vivster said:
As someone who truly believes that RT is the future of gaming and not just the next 10 years but the next 50 years, I cannot fault a reviewer for going a different angle. Reviews are opinion pieces and it is vital for a wide array of different angles to be represented. Reviews from Nvidia fanboys are just as important as reviews from AMD fanboys. Might as well have a review from a person who doesn't game or thinks gaming is a lame waste of time. Those are all important angles because there are different kinds of people out there and they rely on reviews that are tailored to their position. Only then will it be possible for someone to make an educated decision of how much a product is worth to them. That's an issue I have with game reviews for example. My taste isn't necessarily mainstream so I'd love to have reviews of people who don't gush about that lame mainstream gritty realism. As is I probably can't take any Cyberpunk review seriously or as a recommendation. I would need to read a review of a person who absolutely hates the game and glosses over all of the things other reviewers love and instead names all the bullshit I might encounter. That is much more helpful to me than a glowing review from someone who tries to be objective about it and only goes at it from a neutral or mainstream position. |
Yea that's a good point. But I do think that a reviewer having that sorta bias should come with a consequence such as this. When there is such a limited supply of cards for both reviewers and consumers, a reviewer that has a strong bias such as this should be given a lower priority than a reviewer who takes a more neutral stance in terms of allocation. Especially as there are tons of new reviewers growing in popularity every day who would rather give a fair review than have a strong bias and run with it.
PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850