yeah
or sandbox means devs were lazy to fill the game with anything and just let people make their own fun with the few tools they probably copied from another game

I would rather have that, then having easy mode no different than the hardest mode. Where one shot kills (that means you dying) is all easy mode has to offer. That is what RPG's are. At some point it's going to come down to, You can't leave the quest, you die every 20-30 seconds after respawning, rinse, and repeat, until you decide the game is over. That is what RPG's do, it's all they do, they are terminators. They terminate fun. Turn off the lights, and close the door, the Terminator is here, and it's name is Role Playing Game. Trash with dressed up graphics.
Yep, dead give away.

which game is that? the new Elden ring?

Doesn't matter which game. Elden Ring, yeah it's an RPG. That means unless you are super hard core, at some point the game will become unplayable (even on the easiest settings). That's what RPG's do, it's all they do. The developers think OP quests are content. When I say developers, am talking about "ALL" developers. Show me an RPG game doesn't do this, and I will show you someone who is not being truthful.

Strange.
* I don't consider Elden Ring to be an RPG, so your argument doesn't work in this instance.
* I could mention games like Final Fantasy Mystic Quest, that don't have side quests and don't require "grinding", but yet are definitely RPGs (unlike Elden Ring).

What is strange is that Elden Ring is clearly marked as an RPG yet you don't think it is.

A game being marked as an RPG doesn't make it one.

(Since the term is commonly used to the point where it's common use is meaningless, I prefer to adopt a stricter definition of the term, which notably excludes action games.)

Technically not even D&D is a RPG. If you aren't dressing up and whacking each other with sticks, it's not a RPG.

The "low rated" posts in this topic are all from before downvotes were removed.
I find that the distinction between player skill and character skill works well as a genre definition. In D&D, whether an action succeeds is dependent on the character's skill, not the player's skill. Pathfinder is, of course, the same, as long as you're not using Sacred Geometry (a feat that's often banned for various reasons, like the fact that it slows down play).

Not anymore...

I just reported it, as it does clearly appear to be a bug.

I dont think you can honestly "quickly" tell if a game is bad or not, only if you arnt interested.

By quickly, you only have access to some trailers and minimal gameplay. If you bought the game, maybe a couple hours of game time which is likely the tutorial and a little after. It likely depends on whether you are able to "connect" with the game and understand its intended game loop. This is probably why alot of people stick with one type of game (ease of getting into the game).

But after you play many of one type of game and understand why certain mechanics are important, you can start to tell why a game is good or bad for its genre.

The downrating option was hidden.
It is still somewhere deep in the code of this forum.
With enough knowledge, you can bypass (you could say should be, but hey, it does happen) the hidden stuff and still use it. And you can be sure, there are bots out for it already.

They have to block that option to user accounts or remove it from the code, not only hide it.

Agreed. This is true for both somewhat mainstream genres (RPGs, for example) and for less mainstream genres (incremental games; while some of them are good, I have tried a few that aren't).

(Is this true of Hidden Object games? I haven't played any of them, so I have no basis to judge myself, but I'm wondering if people experienced with that genre can tell.)