You seem to think you’re taste is more exceptional than people you deem as basic.

But how exactly did you arrive at your taste? Hype? Influencers? Marketing?

You compare games to beer and say Bud is “complete swill”. Fair enough. But almost everyone drinking IPA is doing so because some hipster said this is real beer – and everyone else just went along with it.

Personally, I’ve never read a James Patterson or Danielle Steel book in my life. But I’ve met plenty of people who claim up and down that Jack Kerouac and David Foster Wallace is top tier literature. How have so many people – who oddly seem to dress the same, have the same manners, operate with similar world views – seem to all be convinced those two authors are peak?

My personal standpoint is that nobody has taste unless they do the discovering themselves. That means no relying on marketers, gatekeepers, tastemakers, or algorithms. Go and dig for themselves.

If you’re willing to do that, form an opinion all on your own, kudos. But most people – even people who swear up and down that they have taste – won’t.

Whatever floats your boat, but it’s a waste of time looking down on people enjoying the occasional McDonalds cheeseburger and fries.

Sure, here’s my top three by hours spent:

1. Spelunky - 92.2 hours
2. Legends of Solitaire: Curse of the Dragons - 58.9 hours
3. Civilization V - 50.2 hours

So wait a minute. You cannot enjoy a simple cheeseburger with fries because McDonalds is beneath you?

I definitely don’t complete all of them. My goal is to at least play an hour each, but not every game is worth an hour.

The most time I’ve ever spent on a game is around 100 hours.

A few thousand dollars.

Never bought a single game at full price. Almost all the time, it’s at least 90% off. Lots of game bundles abound. And free games are given away all the time.

Say what you will, every game I’ve bought—I can still play. And I’ve been buying Steam games for over a decade.

Meanwhile, none of my GameCube discs work on my Switch.

The inverse is just as true. Just because you and many “gamers” accept a rigid canon of what counts as “quality” doesn’t mean those games are actually good.

Go to any retro gaming board and you’ll hear the NES era hailed as a golden age. I’ve played nearly all those games—and apart from a few true gems, most of them don’t hold up.

Yet people still pay hundreds of dollars for cartridges like Action 52 and treat them like holy grails, even though we all know that some of the worst mobile games today are technically better.

The truth is, I don’t think the average gamer really knows quality. I think most of their taste is just parroting what someone else told them to like.

Quality deserves to be judged on its own merits—not nostalgia or consensus.

Thank you. 🙏

You’re the first person here speaking actual sense.

Whenever I see an echo chamber where people parrot the same shallow talking points—no nuance, no real analysis—the contrarian in me kicks in.

You claim there’s “no library” on mobile, but even a basic look at the stats and available titles proves otherwise.

If you actually want fun, premium mobile games with zero microtransactions, they’re not hard to find. You just have to look beyond the surface—and actually try.

My kid knows full well what is allowable and what is not. She has never spent money on micro-transactions.

Provide me your criteria first. 😆

Then don’t play games-as-a-service on mobile. Plenty of great mobile games you can buy outright, no strings attached.

Worried about ownership? Back up the APK files—problem solved.

You don’t have to swallow every business model you hate. Choice is still on your side.

I’ve seen this act before—you come in dismissing everything based on vague, shifting criteria you refuse to define. Why? Because it lets you move the goalposts whenever the facts don’t fit your narrative.

Until you actually lay out concrete criteria instead of hiding behind empty words, all you’re doing is wasting oxygen with hot air.

Try not to trip over your own excuses next time.

You’re literally making vague, empty demands and acting like I’m failing you. 😂

Until you can actually put words to what “caliber” means—like “this game needs that feature”—your whole argument is just entitled whining dressed up as critique.

Try again when you have a point. Until then, it’s just hot air.

I’ve already mentioned several games and even shared footage of a well-known title that outperforms everything on the original Switch.

Yet, you’re still asking for a direct 1:1 equivalent. Games are creative works—not interchangeable commodities.

Cyberpunk 2077 isn’t a fair comparison since the original Switch never had it. We’re comparing the original Switch to Android, not PC or PS5 to Android.

The problem with demanding exact “equivalents” is that it feels dismissive—like you’re rejecting games without giving them a real chance. Instead of chasing direct counterparts, focus on finding great games that stand on their own merits.

No, you just suck at finding good Android games.

Android doesn’t just have ports of good indie games, it’s got lots of indie games that originated on mobile first – only later ported to console or PC.

Examples: Alto’s Adventure, Monument Valley, Endurance, Désiré.

If you’re unaware of these games, it’s not because Android as a platform sucks for gaming. It’s because discoverability is simply bad.

Let’s be real.

Android’s problem isn’t lack of good games. Nor is it performance of hardware. It’s discoverability.

But really, that’s also the problem of every storefront. Steam too has a lot of legendary games. But they’re also hard to find because shitty asset flips are so abundant.