It's not looking good..
Credibility score: 33/100 — Low Credibility. High BS alert! Many claims lack evidence or are misleading.
BSmeter analyzed "It's not looking good.." and rated it 33/100 for credibility (a BS score of 67/100 — low credibility), on 2026-06-25. Its weakest claim — "Assumes three 'bad' characters mean the whole game will be bad — a logical leap." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as false equivalence. 22 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 22 claims analyzed: 12 scored under 40, 9 between 40 and 69, and 1 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Video opens with a highlight reel preview, setting up the 'GTA 6 will suck' premise. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 0:00
The video starts with a bold title and a quick 'based video' vibe check — setting the stage for some serious takes. 🎮🍿
Why this score: This segment serves as an intro, establishing the video's provocative title and the creator's anticipation of a 'based' (opinionated, potentially controversial) discussion. It's pure setup, no claims yet.
Original quote: “Why GTA 6 will suck. This video came out four months ago. All right, this is a good one. This could be a very based video. We don't know yet.”
Assumes three 'bad' characters mean the whole game will be bad — a logical leap. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 0:30
Three characters from previous updates being 'bad' doesn't mean GTA 6 will be bad. That's like saying a bad appetizer ruins the whole restaurant. 🍽️🤡
Why this score: The speaker draws a direct, causal link between the perceived quality of a few characters from past GTA Online updates (LS Tuners, LS Drug Wars, Cayo Perico) and the future quality of an entirely new, unreleased game (GTA 6). This is a logical fallacy, as the quality of a few side characters in previous content doesn't dictate the overall quality of a new main installment, especially given different development cycles and potential writing teams.
Original quote: “So, they made three bad characters. It means that it's going to be bad.”
Connects 'three bad characters' from past updates to GTA 6 being bad — a leap of logic. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 0:30
Three characters from old updates mean the whole new game is trash? That's like saying one bad apple means the whole orchard is rotten. 🍎🗑️
Why this score: The speaker attempts to draw a direct causal link between a few disliked characters from previous GTA Online updates (Katie, James, Santa, Dax, El Rubio, English Dave) and the entire upcoming GTA 6 game being 'bad.' This is a false equivalence because the quality of a few characters in past updates does not necessarily dictate the overall quality or direction of a brand new, major title with different main characters and a new story. It's a massive generalization based on limited, subjective data.
Original quote: “three reasons. Katie, James, Santa, Dax, and the characters. El Rubio, and English Dave. So, they made three bad characters. It means that it's going to be bad.”
Sarcastic claim that 'fat white women' make 'based edgy video games,' citing Concord, Veilgard, and Ghost. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 2:30
Using a straw man to imply a group can't make 'edgy' games, then citing unrelated, poorly received titles. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker is setting up a straw man argument by sarcastically implying that 'fat white women' are incapable of making 'based edgy video games.' They then cite games like 'Concord,' 'Veilgard,' and 'Ghost' (likely referring to Ghostwire: Tokyo or similar, though 'Veilgard' isn't a widely known title) as examples of games that are presumably not 'based' or 'edgy' in their view. This is a false equivalence, as the quality or 'edginess' of a game isn't determined by the demographic of its developers, and these specific games aren't necessarily linked to the demographic the speaker is targeting.…
Original quote: “And fat white women definitely know how to make based edgy video games as we've seen with Concord and Veilgard and Ghost.”
Linking 'fat white women' to specific 'un-edgy' games like Concord and Veilgard. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 2:30
Connecting 'fat white women' to specific game failures like Concord and Veilgard — that's a false equivalence and a straw man all in one. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker attempts to link the derogatory stereotype of 'fat white women' to specific games (Concord, Veilgard, Ghost) that they imply are not 'based' or 'edgy.' This is a false equivalence because there's no evidence presented that these specific games were primarily developed by 'fat white women,' nor that the perceived quality of these games is directly attributable to the gender or body type of their developers. It's a straw man argument that attacks a caricature rather than engaging with actual development practices or creative decisions, using these games as convenient examples to…
Original quote: “And fat white women definitely know how to make based edgy video games as we've seen with Concord and Veilgard and Ghost.”
Blames 'post-2020 storytelling' for Rockstar's supposed decline, vague and unspecific. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 4:30
Blames 'post-2020 storytelling' like it's a known, singular thing. What exactly changed? The vibes? 🤷♀️
Why this score: The speaker uses 'post-2020 storytelling' as a blanket term without defining what it means or how it specifically impacts Rockstar. It's a vague accusation that lacks concrete examples or context, making it hard to evaluate.
Original quote: “Post 2020 storytelling that Rockstar is doing now.”
Rockstar's post-2020 storytelling is bad, implying a decline. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 4:30
Blames 'post-2020 storytelling' for Rockstar's issues — like a specific date magically made them bad writers 🗓️✍️
Why this score: The speaker implies a decline in Rockstar's storytelling quality since 2020 without providing specific examples or evidence of this shift. It's a broad generalization that lacks context on what changed or how it impacted their narratives.
Original quote: “Post 2020 storytelling that Rockstar is doing now.”
Calling Roblox and Fortnite 'gay garbage' — a bold take on gaming preferences 🎮🏳️🌈 — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 6:30
Using 'gay garbage' to describe games is just pure, unadulterated emotional button-pushing. Not exactly a nuanced critique. 🙄
Why this score: The speaker uses highly charged, offensive language ('gay garbage') to dismiss popular games like Roblox and Fortnite. This isn't a factual claim but a clear example of loaded language designed to provoke a strong, negative emotional reaction and align with a specific, likely anti-LGBTQ+, audience. It frames the games as inherently bad through insult rather than reasoned argument.
