Is a game really good if no one talks about it years later despite getting stellar reviews?
everyone is gatekeeping it because its just that good
>>750578896Well reviews are already dubious way to measure quality. But yes, I think this view has merit. Good might not be the right word, but if a game is supposedly "great" then I would would expect it to survive the greatest filter and still be discussed: Time.
Objectivity is far more important than subjectivity. That's why player count / time since release is one of the only real ways to understand how good a game is.
>>750579872
>>750578896>Is a game really good if no one talks about ityesactually I would apply that to all media, the more talked about something is the higher the odds it's shit
>>750579872thisFortnite and League of Legends? peak vidyaFifty Shades of Grey? peak literatureBad Bunny? peak musicMCU? peak cinema
>>750578896What the fuck was his problem?
>>750578896NO
>>750578896the majority of the population has an average IQ (in the middle)the more people like something, the higher the odds it's liked by the people in the middlemore popularity = more middlepopular = mid
>>750583205>>750582409>>750582276The question is if NO ONE talks about it. Not how many people are talking about it. If a game comes out 5 years ago and no one even remembers it.
>>750578896The only good AAA games released in the last decade were:>Elden Ring>Stellar Blade>E33>Bald Gay 3 even if i personally don't like itAnd we still get almost daily threads for all of theseSo no.
>>750583909Because no one talks about video games on /v/ stupid.
>>750578896>years laterHow many? What qualifies as 'no one'?Regardless, most of that comes down to good marketing, not a good game.
Superman 64 and Action 52 are still talked about occasionally, does that make them good games?
