• Dr Eggnog Dr Eggnog
    Dr Eggnog ► Classic Game Room
    8 years ago
    Saved!
    I like how there are long gaps in the talking to just let you kind of absorb the game.
    • rockshard PhD
      Saved!
      rockshard PhD
      Editing … It's a shit channel because he doesn't know what he's talking about and gives positive reviews to almost everything, including pangya and Gran turismo psp. In his dissidia 012 review he's playing using command mode (lolwat) and I doubt he even finished the game before reviewing it.
      8 years ago
    • Dr Eggnog
      Saved!
      Dr Eggnog
      Editing … Maybe he likes almost everything. And I like hearing him talk and don't expect him to finish every game he reviews.
      8 years ago
    • rockshard PhD
      Saved!
      rockshard PhD
      Editing … You can't give a positive review to a game you didn't finish without being a hypocrite. It's not like he's a major publication and has a deadline to deal with.
      8 years ago
    • Dr Eggnog
      Saved!
      Dr Eggnog
      Editing … A hypocrite? What? And maybe he does have deadlines, how can you know for sure?
      8 years ago
    • rockshard PhD
      Saved!
      rockshard PhD
      Editing … That wasn't to say that having deadlines is an excuse. As for being a hypocrite have you ever heard the expression "actions speak louder than words" ?? Why would you give a positive review to a game and not finish it. Obviously not that good of a game if you didn't bother to finish it. At this point you could give one of a multitude of excuses as to why you haven't finished it, but they typically amount to either narcissism or fraud. You wouldn't praise a movie or a book that you hadn't finished, unless there was a conflict of interest clouding your judgment.
      8 years ago
    • Dr Eggnog
      Saved!
      Dr Eggnog
      Editing … There are games in my top fifty I haven't finished. That doesn't mean I don't really like them.
      8 years ago
    • rockshard PhD
      Saved!
      rockshard PhD
      Editing … It's irresponsible to own a YouTube channel with the intent of broadcasting praise to a game to as many viewers as possible, when you haven't finished the game. You can lie to yourself about liking the games but it's a different matter to lie to others. Furthermore if you get money from your reviews/channel then it constitutes fraud. (not to mention it creates incentive to rush videos out the door without finishing the games first, thereby tempting you to commit fraud.)
      8 years ago
    • Dr Eggnog
      Saved!
      Dr Eggnog
      Editing … "You can lie to yourself" Not finishing that comment. I'm very good at knowing what I like and don't like and why. Maybe you find it impossible to like a game that you don't want to finish, but that's not how I work. I don't like how many assumptions you make.
      8 years ago Heart 2
    • rockshard PhD
      Saved!
      rockshard PhD
      Editing … "Maybe you find it impossible to like a game that you don't want to finish" 1) I'm saying it's morally inconsistent. 2) just because something is possible doesn't mean it's not idiotic. Far from it. People act irrationally all the time. Including myself. For example I used to judge games I haven't played, until deductive reasoning has taught me not to do this. I hardly find it impossible, but I realized that to do so is idiotic, so instead of doing it, I don't. Pretty simple. 3) you still don't seem to get the actions speak louder principle at work here. It's like appearing in a commercial for a product you don't actually use. It's a display of narcissism, a sense of "I, expert youtube star, used this for five minutes, and I got a sense that it's good enough for you idiots" If you think people should buy a game you must put yourself in their shoes. If you can't be arsed to to do something THAT simple then you have no right recommending the game to others.
      8 years ago
    • Dr Eggnog
      Saved!
      Dr Eggnog
      Editing … I'm too much of a weirdo for putting myself in someone else's shoes to be simple. And it's not like I have to buy every game that someone recommends to me.
      8 years ago
    • rockshard PhD
      Saved!
      rockshard PhD
      Editing … you realize this discussion wasn't originally about you right? It's difficult for me to reach you at this point because you're acting like you're on trial and being overly defensive. "I'm too much of a weirdo" so being weird is an excuse for being a hypocrite? Care to explain why you think this? "And it's not like I have to buy every game that someone recommends to me." CGR is able to affect people even if they don't buy the game. But for the record, how viewers are affected or whether they buy the game is not exactly the point. The point is the reviewer's intent. For comparison, let's say RichardPale tries to break into my house but can't get past the lock. Even though I was unaffected, his intent was nonetheless to break into my house. Does the fact he had failed in his goal put him on equal moral standing as someone who had not tried to break in my house in the first place? (since neither he or the other person actually broke into my house) I say this: If you didn't finish a game but could have, and release a positive review of it, then this is presumably indicative of having some reason to want to release a positive review of the game regardless. Because if you didn't have to finish the game before releasing a positive review of it, then who says you have to like the game before releasing a positive review of it, or to even have played the game before releasing a positive review of it.
      8 years ago
    • Dr Eggnog
      Saved!
      Dr Eggnog
      Editing … When a conversation about game reviewing turns into a home breaking metaphor, something is wrong. Anyway, releasing a positive review of a game you don't like is lying unless you try to explain you're being objective or playing devil's advocate or something. But I don't see how a person has to finish a game to be allowed to release a positive review, or why ethics have anything to do with this. It's just a dude who likes talking about games on Youtube. It's just not that serious. If I took it that seriously I would ruin the fun of watching reviews.
      8 years ago
    • rockshard PhD
      Saved!
      rockshard PhD
      Editing … Deleted by himself
      7 years ago
    • rockshard PhD
      Saved!
      rockshard PhD
      Editing … "When a conversation about game reviewing turns into a home breaking metaphor, something is wrong." I was trying to help you see what I mean, so I had to pick an extreme example. Your entire argument seems to be this: "I, eggnog, think the act of hypocrisy is so insignificant that it doesn't matter that the person is doing it." Which is fine. I was merely pointing the hypocrisy out, and whether you mind doesn't actually change the fact. " It's just a dude who likes talking about games on Youtube." I guess I can sort of see where you're coming from with this, but in that case I fail to see why you'd bother watching his channel in the first place. Also some people might actually be looking on YouTube to help themselves figure out what to play. Crazy I know. And by some people I mean lots of people. It's generally why people look at reviews. And why reviews exist.
      7 years ago
    • Dr Eggnog
      Saved!
      Dr Eggnog
      Editing … B
      7 years ago
Edit Report Delete Restore
Deleted!
  • Saved!
    (≡ˆ⊝ω⊝ˆ≡　)
    • Saved!
      Editing … (≡ˆ⊝ω⊝ˆ≡　)
      Heart 1
  • Saved!
    Editing … (≡ˆ⊝ω⊝ˆ≡　)
    Heart 1

Favslist Merch