbies, written with SEO in mind, and published by the hour to be the first one.The site doesn't require readership numbers due to this which means that they don't have to constantly churn out meaningless articles and advertise companies (like the other guys).
This was probably funnier in your head."Yeah, I'm going to read the review of this new Mexican restaurant by a guy who hates Mexican food. I love Mexican food and so do others, but I can't risk an echo chamber, I need to know what people who hate it think."
There are some additional "perks" for subscribers, but the main content is free.Ad-free but I need to pay first lol. Well I can get YT ad-free as well if I pay for it.
Is that so wild? It makes sense to me regarding unreleased games or something I'm interested in. Hell, it makes more sense to me than someone that has obvious bias or rates things poorly or in a manner I don't agree with.Why would you want that? You're only interested in journalism that reflects your beliefs back at you? What's the point?
Imagine thinking that it'd be possible to get quality journalism without them being able to make a living.Imagine paying for shit like this when all the information is free or pointless.
This was probably funnier in your head.
I cannot believe the chimp outs over suggesting that it's dumb to only want to hear from people you agree with. It's kind of funny to watch.
quality journalism
And when he comes away from those early/press releases with a video not recommending the game (which he has done multiple times at this point) does that hold any value to you?He can have as many subscribers/patreons/whatever, he still craves access to early/press editions of games...
I don't really get the hate.
The site seems pretty decent, it looks clean and having written reviews I can actually read on my lunch break instead of some 45 minutes video is cool, and the release calendar stuff is actually really nice (better than what I've seen in most other sites).
I personally wouldn't pay for it, but I don't see anything hate worthy on the free tier.
You'll be lucky to know, if you watched the clip (which, judging by the comments here, very few have) is that he won't be the main "feature". He'll do a piece here and there, but the actual content is from other writers.Its not that is hate, its just that I don't actually find justificable paying for gaming news, let alone any news. I appretiate his "thoughs" and takes on game news, but I don't think its worth my money.
See, this I never got about the culture wars. People are supposed to support Hogwarts Legacy because of the author of the books. Yet the game is about as pro-trans as you can get. So in order to support an anti-trans viewpoint, you should support a pro-trans game? I really have a hard time understanding this.Not to mention the risk of going political or not covering specific games for reasons(Hogwarts as a prime example that he didn't cover because of lack of time I think, but nothing stopped him from doing review later which aways make this decision questionable).
Its not that is hate, its just that I don't actually find justificable paying for gaming news, let alone any news. I appretiate his "thoughs" and takes on game news, but I don't think its worth my money. Not to mention the risk of going political or not covering specific games for reasons(Hogwarts as a prime example that he didn't cover because of lack of time I think, but nothing stopped him from doing review later which aways make this decision questionable).
Not trying to shit on him to be honest, but saying things about the current state of gaming, like being critical of layoffs, is not something difficult as basically any youtuber can do and youtube is full of them.
It's not a catch-all statement, I agree there, and it was not even targeted at SkillUp specifically. I get that the current system of access media has become ingrained in the industry. I just wish journalists/reviewers would band toghether and demand that either everyone, with credentials, gets a press release copy or the games-media as a whole would boycott the game in question. As it is now, where publishers can chose to blacklist you if you don't play ball on their big releases is just so shitty for us consumers.And when he comes away from those early/press releases with a video not recommending the game (which he has done multiple times at this point) does that hold any value to you?
It's fine. Wouldn't this work in SkillUp's favor in this case? Because he doesn't use a score system, there's zero incentive to lower or heighten a value based on publisher pressure, which they have done in the past. He simply lays out the good and the bad, with gameplay clips to show each point, and then says if he feels who it's for and if it's even worth someone's time. He tries to approach things from as neutral of a point as possible for the average consumer, and I think that's why some of his content has resonated with me and why his viewership and support has been on a steady increase (though I also agree with people that his podcast is boring).It's not a catch-all statement, I agree there, and it was not even targeted at SkillUp specifically. I get that the current system of access media has become ingrained in the industry. I just wish journalists/reviewers would band toghether and demand that either everyone, with credentials, gets a press release copy or the games-media as a whole would boycott the game in question. As it is now, where publishers can chose to blacklist you if you don't play ball on their big releases is just so shitty for us consumers.
And that's not even breaking into the release-events-wine&dine stuff they do. While not as bad as access media, it's easy to understand that anyone attending such a thing will be swayed, even if just a little.
Unless it's a truly trash game or from a small publishers, I feel that the only voices that are 100% truthful are either hobby-reviewers or other gamers/customers...on top of watching gameplay ourself.
A bit if a rant, sorry.![]()