MudMan

Man, this is true now, but this conversation makes me very nostalgic for the good old days of the 1080Ti, where PC games were absolutely a “max out and forget” affair.

Sure, that was because monitors were capped out at 1080p60, by and large. These days people are trying to run 20 year old games at 500fps or whatever. But man, the lack of having to think about it was bliss.

Well, sure, but that’s also because on PC I can choose to buy DRM-free games and have guaranteed backwards compatibility for the foreseeable future. Plus it’s not a closed system based on a console that launched with a drive. People (me included) already own PS5 discs, not from a previous generation, but from this one. It’s bad enough that I need to keep my PS3 around to play PS3 games, it’d be absurd to not be able to play PS5 games I already own because the thing is physically unable to ingest them out of the box.

So yeah, for people in that position the Pro is a hundred bucks more expensive than it says on the sticker, which is already a ridiculously high number.

I do feel for Sony’s PR teams. Trying to explain the concept of visual improvements in 4K over Youtube’s increasingly vaseline-smeared compression is an impossible task.

I don’t know that I have used the SL/SR buttons on my Joycons once in years, so I don’t know that is a priority for me.

Drift is a problem, but I’ve had it more on PS5 controllers, frankly. I do think that at least some portion of drift issues are actually connectivity. The Switch fills in connectivity gaps with the last remembered input and if you have a weak signal that sometimes manifests as the stick being “stuck” off center.

I do think Nintendo should have gone for a slightly bigger battery and a more powerful antenna, although I see why they didn’t want to. Still, as far as form factor and usability goes, those things are the best controller this generation, if not ever.

Oh, how long do you have.

First of all, favorite for what? For accesibility reasons if it’s not a dual stick game I am defaulting to a fightbox-type device these days. I favor a WASD configuration, rather than a thumb-for-up configuration and I currently favor a tiny, minimalist haute board box with cherry switches (blue for buttons, greys for WASD). It’s great, it lies on my desktop and it causes minimal strain even in high APM games.

For dual stick stuff, it again depends. Is this a shooter where aiming is a factor? Because then I’m gonna want some gyro. The DualSense is amazing to hold, just bonkers build quality. It is heavy and ugly as sin, though. It also doesn’t work perfectly with every PC game, so it feels like a hassle to use it as my default. There’s the KK3, which has gyro in Switch mode and seems to be less fussy than the DualSense. Plus they are trying to sell their hall effect sticks to third parties, so those are very smooth. It is a jack of all trades, though, and I actively hate KK’s dumb extra button configuration, with start and select all the way at the top, I keep pressing the screenshot buttons by accident.

If there’s no twitch aiming, and thus no major need for gyro, Victrix’s Pro BFG is fun. It has modular design where you can put the dpad on either location. The dpad isn’t great, but hey, the fightbox’s there for that. It does have a six button configuration, too, if you’re a controller fighting game guy. The best feature, though? Replaceable eight-way gates for the sticks, Gamecube-style. If you’re a Smash guy or emulating Gamecube it’s such a no-brainer high end replacement.

But honestly? Honestly?

The JoyCon.

I know people hate the JoyCon, but the idea of a split controller is amazing to me, and everybody else who has tried to do it, Lenovo Legion Go included, gets it wrong. The big handles aren’t the answer without a middle segment to hold the controllers. The two little boards are fantastic for 3D action games, the amount of tech in such a small frame is astounding and the button-based dpad is so good I’m using fightboxes on the regular now. It’s a shame there are some reliability issues, but I would buy a device just like it for PC tomorrow if they could sort out connectivity reliably.

My series 1 ended up developing a pretty bad flaw with the input chip and is dead-dead. It also developed a sticky X button right away, which I could repair but went back to not being perfect. The Series 2 has been more reliable, but I also use it less.

I don’t know that it’s an eyesight issue. I mean, if you have good enough eyesight to read stuff on your phone screen you have good enough eyesight to see the difference.

It may be an awareness thing, where the more you care about photography the more the limitations of the bad cameras stand out. And hey, that’s fine, if the phone makes good enough pictures for you that’s great. Plus, yeah, you can get phones with the exact same lens and sensor where one of them has a big fat bump that is deliberately blown up to make the cameras “feel” premium. There’s been a fair amount of marketing around this.

But if you compare A to B it’s very obvious. Camera bumps became a marker of premium phones for a reason.

