Member
AliceAbigail
Scrawl Banditta
Wilted Rose
mickilennial
Ekreture
Supermaxx
erikh@Dynamo Frokane
The best sort of thing I can say about him without having done much looking into him is that having some sort of cynicism is seen as being the cool thing. Anything or anyone seen as angry over it might be looked up to by some as not a sell-out to the thing they're reviewing because it implies - per their brand - they're angry at it or something in it somewhere and a review that focuses itself first on the negatives balances out whatever bias might arise from it being perceived as 'mainstream' or good because it's 'popular'.
But again: I don't know much about him and this is all guesswork on my part having before watched some videos from the 'angry' sort of channel. In general I tend to avoid any individual or group that considers themselves a "reviewer" since more often than not they don't actually delve into any topics academically and exist to uphold some crowd self-image (IE: PC Master Race). They'll say something is bad and then either get lost arguing why it is or won't go anywhere into it. They exist for the validation of people like themselves by appearing - if indirectly - as a non-biased expert in the field because they're not "the other guys"; the Brietbart of video gaming journalism I suppose.
The best sort of thing I can say about him without having done much looking into him is that having some sort of cynicism is seen as being the cool thing. Anything or anyone seen as angry over it might be looked up to by some as not a sell-out to the thing they're reviewing because it implies - per their brand - they're angry at it or something in it somewhere and a review that focuses itself first on the negatives balances out whatever bias might arise from it being perceived as 'mainstream' or good because it's 'popular'.
But again: I don't know much about him and this is all guesswork on my part having before watched some videos from the 'angry' sort of channel. In general I tend to avoid any individual or group that considers themselves a "reviewer" since more often than not they don't actually delve into any topics academically and exist to uphold some crowd self-image (IE: PC Master Race). They'll say something is bad and then either get lost arguing why it is or won't go anywhere into it. They exist for the validation of people like themselves by appearing - if indirectly - as a non-biased expert in the field because they're not "the other guys"; the Brietbart of video gaming journalism I suppose.
