There is a tendency that I've started to see lately where people try to avoid being negative about something even if they have nothing positive to say about it. Say, you have a game that underdelivers. You write about it and point out the problems you've experienced or concerns about its qualities. And then you decide to ruin everything by ending your message with "But it's not a bad game".
What is that suppose to tell others? That the game you've mentioned no positives about is actually worth their time? Did it leave you with a warm feeling afterwards despite having flaws? It is possible, but you are not talking about it anywhere. Or was it supposed to soften your criticism for the developer? Were you trying to make the developer feel a bit better? A little pat on the head? "Good work, buddy"? Don't do that. It's not helpful for that developer. If you have nice things to say to counter-weigh bad things, say them. Don't just sweeten the pill.
I'm going to give a concrete example now, but I want to pretext it with an explicit notion that I have nothing against that particular developer or wish them ill. This is just my experience as a gamer and, now, a part of the industry. I don't want to be harsh, but I still would like to express my thoughts directly. Here goes...
There is a puzzle game that has seen some acclaim from users, sometimes even being called a hidden gem. There is nothing particularly hidden about it with over 3600 reviews, accumulating it a "Mostly Positive" rating. It's a short yet good looking game, and it's called The Turing Test. I've played it a couple of months after its release. Me and my friends were on a lookout for new puzzle games after we had experienced The Witness and The Talos Principle. You might guess that it was a high bar and we needed to be impressed. The Turing Test looked promising.
Visually it was sweet. Part of the appeal was in its clean rooms and reliance on clear geometric shapes. Models and lighting were beautifully done to convey the feeling of Space and exploration. The game was very atmospheric, which is why it was disappointing to see it start glitching within the first couple of room before we even got to the puzzle parts. But no game is without a sin, so we wouldn't mind it for the time being. Actually, we didn't mind anything the whole time we were playing. Mostly because we were not really expecting it to just end 5 hours in.
And that's the problem with it. The game is too simple and too short. There is no challenge within it, no real variety. Puzzles were usually done before my friends (who were watching me on a stream) were able to fully see them on their end. I don't want to undersell how hard it is to create smart and thought out puzzles. And there is a place for smaller and easier games than The Witness or The Talos Principle. But The Turing Test claims to be "a challenging first-person puzzle game set on Jupiter’s moon, Europa", and only the last part is true. It's extremely important for a puzzle game to provide necessary puzzling experience, to challenge you, to provide problems for your solutions. Failing to do so in a game that is exclusively a puzzle and not a combination of genres constitutes a bad game in my book. I appreciate the attempt, but it's a bad attempt nonetheless.
And so I see people commenting on it that while it lacks in longetivity and challenge "it's still a good game". Are we afraid to tell the developer that it's not a good game for some reason? What lessons should a creative person take from such recommendation? That there are redeeming qualities left unsaid? Or that the audience is lenient or, worse, condescending? I hope that if my game actually sells, it's not because of the "but it's not bad", and because "It's so good, and here's why".
P.S. To not sound too negative I'll recommend two other games instead. First one is the recently released Lightmatter. It too is pretty short, but it brings the experience up in unique puzzle design and the overall style. Challenges presented in Lightmatter are unique to this game most of the time, and the story is pretty memorable too. Another example of a short game that delivers more is ReThink. It's even shorter than The Turing Test. The first part I've completed in 3 hours. But it tries something with its systems. And there are two sequels to it, all of which together you can get for the same price as The Turing Test, in case it matters.