Yep. That sample above is from a review, but digging into my own archived photos at the time it’s crazy to see how much blur picutres taken from moving vehicles have, even in direct daylyght, and how grainy indoors images are, even when well lit. That thing was genuinely just opening itself up for a while and hoping for the best.

I am annoyed by most phone trends of the past decade, but… yeah, if you go back to a 2014 phone today there is some readjustment between what you remember phone photo and video looking like versus what they actually look like. That was the Galaxy S5 year. That thing had a single camera you would consider unacceptable as your selfie shooter today.

EDIT: This thread made me go look up reviews, and man, yeah, I remember every single indoors photo on my own S5 looking just like this. What a blast of nostalgia. I didn’t realize there is a digital equivalent to 80s pictures having gone all sepia and magenta-y, but here it is.

Well, then you don’t need a phone review, do you?

Which is fine. Most people don’t need a phone at any given time. You go check reviews for phones when you need one and when you care about the differences between them. If you just need a phone-ass phone you can just go to your carrier and grab whatever is packed-in, no need to check reviews for that, most phones just fine work out of the box these days.

See, this is the exact process I am trying to describe. I’m sure that made sense in your head, and I’m sure if you think about it for a second you’ll realize that Target will very happily set up an affiliate link, just as Amazon does. And, of course, a whole bunch of the SEO listicles are the SEO hooks of bigger traditional review sites, including RTINGS, IGN or whatever. For the sake of argument, punching in “best bluetooth speaker” on DDG returns SEO listicles from Tom’s Guide, Wired, RTINGS, the New York Times, CNET and The Verge, in that order.

Which is not to say it’s not annoying, affiliate links and SEO have done terrible things to how practical reviews on websites are presented and parceled out. But that’s not to say they aren’t done honestly or lack validity on the sites that do it right, which are also the more successful ones.

I am… unfamiliar with the ecosystem of print newspaper appliance reviews, but I can tell you that having sloppy or obsequious reviews isn’t generally a sign of having taken a bribe or even having any direct influence from the manufacturer. Reviewing things is hard, by definition you are not in the same position as the people who will buy the thing later. It can be difficult to make that shift and appreciate value, particularly when it comes to tech where reviewers are often assessing the cool factor of whatever is new on the market while users just need a tool for everyday life.

Also, good reviews and hostile reviews aren’t the same thing. This depends a lot on what is being reviewed, and it’s not to say extremely protective reviews are bad themselves. This is more true in media reviews than on tech reviews, but even on tech reviews, some of my favorite people working generally provide fairly positive reviews, or very neutral spec reviews with relatively little judgement. Very often I don’t need to be protected from harm, I just need a savvy overview of a thing before I pull the trigger.

But also, let’s be clear, don’t book product placement that looks like a review. And if you do, make it a full on ad and make sure it’s presented as a sponsorship, although even when big names do that while trying to stay honest, or because they genuinely like the thing I don’t particularly like it.

It really isn’t, which is why it’s news when something like that comes out. People sometimes confuse being cynical with knowing how things work.

That said, this one is confusing, because it really does seem like Google is blurring the lines here between an ad spot or a product placement spot and pre-release samples for tech influencers intending to review them.

Honestly, cynicism aside, The Verge does a good job of breaking it down, including clarifying that they are under no such stipulations for their own review, so I’d recommend just reading the article in full.

I once had a guy walk into the subway, sit down, loudly declare he’d sneak into a military base, steal a tank and kill us all, then rant for a while about specific ways to kill his fellow passengers, including some very specific grenade action.

Then he sat there in silence for a couple of minutes, quietly turned towards the too-horrified-to-change-seats nerdy guy to his left and politely ask him if he had a lighter for his cigarrette.

It was a morning train, most people just kept trying to nap.

You mean visually? Because both the 9/11 stuff at the start and the religious stuff at the end have aged pretty horribly, honestly.

See, the weird religious pivot entirely ruined it for me, to the point where I can’t tolerate even the good bits. But also, that is the case so much that I don’t want to engage with a re-reboot anyway, so I’m weirdly in the same place.

This article (haven’t watched the video yet) makes me feel ancient.

Like, it’s clearly written by someone who didn’t live through the CRT era. It seems to be repeating things they heard but didn’t understand and, frustratingly, that includes not mentioning what the actual rating of the monitor is in KHz, which is really the only thing that matters.

I’m old and my knees hurt. That’s the only point I’m making here.