It's impossible to tell if a game is good now a days because of how shit the market and community is. Everything is so polarized. Everything is controversial. Everything is either the BEST GAME EVER MADE or garbage slop. Where's the nuance?

It's actually incredibly easy to tell if a game is good if you just look at some direct footage and you're not retarded and you understand the limitations of video games. The real problem is that there's way too many games that all get lost in a sea of shovelware

>>712830205
fuck if i know something may look good but controls feel ass

>>712830034 (OP)
yeah the more i sit here the more i realize i shouldn't be on the internet at all. people are so fucking bitter about everything.

>>712830034 (OP)
LET THE DOGS RUN FREE

LET THE DOGS RUN FREE

>>712830034 (OP)
I dislike the way that people will rate the worst game they've ever played in their life, say that it's the worst game they've ever played in their review and then give it a 7/10. The x/10 system is worthless. A better system would be a ratio of how many people played the demo versus how many paid for the game.

>>712833503
tbf there's some games that I think are kinda ass but it's more of the it insists on itself type games. Things I'd give a solid 8-9/10 on but I personally wouldn't play it again or remember it much in t minus one day

>>712832604
i mean thats a you problem, you should see how responsive a player character is to his environment at base level gameplay and if youre lucky you can see someone good play. If all the sudden you cant recreate that because "oh the controls are too clunky" then sucks man shoulda bought hello kitty island adventure

>>712833575
>there's some games that I think are kinda ass
>I'd give a solid 8-9/10
Exactly what I'm talking about. 9/10 is close to perfect and you're giving that to games that are "kinda ass."

>>712833937
I think the best review is a X/Y grid. X is "how objective quality is the game", Y is "how I personally like the game"

>>712834025
X would turn into "How good I think other people think the game is" because objective quality is a retarded metric for art

>>712834025
A single user can hardly give an objective take on a subjective experience unless it looks like a maintenance checklist.
>received game
>game compatible with user's system (system specs)
>game started upon launching
>inputs recognized
>framerate stable at x fps
Just compare who tried it against who paid for it. There's your objectivity.

>>712830034 (OP)
Dude, the whole internet is like that now. Its just shills, bots & AI trying to get eyeballs & mold minds. Zoomers played the most dangerous game (and lost) by being addicted to this slop 24/7.

Far as the games, just watch no commentary plays & have some independent thought. Back in the 80s/90s we didn't have any of this shit & had to rely on word of mouth, or renting the game to see if its worth a buy. I did this countless times. I'd either beat the game, or decide it was good enough to buy.