Current Events > Donkey's Game Critics put 2

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBqk7I5-0I0" data-time="
---

Eh lol I think he's still a pretty bad reviewer. The point wasn't whether or not he reviews games he doesn't like more than about him unable to distance himself from his obvious heavily specific tastes

---

Dunkey is unoriginal, repeats his jokes way too much, and has a bad attitude.

9.4 would watch again, favorite black youtuber.
---

One of the dumbest critiques about game reviewers I see constantly online, and he touched on it in his first game reviewer video too, is that for whatever reason people are so averse to people having track records in terms of disliking or liking series or genres. It's taken as some kind of dirty trick, or something that invalidates their opinion, but a person who doesn't like JRPGs giving a negative review to Octopath Traveller doesn't automatically somehow make it unhelpful. A person who gave something they normally don't like a chance and was not impressed is a helpful point of data for people that are in the same boat, or tells people who -do- like that sort of game that if they're OK with the status quo, then they're going to be fine.

At the end of the day I think a lot of people just want to read reviews by people who agree with whatever their notions about the game are. If the end agreement is sound, they're willing to overlook endless amounts of shoddy writing, poorly pieced together notions and all sorts of other flaws written into things. But the second something is out of the norm, it turns into a nightmarish nickpick-fest where those same usually placid people will go searching for random sentences, misunderstandings, or as this video said things to accuse people of "nitpicking" about. And in the end, this is the least useful and efficient way of piecing together reviews of things.
---

legendarylemur posted...

Eh lol I think he's still a pretty bad reviewer. The point wasn't whether or not he reviews games he doesn't like more than about him unable to distance himself from his obvious heavily specific tastes

I don't think he has heavily specific tastes tbh, he tends to enjoy most popular games

---

MC_BatCommander posted...

I don't think he has heavily specific tastes tbh, he tends to enjoy most popular games

He likes online oriented games, and/or games with very little dialogue, and/or games with puzzle or sandbox game mechanics. Everything he spoke positively about almost always fits into this category lul and very rarely does he ever say anything good about a game that doesn't have any of these traits. To me, that kinda style of review is just not valuable because it's more a practice on oh, does it fit Dunkey's criteria or not? It's not a matter of whether or not I'll find out the game is any good or what does it do right

---

To be fair, every single person that plays video games have preferences and they will favor or disfavor certain genres. If it was a requirement that a "journalist" or "critic" had to be absolutely open minded about everything, nobody would be said journalists or critics because it's just not possible to not have any biases.
---

i never really liked the whole thrust of his first video on this. like it's so common for media outlets to appraise games from as neutral a viewpoint as possible or attribute it to the website as a whole rather than qualifying it by reference to x or y thing the reviewer likes. or something. i had a more complete view of this at the time.

like obviously everybody will have biases and he's not wrong broadly about video game reviewers and their consumers being p bad but i'm not sure having a zillion different reviews per site from different people where they tick a box about what they like or dislike is a better proposition.

also he got really pissy about people criticising that video lol
---

legendarylemur posted...

MC_BatCommander posted...

I don't think he has heavily specific tastes tbh, he tends to enjoy most popular games

He likes online oriented games, and/or games with very little dialogue, and/or games with puzzle or sandbox game mechanics. Everything he spoke positively about almost always fits into this category lul and very rarely does he ever say anything good about a game that doesn't have any of these traits. To me, that kinda style of review is just not valuable because it's more a practice on oh, does it fit Dunkey's criteria or not? It's not a matter of whether or not I'll find out the game is any good or what does it do right

Every review from any video game reviewer ever, unless they are outright lying and giving it points for things they don't like because they were paid to do so, is "does this game fit my criteria of the things i think are good?" Unless you start hiring machines to write them that's going to be the case.

The important thing is what you do with that information and how you use it. Even if you disagree with someone's conclusion about a game or movie or whatever else, the information can be valuable
---

As a reviewer, you can state your own opinions sure, but an opinion is already made of a large combination of facts and preference. A critique's purpose is to be able to discern the facts that make up that opinion rather than just stating an opinion as the focal point of the review and glossing over anything that could be a counterpoint or a positive given the circumstances.

You know, it's like this, if Dunkey played a game that's stuffy hot and full of mosquitos, you'd think he'd give it a bad review and rant about his room. A more credible reviewer would write a review that one would think was made in an air conditioned room without mosquitos

---

legendarylemur posted...

As a reviewer, you can state your own opinions sure, but an opinion is already made of a large combination of facts and preference. A critique's purpose is to be able to discern the facts that make up that opinion rather than just stating an opinion as the focal point of the review and glossing over anything that could be a counterpoint or a positive given the circumstances.

You know, it's like this, if Dunkey played a game that's stuffy hot and full of mosquitos, you'd think he'd give it a bad review and rant about his room. A more credible reviewer would write a review that one would think was made in an air conditioned room without mosquitos

Not all reviews are in depth analysis of alternative viewpoints. The vast majority of reviews about things in fact aren't, they're descriptions of what the game reviewer likes and dislikes. Some larger review groups admittedly feel the need to throw in lines like "only for fans of the series" or "If you like (x), then you'll like this. Otherwise stay away", yes, but I feel like these are a copout from whatever viewpoint you're presenting. I am interested in what the writer (or in this case video maker) thinks of what they partook in, not what they think other people might think and are throwing into their review to attempt to stop a bunch of nerds from shouting at them. Those are all things you can garner from reviews -without- them included nine times out of ten anyway

And in the end, even if I don't agree with the reviewer I understand more about whatever I watched because I know what I like even if they don't. Turn based JRPGs are my favorite genre and I still value Dunkey as a reviewer because I can still garner value from whatever criticism he's making about it by shrugging past the points that don't align with my own values. Dunkey bitches about turn based combat? I know that doesn't apply to me because I like that. Dunkey bitches about grinding? I nod and move on.

Having a range of different perspectives on something is just as helpful as listening to a superfan review something they love and move on. In fact I'd say it's vastly -more- important. I'm not going to listen to, I dunno, Caddicarus play a Resident Evil game and expect it to be the most amazing thing in the world just on his word because he adores the series and has a lot more leniance for mistakes, just like I'm not going to not buy a JRPG because Dunkey doesn't care for it. They're just one more point of data with all the nuances included.
---

legendarylemur posted...

As a reviewer, you can state your own opinions sure, but an opinion is already made of a large combination of facts and preference. A critique's purpose is to be able to discern the facts that make up that opinion rather than just stating an opinion as the focal point of the review and glossing over anything that could be a counterpoint or a positive given the circumstances.

You know, it's like this, if Dunkey played a game that's stuffy hot and full of mosquitos, you'd think he'd give it a bad review and rant about his room. A more credible reviewer would write a review that one would think was made in an air conditioned room without mosquitos

I feel like you're just making up rules about how "good" reviews are done.

---

this feels kind of petty tbh

i don't really know why anyone cares about major publisher reviews tho
---

For someone that hates anime, Dunkey is okay.