- Joined
- Jun 24, 2024
Normally my process on deciding if I would enjoy a game is just by watching some gameplay on youtube or whatever, if it looks like the type of game I would enjoy then I'll watch a bit more to see if it's a game I would enjoy watching or actually playing. If it's the latter then I'll look at steam and if it's positively reviewed I'll buy it myself. If it's neutral or negative I might watch someone talking about the game or just read the steam reviews. Even then, it's not perfect. Borderlands 2 and tps are both 'very positive', they are shit, both games are shit. bl3 is also 'very positive', despite being objectively a better game than 2/tps, the dialogue and story in all three are dog shit the only difference is the gameplay which is much better in 3. Civ 5 and 6 are both very positive yet boring as shit without mods, yet humankind, a game that at a base level is more enjoyable, is mixed. I wrote a very long review for a very niche game that I will not name because it's niche enough to be identifiable. In the community the game is regarded as the worst of the series, everyone hates it, it's the worst thing ever and I can't enjoy the rest of the series because of it tier bullshit. Or people regard it as this amazing game that's one of the best in it's genre. It's completely bipartizanal. Then when I played it I just got a solid 4/10 vibe from it. It was neither the 1-2/10 that half of the community say, neither was it the 9-10/10 that the other half said. It was just aggressively middling. But even then, I don't think that writing that review has a reason to exist, even if I had posted it when the game first came out, no one would want to read an essay length review. I mostly wrote it as a way to talk about the game honestly. There's one mechanic in the game that everyone points to and says it's dumb and grindy and I don't understand it. I had no issues understanding it and it wasn't that grindy. What I'm saying is that community consensus is a dumb way to judge games. The 99% of people who would positively rate factorio is not going to be the same demographic that is giving the witcher 3 99% positive reviews. Proper paid reviews are also pretty retarded and often inflate the scores to make sure they don't lose early access to games and shit like that.
The things that I like will not be the same as other people, the things that I don't like will not be the same as other people; so why should I listen to other people's reviews or thoughts? There are certain things that are pretty unanimous, everyone will agree that bl3 has shit writing, everyone will agree that humankind was left to rot and is insanely untapped in potential that the devs have fucked up, the 4/10 game everyone will agree that one boss is so fucking boring and unfun that you should turn the difficulty down to the lowest level. But most things are subjective and I just don't find other people's subjective opinions helpful. If a game seems decent and like something I would enjoy then I'll play it, even if it ends up being another 5/10. I'll still enjoy a 5/10, there's only ever been two games I didn't finish, battleborn (obvious reasons) and thief 2014, a game that seemed cool when I was younger yet was incredibly dull and felt like a walking simulator, it is rated mostly positive currently.
I lost faith in reviews ages ago. People said dark souls 2 is bad and that scholar is better (both wrong). People said that pokemon hgss is the best and that sm was the worst (also both wrong, there is no good main series game, they are all a 3-5/10, ranger and md are the only good games). People still continue to give ubislop games positive reviews. I don't trust people's subjective opinions. I'd rather look at a playthrough for a while and then play the game myself. I'd rather go into a game expecting a 7/10 and get a 5/10 rather than go in expecting a 9/10 and get a 2/10. I have never watched or read a review that was the sole reason for me buying or not buying a game since becoming an adult, even as a child most of what I would play would be influenced by the people in my school not a reviewer.
The things that I like will not be the same as other people, the things that I don't like will not be the same as other people; so why should I listen to other people's reviews or thoughts? There are certain things that are pretty unanimous, everyone will agree that bl3 has shit writing, everyone will agree that humankind was left to rot and is insanely untapped in potential that the devs have fucked up, the 4/10 game everyone will agree that one boss is so fucking boring and unfun that you should turn the difficulty down to the lowest level. But most things are subjective and I just don't find other people's subjective opinions helpful. If a game seems decent and like something I would enjoy then I'll play it, even if it ends up being another 5/10. I'll still enjoy a 5/10, there's only ever been two games I didn't finish, battleborn (obvious reasons) and thief 2014, a game that seemed cool when I was younger yet was incredibly dull and felt like a walking simulator, it is rated mostly positive currently.
I lost faith in reviews ages ago. People said dark souls 2 is bad and that scholar is better (both wrong). People said that pokemon hgss is the best and that sm was the worst (also both wrong, there is no good main series game, they are all a 3-5/10, ranger and md are the only good games). People still continue to give ubislop games positive reviews. I don't trust people's subjective opinions. I'd rather look at a playthrough for a while and then play the game myself. I'd rather go into a game expecting a 7/10 and get a 5/10 rather than go in expecting a 9/10 and get a 2/10. I have never watched or read a review that was the sole reason for me buying or not buying a game since becoming an adult, even as a child most of what I would play would be influenced by the people in my school not a reviewer.
