Is it actually possible for someone given a press release copy, a sponsored copy, or working for a company that provides a copy (I.E. an IGN reviewer) to fairly review a game if it didn't technically cost them any money? Does/should the price of a game factor into it's review?
If you'd accept a low budget jrpg with shit graphics just because it's $15, but get mad if the AAA big budget jrpg for $60 doesn't run at 60 fps, how can you listen to the review of someone that didn't pay for the game?
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Is that the dick clam the nips are always fricking around with?
How do I get my matured garloids to produce materia?
I know tap water is bad for them but idk anything about shelled garloids, my family always had naked ones around
What is this thing?
Treasure.
It's a diagram of what happens to you if you get addicted to sounding.
geodude
Its called a Geoduck, is basically a big clam that doesn't fit in its shell.
whats the point of having a shell if it doesnt protect you
They are moronic
what's the point of having a foreskin if the rabbi takes it from you
they dig themselves like 2-5 feet underground
Kidney stones.
Actually they look worse than that because they tend to be made with parts of your legs and/or arms.
I find amusing how there's people that still think troony grafting isn't real.
Benis :DDDDD
sea garloiod
Poor dude, I wonder if aliens crack us open for our kidney stones.
Doubt it considering how abundant the elements kidney stones are made of are in the universe.
It's like humans with that cat shit coffee. Aliens like to brew a drink with human kidney stones just because they're fricking weird.
>cat shit coffee
Never heard of that.
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/oYGRDcS0wJs
enjoy
>frogposter
>mobile link
>not even embed
shameful display
I was expecting that comment
Nothing we can do
how do i embed pls spoonfeed me n call me newbie https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QGiNgD0ufk0
stop linking "shorts", moronic no controls player.
here, it's this easy.
I probably can't tell because of my extension so when I see most links, they autowork for me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk0XdD2SgAg [Embed]
>He doesn't use a browser extension to convert shorts to the regular youtube video format
ngmi
the epitome of the cancer that killed Ganker right here, everyone.
Dont listen to those tards anon. Phone posters that put in a little bit of effort are alright in my book.
Very kind of you
look up kopi luwak
calcium carbonate isn't rare either
maybe something about the color or the shape of human kidney stones will be attractive to them
Frick me I completely forgot that pearls are just calcium carbonate. Aren't lab grown pearls a thing?
>lab grown pearls
I think it's easier just to farm them
>acquire mollusks
>insert an irritant into mantle of said mollusks
>???
>profit
pearls are mostly made of calcium carbonate, that shit is basic as frick. they are just shiny and can't really be replicated well
Well pearls are just sand, rock l, or even their own shell that got mixed in with whatever the mollusk tries to eat and gets stuck there. They aren’t particularly rare elements.
The element that makes diamonds is literally everywhere and yet diamonds are expensive.
It doesn't matter what something is made of, it's the rarity, quality and size that matter.
factory diamonds are much easier to make
blood diamond monopoly, artificial price inflation etc. are the reasons they're still expensive
Naturally occurring diamonds are expensive because they are rare. People are going to start including the mushed up rocks around the diamond in a one mile radius to start confirming the diamonds pedigree.
>kill enemy
>drops precious israeliteels
How has a clam got a bigger dick than me?
The siphon is four to six feet long extended. Don't be upset.
there's no reason to trust game reviewers period. even if they bought it for themselves their livelihoods are built on clickbaiting people for views. everything they say is for the purpose of selling your views.
No, they cannot be trusted. One reason I rarely see mentioned is that if you decide to play the game, you will have to buy it (pirates aside). The only person that can view the game through the lens of "man, I had to drop 30 bucks for this piece of shit" is someone that actually bought it the same way you would have to. They're fundamentally more discerning than someone who views a game to review as easy-come-easy-go.
I would trust someone who does it not as a career, but out of passion. For example, I play games because I love them. OP, feel free to >> me if you have any questions about a game to play, and I'll give you the real lowdown.
I sure how neither of you ever shit out a gameFAQ post reviewing FFIX after your mum bought it for you then. At their highest both of your arguments should be you cant trust their veiw on 'if its worth the money'.
Also, you presuppose the point of a review is to evaluate a game by some sort of dollar per metric, which is frankly just a teenage poorgay mindset that other media isn't held too.
What are you talking about? He's very clearly asking about reviews from individuals who were given a copy for free by the publisher. There's a major conflict of interest there and for various resultant reasons they fundamentally cannot be trusted to tell you whether or not to purchase and play the game. The only reason to read the review in the first place and wonder whether or not to trust them is because you are unsure of whether it is worth your time and money. For half of that (at least), such a reviewer is not trustworthy.
