What? You don’t have to play yourself, just lisen only to those who played and not everyone, and don’t share opinion without playing.
Plain and simple, the difference is you can’t trust people not to talk out of their ass or not to distort informations without biases.
I don’t trust myself to have a good opinion if i didn’t play, and even if i did i’m still biased. No one should lisen to one individual.
Best way to know if a game is good is to look at the overall reception. Because if everyone is pointing out a qualitiy or flaw, it must hold some truth.
Although the best way to see if you will like it is to look at gameplay. (That or you know exactly what you’re looking for…)
True, but it’s not that cut and dry. If someone who’s played Overwatch “2” tells me it’s Overwatch 1 with monetized competitive gameplay elements and no earnable cosmetics or any of the progression systems, that’s not a statement of opinion. It’s a fact, and it’s easily verifiable. (also, this is me, someone who has played Overwatch since release, telling you that it’s true)
Judging a game for something like that without having played it is valid. So I think, especially if you’re objecting to engaging with a game on ethical grounds, there’s a lot more room for judging a game without playing it than you’d think.
I don’t know why you would not lisen to a source that checked it directly rather than a third party.
But sure, it will be very easier to speak objectively on some facts like the one you quoted, bypassing the need for the actual source of information.
So for speaking ethics for exemple i completely agree.
For buying the game though (that was my premise), i think it has it’s limits. There is some informations that can be more subject to interpretation. Personally, those informations are often very relevant too.
So the solution to consumers making informed choices is to have the consumer buy everything and test everything personally?
No.
What? You don’t have to play yourself, just lisen only to those who played and not everyone, and don’t share opinion without playing.
Plain and simple, the difference is you can’t trust people not to talk out of their ass or not to distort informations without biases.
I don’t trust myself to have a good opinion if i didn’t play, and even if i did i’m still biased. No one should lisen to one individual.
Best way to know if a game is good is to look at the overall reception. Because if everyone is pointing out a qualitiy or flaw, it must hold some truth.
Although the best way to see if you will like it is to look at gameplay. (That or you know exactly what you’re looking for…)
True, but it’s not that cut and dry. If someone who’s played Overwatch “2” tells me it’s Overwatch 1 with monetized competitive gameplay elements and no earnable cosmetics or any of the progression systems, that’s not a statement of opinion. It’s a fact, and it’s easily verifiable. (also, this is me, someone who has played Overwatch since release, telling you that it’s true)
Judging a game for something like that without having played it is valid. So I think, especially if you’re objecting to engaging with a game on ethical grounds, there’s a lot more room for judging a game without playing it than you’d think.
I don’t know why you would not lisen to a source that checked it directly rather than a third party.
But sure, it will be very easier to speak objectively on some facts like the one you quoted, bypassing the need for the actual source of information.
So for speaking ethics for exemple i completely agree.
For buying the game though (that was my premise), i think it has it’s limits. There is some informations that can be more subject to interpretation. Personally, those informations are often very relevant too.
Huh, I never knew there was no middle ground between hating on something and liking it. TIL