Sports games are some of the best games if you have some friends in your house but I find them super boring alone (except for Rocket League if that counts as sport game)

Racing sims are some of the best games if you are alone. They are awesome

I can guarantee you that 99,9% of my game time with sports games was with my friends. (They don't have any other kind of multiplayer game).

I forgot to clarify that I mentioned realistic sport games, so RL is out.

With racing sims: single or multiplayer... i just don't feel it...

Oh man...so...soooooo manyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

I think one of the pet peeves I had with gamer logic the earliest in my gaming life was with the Call of Duty hate. I dropped from the Call of Duty train after Black Ops 2, I haven't played a Call of Duty game since late 2012. But even then, it was pretty obvious to me that Battlefield was going to become the next Call of Duty. And i'm not just saying that because in hindsight criticizing Dice is easy, it just felt extremely obvious that Battlefield was going to become just as much a cash grab as Call of Duty. Even worse, the games aren't that far apart in their approach to gameplay. Battlefield gets the pass because it doesn't have killstreaks and it has nice graphics, but it rarely *EVER* has teamwork oriented gameplay and most professional Battlefield players play the game by running around like chickens with their heads cut off, stopping to randomly shoot some people and then standing on the objective at the very end. How... "team-oriented". It frustrates me that the logic between Battlefield and Call of Duty isn't consistent, because Battlefield was seen as the underdog during the pre-BF4 days and was applauded while COD got tons of hate. Even after the disaster of BF4 or the dumbed down BFH, people are still acting like there's a world of difference between the games. Honestly if I picked up a BF or COD game this year, I'd probably prefer COD because it recognizes what it is and allows the player to have good stupid fun. My opinion is outdated because my last BF was in 2015 and my last COD was in 2012, but I think COD WW2 looks way better than BF1 or Battlefront 2. The only Battlefield game that felt worth the hype were BF1943 and BFBC2, but I barely played those because they were dead by the time I got into the series.

I also don't really like the logic behind the hate for Overwatch. I think many of the arguments against it are stupid, it's the most polished game of it's type and getting hardcore into TF2 in 2017 is pretty hard, it's just so focused compared to it's counter-parts. Hating things for being online only is dumb. Online only games used to get hate when they needed a good singleplayer, or when they were locking offline content in an unnecessary online platform. Overwatch is only multiplayer focused, and should only be multiplayer focused, so who cares? The microtransactions are a legit complaint though.

I don't like the idea that cinematic-experiences usher in better stories for the gaming industry. I feel like a ton of developers have largely failed to create movie-like experiences in games, and I'd prefer the industry use the unique strengths that gaming provides to craft great stories than take inspiration from a medium, which often feels pretentious in practice.

I don't like the fact that gamers have absolutely loved every game that pushed towards dumbing down the RPG genre since the beginning of the 7th generation. I'll admit I'm not big into RPGS and I haven't played many, but I always want to get into them and am consistently disappointed by releases for the lack of depth. I'm not talking Fallout 4 or Andromeda, because really this is a problem going as far back as the original Mass effect and Oblivion. I never finished Mass Effect 1 and I didn't get around to 2, I want to play them eventually, and from the first 8 hours I played of 1 it had way more choice than the entirety of 3. BUT, even with it's quality being fairly high and there being more choices than 3, the *mere invention* of the horrendous dialogue wheel has practically ruined the idea of dialogue in RPG. "Brief non specific option 1 = bad" "Brief non specific option 2 = good" etc etc. Bethesda has yet to make a good game i've played, though they've published many. At this point people buy Fallout and TES to walk in an immersive landscape and not for the games themselves. I will say I'm surprised to see a big backlash behind Fallout 4 and the like, but it is not enough when people rarely go back and criticize the games that started this trend since 2006. Again, I can't say i'm an RPG expert, but two contemporary games that showed the the vast difference in RPG-ness for me were Dragon Age : Origins and Fallout : New Vegas. Even if I end up finish ME1 and preferring it to DAO, I can't imagine it will have nearly the options that game had, my god that game was sick.

I'm probably ranting more about the quality of the games than the people themselves, but I feel the people's logic has created the effect on the games. Battlefield only got away with crap because people let generalizations get to them, people hate OW because Uncharted 40000 didn't get a reward, people buy into pretentious stories so more movie games get made, and praising dumbed down games made fallout 4, fallout 4 was not the OG in that regard.

This is another peeve i have. Giving a 0 has nothing to do with objectivity or the game working, it's a score representative of someones opinion. If a game has literally no value to someone, they shouldn't bump it to a 1 or 2 because it has graphics or basic sound. 

I always treated reviews as an objective thing. If people want fan reviews to be taken seriously, then I think we should place priority over a proper evaluation instead of their feelings.

For instance, I really dislike Overwatch. It doesn't fit my tastes, and I'd personally give it a 3/10 out of how much I enjoyed it. However, an actual review wouldn't be like that. It'd examine the gameplay, graphics, optimization, content, and so forth. In an actual review, I'd give Overwatch around 78

That's stupid, though. 

Even proffesionall reviewers are, in the end of the day, just giving an opinion. Now, I would prefer a proffessional reviewer to try to find some kind of common ground, but objectivity as a whole is kind of dumb. You can define objectivity, but you can't define the merit of objectivity in which games are held to. 

If your honest opinion on OV was that it's a 3/10 and then you gave it a 78, you wouldn't be a trusted reviewer, you're not giving your honest opinion. If there's a game you don't enjoy at all but you can see how others enjoy it and you actually see merit in the game, either find a common ground or just don't review it. Make a seperate critique just about why you dislike it. Every review is opinion and even though trying to be objective is admirable, going so far as to change your score for it is dumb.

Actually one more one more :

People who make a big deal about a specific fanbase. Like Jim Sterling going on a rant about how cancerous the LOZ fans seem to be. It just seems to me like everyone says this about every fanbase in different contexts, and at some point people need to stop announcing it like it's some noteworthy thing about a specific fanbase. No, every hardcore fanbase has the ability to be and is cancerous.

I mean, if a particular fanbase actively demonstrates themselves to be the worst you've ever dealt with, you have every right to address them specifically. If Zelda fanatics lost their shit and attacked my website and character for giving their favorite game a 7/10 I'd probably have a similar response.

Yeah but I honestly feel like that's every fanbase. Every fanbase has become "the worst ever" you just have to push the right buttons. 

The thing is, my opinion would honestly make certain games be lower than they are just because of their genre. I hate shooters, so it isn't necessarily fair to give it a bad score simply because I hated it. I chose to look at the entire game and thought it's about a mid-to-high 70's game.