[ SECRET POST #5060 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5060 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 08 secrets from Secret Submission Post #724.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

01. https://i.imgur.com/vnEgI3a.png

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with you but like, this really shouldn't be a revelation. Gamers are ridiculous.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree - there are games I had a terrible time with, because I was just not good at the core mechanic or it didn't hit the right note for me, that other people absolutely loved. I had to cheat to get through Undertale, because my reflexes are garbage, just for example. I found Arc: Survival Evolved boring because I got killed by dinosaurs every ten minutes and had to start over.
Me saying that a game didn't suit me doesn't mean I think it's objectively terrible or anything. It just... wasn't for me.

[greghousesgf]

everybody has totally different opinions on books, movies, TV shows, cartoons, comic books, music and everything else, so why not games?

[arashinoookami]

^ This.

[comet_scout]

+1, That's why I don't fully trust steam "Mostly positive/negative" reviews. And not only games tbh, I think it can ring true to other media too.

[(Anonymous)]

(Cozy werewolf anon)

rating systems are crazy anymore. No one can even agree what they mean. And too many think 3/5 stars is a bad score.

This doesn't just apply to games. It applies majorly to books. goodreads is a cesspit, imo. Ugh.

[(Anonymous)]

I feel like it all depends on what you're scoring the game on. Something being objectively good doesn't mean you'll enjoy it, and something being objectively bad doesn't mean you won't enjoy it.

There are plenty of games that I feel deserve a five-star rating even though they weren't personally for me. They had a good story, good gameplay, etc. but just didn't quite hit the right notes to make me enjoy them.

OP

[(Anonymous)]

As an example, I once gave a popular game a one-star review because trying to play it literally gave me headaches.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

I think that's fair enough. There are some games I can't even watch other people play because they trigger my motion sickness/vertigo. I mostly just avoid those types of games now but if I bought a game that unexpectedly became unplayable for me I'd be pretty disappointed too.

[(Anonymous)]

There's no such thing as a video game being objectively good

[(Anonymous)]

Gamers: Game reviews need to be objective and transparent!
Also Gamers: I'm going to reviewbomb this game an hour after release because it has LGBTQ people in it!

[(Anonymous)]

In before "not all gamers."

[(Anonymous)]

I only get irritated when people show up and are like, "this game is objectively terrible because [reason]" and often the reason either blatantly makes it obvious they didn't actually play the game or they only think it's bad because it's not the style of game they like. Like if they're talking about an open world RPG and talking about how terrible it was because the world was so empty and they wandered without any idea of what they should do...and then they say they normally play first person shooters or really linear games or whatever. It's like...yeah...if you expect a game that is billed as something completely different from what you normally enjoy to be like what you normally enjoy you're probably going to be disappointed. But that doesn't make it a bad game.

It'd be like me, a player who really only enjoys single-player games, going in and playing League of Legends and then saying it's the Worst Game Ever because you have to play on a team.

(general you is being used in this comment, not you in specific, OP)

[(Anonymous)]

I feel like game reviews are different than any other kind of reviews because games can ship in unfinished and unplayable states. It seems like Fallout '76 (to reach for the low hanging fruit) was the equivalent of a book written on wet, unbound paper and shipped in three unrelated boxes that each arrived at a different address.

That said, I think there needs to be a way to communicate that a game is good as a finished product vs. as an idea vs. as a way to spend time vs. as a thing to talk about vs. as a story vs. as a physical thing to do. I think reviewers need to keep in mind what people might want from a game and how to let people know kind of game they might enjoy. Because, like, if a game has an character model that reminds me of my dad I'm not going to have a good time but that doesn't mean that it'll impact anyone else's enjoyment.

I think the review you mention above, OP, is a great example. If a thing gives you headaches that's something people should know and the developers should work on, but if it doesn't give me headaches I might think it's great.

All this to say reviewing things well is HARD and a score out of 5 isn't usually that helpful. Oddly enough my favorite rating system is from Jeremy Jahns. I've had more fun with material he rated "It's a good time if you're drunk" than half the stuff he rates as "I'd buy it on blueray" because I'm usually looking for dumb fun.

[(Anonymous)]

But the problem is that all of the points you make here are quite obvious, and yet the gamer community as a whole seems to completely ignore all of them and expect reviews to be objective universal truth

[(Anonymous)]

Yup.

I guess I disagree that a # rating, even accepting that it is like a probability chart, is useful to me and I would rather get a one sentence review without a "score".