>other media isn't held to
Since when? If someone tells me there's a play in town that's the absolute bee's knees, but it costs $10,000 per seat, I'm not going to watch it. You've never heard someone say "eh, the movie was all right. Not worth paying to see it in theaters, but for a couple bucks it's worth renting"? Money and time are the major constraints on art consumption.
You can't trust a review from an institution, ever, period. This is especially true for games journalism, these places essentially grew out of being 'external' PR (the old mags) and they need access to get clicks.
A big YouTuber who incidentally gets a game for free is a different situation, access is good but they don't need it to the same extent (if at all).
Now to your example obviously anything taken to an absurd degree is true so let's drop the price down to $100 per seat. No one in their review would be like
>Ayy oh the play was dope but it only ran for 2 hours so I can't give it about a 7 because the value proposition isn't ther. Wait for a deep deep sale
That literally doesn't happen, because books/films/theater isn't evaluated in this eternal juvenile mindset of dollar per unit of enjoyment. This is clearly a cultural hangover from when games were exclusively targeted to highschool/college kids whith barely enough money to buy food.
>period
We agreed on that.
>literally doesn't happen
It does. I just gave you an example with film, and I doubt you haven't encountered that same example yourself. I think you're ignoring the pricing differences that mostly explain why this is seen more often with games -- new games can be $60 or more, but even those games regularly go on sale for $10 or even get included in promotional giveaways. So it's quite reasonable to expect that the given review consumer will have a chance to acquire the game in question at far below sticker price.
However, books generally only exist at the "brand new at $20" and "used at $1-10" price points. And those price points exist at the moment of release; digitally acquired games don't generally have a resale market in that way. If you want a discounted version you have to wait, whereas for books you're free to get a used copy in all cases.
Theater doesn't work the same way, either. They have different seating areas at different prices, but promotions are quite rare, and they're only presented for a limited range of time. They're obviosuly quite expensive compared to books or other forms of more readily replicated media. So, any review doesn't need to remind a potential audience member "by the way, the tickets are costly", because that's almost always the case. There is no point to saying "watch it if, for some reason, they give out $5 tickets in your town".
The original point was about how a person's frame of mind and associated judgment is informed by the situation they find themselves in. Consider giving a random person off the street a ticket to a $150 play for free, and seat them next to their friend, who had to buy their ticket, not knowing the former got theirs for free. One person will be thinking "eh, this is OK, I guess it's good to try something different. And I got it for free!", whereas the other is thinking "eh, this is OK, but I can't believe I dropped $150 for this". Same experience, different judgment.
Verbose but correct. I'd like to see any professional reviewer quote a price they'd be willing to pay for a game alongside it's review. "7/10, I'd pay $30 for it.". I don't know why so few reviewers ever mention the price of a game. It's great that many call out microtransaction shit these days, but professional reviewers really need to stop acting like some of these AAA games are worth release price to anyone.
>Verbose
I had to be, since I wasn't sure where what I was trying to say was getting lost in translation. I'd rather write one long post then have 5 more back-and-forths.
The tricky part with pricing is that it's 100% relative. If you're broke all the time then forking over $60 is a serious decision to make. But if you have $500k+ in the bank and regularly go out to eat $100 dinners, spending one half a single meal's price on something you'll get X hours of enjoyment from is a trivial consideration.
I still disagree fundamentally, both in relation to the op and to your point specifically.
Regarding the OP, the cost of the product (not inducements, we aren't going down the susso games journo hole again) should be and for every other form of media is irrelevant when discussing the relative quality of the piece, this only comes up when discussing videogames.
It doesn't matter if it's Ingeborg Holm or The Birds or Antman and Wasp. Again no reviewer is ever going to mention
>11/10 story, cinematography and score but it only ran for 96 minutes for $20 so its a 3.5/5 for me
It doesn't happen, to pretend otherwise is inane. Now I have some theories about why it happens with videogames (traditional target demo, first media to mature under corporatism, greater upfront investment) but that's ultimately ancillary.
Now regarding your specific point. Obviously, different people with different access to capital will have different priorities (which I do acknowledge above), if you don't know if you're going to make rent 4 tickets to the latest Disney movie will be a larger proportional cost value proposition then two white-collar DINKs getting a box at the local opera. But all of this is only relevant to media in that it's the consideration of the cost/loss question not the media inof itself. Linking this back to my first point the cost value proposition should only affect someone's ability to review a product if the review is positing a comparison to other similar products, a self-contained review of the piece alone will not and should not include it because value is relative and subjective.
