Will post in this thread as it's a good one. Fuck off I do what I want, the rest of the gaming internet is just not exactly an improvement over you miscreants. I will be gone again you can count on it.
None. I know exactly what I like, and that is good, engaging gameplay before anything, simple or complex (but not too simple e.g Tic Tac Toe as an extreme, and preferably complex for what should be obvious reasons). Anything else that is low effort dumb gameplay, but still offers hours of it, can eat shit and is for retards. What are you doing playing what is essentially animated Simon Says and Eye Spy with set dressing? Are you mentally twelve?
But there is a rare exception or two, some games I distinctly remember having idiotic knee-jerk reactions to as a dumb teenager, a long time ago based on pre-conceived biases or jumping to conclusions in five minutes, and since then tried to learn to give games more of a chance before I judged them. To judge properly you need adequate data set to work with in the first place.
Deus Ex - heavily judged it based on the first mission based on standards of FPS games. Janky, buggy, clunky, weird. Got bored in the coming days, gave it another try. An absolute GOAT as is commonly known. Should have been judging it based on standards of RPGs. Doesn't help the first mission while open and allowing a lot of freedom is clearly a bit underdeveloped, just tons of dead space when it didn't STRICTLY have to be, even with engine & a degree of realism restrictions in mind.
Resident Evil 4 - My first encounter with this infuriated young me, why the fuck is it a fantasy game with a dude mole-popping a giant troll? Resident Evil is supposed to be slow-paced, strategic, with a degree of nuance and realism, classic survival horror. Turns out yeah, it wasn't that, but that doesn't mean it wasn't some solid as fuck action gaming and should be judged based on that merit, as an action game, not a survival horror. Try to not tie expectations to title/series cotinuation so much - if a game is good, it's good. All that matters.
That's it of note. Otherwise my judgement (with adequate time played of course) has always been consistent, authoritative and absolute - if intelligent gameplay good. If filled with low effort gameplay, bad game, as that shit is an insult to your intelligence (if you have any), undermines even non-gameplay aspects from story to atmosphere, and is a waste of time. End of story...unless I haven't had hands-on time with the game, then my perspective means very little.
How to determine good and bad, isn't that subjective? Actually, it is a degree of both, more objective than subjective if you are able to think logically, just depends if you have the capacity to perceive it or not. There are many ways to quantify and measure. Is it super buggy? You can't tell me tons of bugs to the point the game barely runs is a subjective matter of quality. Does x mechanic have adequate application in the combat or level design to even justify its existence? Are the amount of resources lent to the player sensible and synergistic with the overarching game design...one thousand medkits in a level but it only has ten weak-hitting piss easy enemies that die if you simply rub shoulders with them? Objective bad game design unless you're literally handicapped both physically and mentally for good measure. And if the intent is to be easy as hell in the first place, well you should be insulted. Gameplay is about fun, challenge, engagement, strategy, THINKING. Without design cohesion, it is none of this, just illusion that so many mediocre as all hell gamers fall for.
At their very core, games are math and logic, which can even be weighed sometimes. Damage potentially recieved vs damage potentially healed. There is a way to measure many aspects objectively with at least a reasonable degree of accuracy. Some people will prefer it a little easier, some a little harder, but nobody will enjoy literally impossible in the first minute of the game, and nobody will enjoy a straight line with no obstacle or events of any kind that calls itself a game. Literally just a straight corridoor and that is the end of the "game". Two seconds. I am arguing in extremes, but for good reason here. This shows that it is most definitely not all subjective. If that shit dumb soulless empty game that plays itself you like and find "fun" is what you are willing to defend, that just means your standards and mental capacity are abysmally low.
Nothing has really changed, the games I loved back then, I love just as much now. The games I hated then, still suck. And for plenty good, measurable reasons that can be explained with cold hard logic. Don't try me because you are pathetic and can't handle the truth. I rarely miss.
