escapist23: Yet your opinion is far more subjective and much less grounded, for this reason: I explained why I think what I think. You didn't.
Mafwek: You only stated few generalized descriptions without even linking them to an actual game.
You didn't explain what isn't rubbish; what's objectively good; is objectively good even possible and why should anyone care if it is.
All you said is that you find majority of games to be rubbish, opinion which someone may or may not share with you.
To further explain, I did not make examples with a specific intent in mind, because I know that if I mention these games, a battle will start here, and I have no time for that.
So here's my simple question: name to me TWO games that:
1. has the characters and NPCs full of personality and wit
2. has a sense of humour (but not too much, for too much of it becomes annoying)
3. has sense of tragedy and great drama
4. has a highly compelling story from start to end, that NEVER gets boring. Basically, a work of solid literature.
5. has a battle system that is imaginative and intuitive, yet never simplistic or brainless, that keeps you on the edge of your seat everytime.
6. and, ultimately, is a game that made you want to play it ALL OVER, from START to END, at least TWICE.
AND, to just top it off: I probably tried ALL the games you can think of, except the ones made in the last 6 years or so. Which means, all I said make it all far more than just ' a few generalizations'. But even if you want to call it that, it's still a much better one than the ones YOU made. For I have tried all the games I can think of, and on - most platforms -.
I do have a couple of favourite games, but that's not important. The fact is that I have two or three favs out of trying dozens of supposedly the best games ever made. All carefully selected. I never just tried packs of random games, and always tried to be as selective as possible. And I kept seeing again and again that most games are just trash. They might look pretty and sound great, but ultimately there's very little else there.
Mine IS a generalization, because how else are you going to be able to make any judgements, otherwise?
Unless I were to write a long essay with solid proof and sources, there's no way that I can avoid a generalization. All I am saying is that mine isn't a WEAK generalization, and it's still stronger than yours, unless you can tell me specific cases where I am wrong, with facts. For example, by naming two games that do NOT fall into all the defects I have adequately explained until now. Heck, I'll make you a concession: name to me even ONE game that is devoid of any of these defects.
Because I have NOT found it.
Look, I'll go even further with the generalizations, and say this: it's more reasonable to think that most games are bad, than to think that most games are excellent.
There is a giant size generalization for you, and a very daring one. Now YOU prove me wrong.