Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCz1ITSy2O8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXQtFh-lKNI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f6mpF_cmWU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4934i_isaX0
I'm also sorry, I have no idea who Angry Joe is either. So maybe we'll both learn about some YouTubers. ;p
he wishes, he had Dragon Age. what's wrong about that?
I half agree. I think he does review the game he wishes was made rather than the one in front of him. I don't think outside of the technical performance an objective review of a video game is basically impossible. It's fine because we can find reviewers who generally agree with as a metric and wait for the game to drop so we can watch streams or lets plays.
There's nothing wrong with that, but it's his record. He's the guy who's on the side of public opinion. I would have liked Dragon Origins 2 too, but that's another game(Veilguard) and if I were reviewing it, I'd be more impartial.
At the end of the day, watching Youtube reviews is just about reinforcing your confirmation bias; however, there's always an off-chance they could offer a new perspective and change your mind. Personally, these reviewers don't do it for me at all and, if anything, make me dislike the game more. Fortunately, as I've never heard of these channels, I won't have to unsubscribe from anyone today.
The cold truth about franchises is that they are owned by corporations and corps will always chase trends.
If you miss "real" RPGs, go play one; BG3, Solasta, Wasteland 3, Pillars of Eternity, Rogue Trader, Pathfinder and Wrath of the Righteous exist.
what's great is all of the gender stuff has zero impact of the game. the issue is this.
ea chose reviewers to review the game that would put the game in a favorable light. those that didn't had to buy the game like normal. it took them longer to review the game obviously. now we're seeing those that post those reviews.
any review of this game day 1 or if they were given an early copy of the game tells me that review should be ignored as they are biased.
also none of these reviews, from youtubers and streamers with millions of followers, are considered critics even on the site opencritic.com which is supposed to allow reviews from places that aren't IGN and the like. the entire game is rigged.
if youtube recommends these reviews to you then yes, 100% you are correct, due to how the yt algorithm works.
you are clearly an informed person. first two episodes of this podcast explain how the yt algorithm works. https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/rabbit-hole-the-new-york-times-L1T0AguhCd9/
EDIT
i'm also under the belief that yt is using their recommendation algorithm when you search for videos, which may make all of youtube biased. there's already the removal of curation
basically play what you like. for me it's simple as joe stated.
if it was called differently, then sure i could see likeing it more, but i have to compare it to games of the past and it's not like them.
the real bias is from the media and ea only selecting reviewers that would paint it in a positive light and give them ample time to state that in a video that'd be available when the game released
i watched the entire 47 minute review.
not once did it seem biased. he provided multiple examples of prior games, which is required as this is a sequel. this game just isn't dragon age. he even said DA:I was closer to Dragon Age than this game is to DA:I and if you've played the dragon age series and watched his gameplay footage, you'll understand what he means by that.
everyone is biased. what's not clear is if everyone reviewing the game played the prior games in their entirety which is required to review this game. if someone feels that's not important, then we can just call all games call of duty as names are pointless.
there has been evidence of ea catoring to reviewers that would give the game favorable reviews. basically. they only wanted positive reviews about the game be visible when most people would buy the game during the first week. the industry still resembles what dunky said years ago about critics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG2dXobAXLI