Yes.
troony penises look like THAT?!
And they use magical crystals inside to maintain them. Shit ain't natural.
Used to be you'd find a magazine reviewer that shared your tastes, and use their opinion to see if you wanted to rent, then buy if the rental was fun. It's not necessary any longer, opinions are not hard to come by. Reviewers only exist now to sell product and/or generate traffic for revenue. They're either baiting anger/drama, or they're outright marketing for the companies they ostensibly critique. Just watch streamers for entertainment value if you must, nothing credible remains of games media for informative purposes.
imagine a little bit of sand got into your penos and then over a period of time some giant ass pearls formed
wouldn't it feel really weird but also good to cum them out
I have a hardened cyst on my knuckle from where I never pulled a splinter out, it's kinda the same thing
The short answer is YES. However it would be best for all reviewers to address this as the baseline for their review.
For example, you might buy a plunger from amazon, it costs 1 dollar and it has 5 star reviews. But those reviews are for a value factor, not the quality of the plunger. My 10 dollar plunger that has a much better build quality and will last 20 years has only 3 star reviews because people have not factored the quality of the product and only factored the price.
Time > money and journalists are going to play the minimum amount of game they need to complete their six screenshots and 300 word article that they had chatGPT write for them.
You shouldn't trust """gaming""" """""""journalists""""""" for anything at all. But you should especially not trust any review from an entity who is reviewing another entity's product completely at the mercy of that other entity's presumed good will and ethical makeup.
Wait, so clams really make pearls?
And they're crazy expensive?
Glad to see that at least one of my childhood myths wasn't debunked
>Wait, so clams really make pearls?
> childhood myths
You could have googled this at any point anon.
Pearls are just small pieces of debris that got caught inside their shells and then smoothly coated with the same materials their shells are made out of so that it doesn't grind into their bodies abrasively.
God forgot to close the loop though, so the coating grows indefinitely, which ends up making it irritating to them again in the long run. Sad. Many such cases.
>I'm ready to settle down now.
The only person I trust on a game is if they never paid for it. Anyone who pays for a game in any way has emotional incentive to defend their purchase.
but you have emotional incentive to defend theft?
I don't know about paying for it but if they act entitled to a free copy just because of 'who they are' or 'because they got free copies of other games' or any shit like that it knocks down their credibility to me I guess. Not that I look at reviews from youtubters or twtichers or influencers. Unless the group at PlaystationAcsess count, they're aright for light humor I guess.
It would help if someone has a game long enough to play it in its entirely rather than doing the thing there: 'I played an hour and couldn't continue on.' No, that just means the game isn't for you then, opinion discarded.
I don't give a shit if someone paid for a game. They could've pirated it for all I care. I don't trust game reviewers because they're all completely tasteless or shills, usually both.
As a QA tester that has worked on multiple triple A games for free: yes, i fricking hated 99% of them and would still review them negatively if given the chance.
Unless they really are sponsored, in that case its safe to assume they wouldn't want to sour relationships with a poor review.
These things produce pearls or is this staged?
Also the dong of those clams taste good. It's similar to scallops.
i have no idea if geoducks makes pearls, but they probably dont, and nothing would produce multicolored pearls. they would all be the same colored, or all be mottled different colors.
They do, but photo is staged. Clams makes different colored pearls but only one color at a time.
>Can you actually trust a game review by someone that didn't themselves pay for it?
I trust pirates exactly because they don't have to pay for it. But that's beyond the point and yeah if you trust journos you are stupid because it's painfully obvious some are getting money under the table.
At least they live for over a hundred years, they're doing something right.
[Embed]
imagine the smell
That homie fartin' and poopin'.
It's true, almost everyone in those examples are untrustworthy. however if someone pirates the game then you can actually trust their opinion even more than the opinion of someone who purchased it
back in the clam wagie
They can't be trusted no matter what because they have a massive incentive to spew bullshit for any big release to try and appease publishers and rabid fans. That's literally how they make their money, they're dead in the water if they don't get early copies to review and fanbases refuse to acknowledge their exist if they piss them off. The bigger and more hyped the release, the more bullshit the reviews and articles will be regardless of a game's quality.
I unironically want to hunt these and get those pretty pearls
look how pretty and shiny they are
must feel so rewarding to find them irl
I think I don't like vidya anymore
Pic is fake dude.
the only way to get those perles is to go to their breading ground and throw car batteries into the sea
Depends on the review
fried clams are my favorite food