What should I do on games that look good, but I wouldn't ever play them? For instance, Horror Games. Or polished games that look ok for what they're offering, but I wouldn't ever play them ever?
Valve specifically asks "would you play this game", and, by those standards, I would click no on those games.
Saying no is understandable of course, since as you point out if you actually read Valve's question, you should say no. You wouldn't play it, so say you wouldn't play it. I say yes, though. I see my role more as a reviewer-facilitator than as a customer. I'm not trying to brag or anything, I'm not saying I'm the smartest guy in the room or I have tons of insight or I have better taste than anyone else. But I know I do more thinking about this stuff than most people who just wander in. And so because of that, I vote yes to anything that seems like a good execution of its concept. For example, there are some children's games in my collection there--stuff made for 5-7 year olds. I said yes because I feel it's a demographic that should be reached on Steam but isn't and because those particular games look visually appealing and well made.
Although no votes don't count against anyone, they sort of do. There's a very finite core of people who actually vote on Greenlight. Unless you're something very popular on the internet at large, you need both people coming from outside Greenlight to check out your game in specific AND people like me who vote on everything. Nothing that's been Greenlit had below a 50/50-ish yes-to-no ratio, and that's not because no votes count against you but rather because to get enough yes votes, some of the sets of eyes on your game need to be those yes votes.
Like, if you need 10,000 yes votes to get on Steam (you need more than this; #40 on the list right now is around 13,500 votes and the number you need today is less than you needed six months ago), and there's 5000 people like me who vote on every game, and then another 10,000 who vote on scattered stuff, and then there's however many people you get to click through from Twitter or RPS or whatever. Assuming you only get 2000 people to click through, then you need 8,000 more from the 15,000 people who semi-regularly or regularly vote. So no votes don't count against you, but you can't get on if most of your votes are no. Get what I'm saying?
However, I have one question: did you vote for all the games on Greenlight? I know that some people voted for every possible game in there so they can have a chance and I will do everything I can to support people and their fine work, however, don't you feel you might be voting for a game that in your opinion can be weak/bad or anything similar?
I said yes to 800 and no to a little more than 900. When I said I voted on everything, I meant that I had voted yes or no on everything.
The games I said no to fit in the following categories generally:
1) They looked absolutely terrible, beyond redemption, absolutely not ready to be sold. "My first game" stuff. I feel bad and I try to leave detailed feedback when I do that. Some people can make a professional game on their first try, but most can't and if your product is not even remotely professional (obvious font errors; terrible, clashing backgrounds; programmer art; RPGMaker default sprites; dialogue that does not look like it was written by someone who speaks the language it is written in) then it's probably better to release as freeware rather than competing for a slot.
2) Games that aren't games yet at all. Great, you have a 3D concept art of a gun. That's not a game. I'm fine with voting for stuff that isn't released or even stuff that looks early, but it has to be a game. It can't just be concept art and renders.
3) F2P MMO games that had absolutely no unique selling point. It's weird that I would consider voting for, say, a loot-based hack-and-slash RPG if it wasn't F2P or MMO, but not if it is. There are so many of these on the internet. They're all made by companies, not independents. But they look very same-y and boring and I just know the business model is going to be gross so I say no.
4) Voxel based exploration sandbox crafting games (IE Minecraft clones). I know Minecraft comes from Infiniminer, but at this point I can't in good conscience vote for something that looks like Minecraft only uglier and with guns. Or Minecraft, only uglier and with vehicles. Or Minecraft, only uglier and with guns and vehicles.
5) Top-down twin-stick dark zombie shooters. There's already like 30 on Steam. They're all the same. They're all basically playable but none of them are really all that enjoyable. I think it's time to do something different or not bother at all.
He's an arrogant whiner baby. He only sees his own views as the right ones and doesn't take any opposing arguments. He isn't even capable of participating in a discussion because he is so full of himself. That guy also doesn't give a shit about his viewership and insulted them many times.
That guy is just a giant asshole with mental issues.
My sense, based on only impressions I've got from people linking stuff on GAF, is that he's a reasonably bright guy with fairly good taste and some capacity to articulate it... who is also stubborn and a little rude when dealing with people he disagrees with. I don't know him as a person and I can't form any conclusions about him in reality, but that's why I understand of his public persona. I don't think YouTube really incentivizes people to take nuanced, flexible, understanding, polite, and compassionate positions though; there's more hits in having a BIG, strong, loud personality. We're all a product of the system we're in, really.
