There's a few people who get really angry about seeing reviews that aren't participation trophies. Let's go into why not every game is a masterpiece that deserves gamers hard earned money.

A great science fiction author, Theodore Sturgeon, was questioned by a journalist who said 90% of science fiction was crud. In response, Sturgeon cleverly said "Sure, 90% of science fiction is crud. That's because 90% of everything is crud."

Most people will agree 90% of anything is crud. The same most certainly is going to be true for books in libraries, YouTube videos, reality TV shows... or video games on Steam.

If you don't agree with my reviews, by all means put your money where your mouth is, buy the asset flip/shovelware/amateur games that I told you not to, and play them. I suspect you'll soon agree with me after you try some of the 90%.

Most people don't review bad games, they just ignore them and pretend they're not there. I'm doing something different, I'm honestly reviewing as many games as I possibly can. I never, ever bought a game with the intent of writing a negative review for it. Every game gets a chance to prove itself. Every game is held up to the same rigorous quality standards to see if it's one of the best the PC can offer to gamers.

Reviews are opinion. Everyone has an opinion. But some opinions are more qualified and more objectively developed than others, through experience, supported by fact and reason. Perhaps your opinion about a 2D iPhone ported retro pixel platformer that only runs in 480p resolution being sold to the 4K PC gaming elite will be different from mine. But people are entitled to their views, especially if those views are qualified with fact. It's my opinion that you, the PC gaming elite, deserve only the very best.

A trend has emerged in recent years to give trophies to every child who attends a competitive event, even if they don't come close to winning. Participation trophies don't show that a great accomplishment has been made. In some ways they diminish the victory of the exceptional winners. Most reviews on Steam are participation trophies. The game runs? Thumbs up! We also see a trend towards positive reviews, because most reviews are written by gamers who saw the game, liked it, and bought it.

It does not seem right that just because someone paid the $100 required to publish a game on Steam, that it should have overwhelmingly positive reviews. I don't hand out participation trophies.

Negative reviews aren't all bad. Positive reviews have less value. Why? Positive reviews are inherently biased. Read a negative review for a game. Understand what the problems are. If you can put those aside, then surely the game is exactly the kind of game you would want to play! Negative reviews can help gamers to decide to buy a game, because they will know what problems to expect, and can make an informed choice to accept them and buy the game with full knowledge. Negative reviews are the most honest and trustworthy.

No developer really wants to make a bad game. If every developer could make a game as popular and as technically and artistically as great as games like GTA:V, Deus Ex, Skyrim, World of Warcraft or Mass Effect, then that's what they would be doing. But they don't. This could be because they can't afford to hire anyone capable of programming modern PC graphics, or they lack the talent, ability, skill, or expertise to do this very crucial part of game development. To cover for this inadequacy, they resort to using game construction kits and Asset Store templates, which are meant to educate and make small demos to pass around with friends. They're not meant to replace the hard work of real software developers and game designers. Products that have been slapped together by filling out game construction kits or copying Asset Store packages are never going to be of a level of professional quality that I could recommend to other gamers.

So we see developers many, many times lowering their standards and delivering deficient products simply because they are incapable of doing any better. Of course we are all sympathetic for these people who had a dream of being competent game developers, but failed in that attempt. But I write my reviews about the products, not the people who make them. I can't recommend anyone should buy a product that is deeply flawed simply because the developer wasn't capable of doing any better.

Steam reviews are not for just any gamers, they're for PC gamers. The PC is objectively the best platform for video games. But many games come to Steam without being PC games. They're made for consoles, or Flash, or the web, or mobile phones. These games, not made for PC, are not likely to be of the same excellent quality as games made directly for PC. But developers who make these substandard games will push them to Steam in the hopes of scraping a few more bucks out of a bad product. I will not recommend a mobile or console ported game to PC gamers unless it's incredibly exceptional.

PC gamers will spend several thousand on a gaming rig. These gaming PCs are incredible machines capable of presenting amazing 3D visuals at extremely high resolutions. But often products are deficient, perhaps because they lacked the talent or budget to work with 3D graphics. Perhaps they didn't bother making the game compliant with the 4K gaming rigs that have been around for years now. Perhaps they used lazy minimalist or pixel "art" because they couldn't afford to hire a video graphics engineer/designer. It's hard to recommend such a game because it won't provide the best experience for PC gamers.

Finally, if you do feel angry because I didn't give a participation trophy to a bad product, remember that giving a positive review to a bad product is harmful to gamers, and can be misleading. Joke games, edgy "so bad it's good" games and asset flips with joke reviews get positive ratings despite being awful and unplayable. I won't do that.