it really is as simple as being able to distinguish opinions from facts, and clarifying each in the revew.
Facts: This game has X combat, Y selectable characters, the crafting looks like Z, etc.
Opinons: This game is amazing! 10/10! Best story of all time! GOTY!, etc
You absolutely can have an objective game review, it's just that no writer wants to do that. They'd rather make it more about their opinions of the game than of the game.
Oh come on, let’s at least be honest about that (I say as someone who doesn’t drink milk anymore)
Lactating cows will continue to lactate so long as someone is taking the milk, the calves are not getting some type of despicable treatment by being weened off.
…that treatment comes after, in the slaughterhouses
You can have an unbiased and objective opinion, pretty easily, in fact
You simply don’t pretend your own opinions are facts everyone should take wholesale, and say as much
You don’t have to open source everything to open source the client software that is expected to run on devices the software author doesn’t own or control (and so doesn’t care about or put in effort to protect)
They claimed that if you needed to vett it for specific vulnerabilities, you were capable of doing so
And the song and dance about “open source isn’t more secure” is meaningless, as you don’t care about security the same way in all applications, and the ones trivial enough not to care about are going to be by and large open source
(Assuming their data collection methods were even adequate, as by definition they could only vett the open source half of the claim. We know for a fact that proprietary software routinely buries or hides vulnerabilities unless forced to do otherwise)
Agreed, even as a steam user. It’s a good reminder that you are installing gigabytes of instructions on your most personal device that you are specifically prohibited from vetting
Do I believe the “journalism” whatever outlet you make produces, that it’s what it pretends to be: an unbiased, honest, authentic, and objective opinion piece on a game? Or is it going to be (now or in the future when you sell out) marketing garbage whose purpose is to try and get me to spend money, no matter what lies it needs to tell to do so?
So classic User Value versus Profit motive conundrum.
It’s not a conflict that’s easily resolvable, and I’m far more stingy these days of allowing myself to be profited off of without concrete (to me) value in return, and tbh I don’t see how any type of game review service could avoid the temptations of profit enough for me to trust a damned thing they say.
The coders have their copyrighted works replicated infinitely without royalties as well.
What makes a voice actor’s contributions more meaningful than that? Especially since they can get a half decent voice performance out of any coder and the right generative software which already exists.
I'm saying it's common practice for companies in the US to "consider" candidates they have no intention of actually considering, because they already know who they want (or what 'type' of person they want) and that these are hoops companies jump through that don't end up doing the things people expected the hoops to do.
it really is as simple as being able to distinguish opinions from facts, and clarifying each in the revew.
Facts: This game has X combat, Y selectable characters, the crafting looks like Z, etc.
Opinons: This game is amazing! 10/10! Best story of all time! GOTY!, etc
You absolutely can have an objective game review, it's just that no writer wants to do that. They'd rather make it more about their opinions of the game than of the game.