Original quote: “never touch gay garbage like Roblox or”
Asserting San Andreas showed 'reality' with specific negative portrayals. — Cherry-Picked (20/100)
At 6:30
Highlighting only the 'violent gangs' and 'racist cops' as 'reality' in San Andreas? That's a very specific lens. 🧐
Why this score: The speaker selectively highlights specific negative aspects of San Andreas's world ('Black gangs were violent and corrupt,' 'Cops were racist and abusive,' 'government was predatory,' 'Suburban America was hypocritical') to support the idea that the game 'doesn't whitewash anything' and 'shows reality.' While these elements are present, framing them as the sole or primary representation of 'reality' without acknowledging other narrative complexities or satirical intent is a form of cherry-picking to fit a particular argument about authenticity and edginess.
Original quote: “San Andreas doesn't whitewash anything. Black gangs were violent and corrupt. Cops were This is This is a generational video. Oh my god. Racist and abusive. The government was predatory. Suburban America was hypocritical.”
Contrasting old GTA's violence with a supposed 2025 'inclusive' stance — Straw Man (20/100)
At 8:30
Setting up 'killed for wrong gang' against 'it's 2025, let's be inclusive' is a classic straw man. 💀
Why this score: The speaker creates a false dichotomy, contrasting the gritty, violent past of GTA ('killed for being in the wrong gang') with a caricatured, overly 'inclusive' present ('It's 2025, man. Let's be inclusive.'). This misrepresents the actual changes or intentions of the game developers, creating an exaggerated, easily attackable version of their position to make a point about perceived 'wokeness' in modern gaming.
Original quote: “Guess you were killed for being in the wrong gang. Now GTA is like, "It's 2025, man. Let's be inclusive."”
Contrasting old GTA's violence ('killed for being in the wrong gang') with new GTA's inclusivity ('It's 2025, man. Let's be inclusive.'). — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 8:30
Comparing gang violence to 'being inclusive' as if they're mutually exclusive design choices is a wild jump. One's a plot point, the other's a vibe 🤷♀️.
Why this score: The speaker creates a false equivalence by contrasting the violent, gang-centric aspects of older GTA games with the perceived 'inclusivity' of newer titles. This frames inclusivity as a negative departure from the series' roots, implying that a game cannot be both gritty/violent and inclusive, which is a false dilemma. It ignores that game narratives can evolve without losing core elements.
Original quote: “Guess you were killed for being in the wrong gang. Now GTA is like, "It's 2025, man. Let's be inclusive." But it gets worse when we meet Katie J, and Santa. >> Let's get a look at you. >> You were with Mimi, right? >> At the car meet. >> You don't look like much of a driver to me. >> You heard what…”
Modern Rockstar is 'gay and woke' and can't write villains anymore. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 10:30
Calling a company 'gay and woke' because you don't like their characters is just throwing buzzwords around, not actual criticism. 🙄
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged, loaded terms like 'gay and woke' to dismiss the game developers and their creative choices. This isn't a critique of the writing itself, but an ideological attack wrapped in a complaint about character likability. It's a classic way to signal a specific cultural grievance without engaging with the actual content.
Original quote: “Modern Rockstar literally doesn't know what they're doing anymore in GTA 4. This annoying couple would be the bad guys and then you would get to kill them. But Modern Rockstar is so gay and woke. They've written a villain that they don't even realize is a villain. That's how bad it is.”
Claiming Trevor is 'actually psychotic' while Dax is 'oh man, you're so crazy,' implying a superficial edginess. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 12:30
Comparing 'actually psychotic' to 'oh man, you're so crazy' as if they're similar levels of character depth. One is a diagnosis, the other is a vibe. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker is creating a false equivalence by contrasting Trevor's 'actual psychosis' (a severe mental health condition) with Dax's perceived 'superficial craziness' ('oh man, you're so crazy'). This minimizes the gravity of Trevor's character traits while dismissing Dax's as inauthentic, without providing a balanced comparison of their in-game behaviors or narrative roles.
Original quote: “Trevor, on the one hand, is actually psychotic. Dax is, oh man, you're so crazy. Do you know what I mean?”
Contrasts Trevor as 'actually psychotic' with Dax as 'oh man, you're so crazy'. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 12:30
Comparing 'actually psychotic' to 'oh man, you're so crazy' is like comparing a chainsaw to a butter knife. Not the same energy. 🔪
Why this score: The speaker creates a false equivalence by contrasting Trevor's 'actual psychosis' with Dax's 'oh man, you're so crazy' persona. This minimizes Dax's character by reducing it to a performative 'craziness' while elevating Trevor's as genuinely disturbed. It's a rhetorical trick to make Dax seem less authentic or impactful by setting up an unfair comparison of their 'edginess'.
Original quote: “Trevor, on the one hand, is actually psychotic. Dax is, oh man, you're so crazy. Do you know what I mean?”
Creating a false dilemma between 'old GTA villains' and 'corny ass villains' to argue for past character superiority. — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 14:30
Setting up 'old GTA villains' vs. 'corny ass villains' like there are only two options. Classic false dilemma, bro 🤦♂️
Why this score: The speaker presents a false dilemma by categorizing all villains into two extremes: 'old GTA villains' (implicitly good) and 'corny ass villains like El Rubio' (implicitly bad). This ignores the possibility of a spectrum of villain quality or different types of villain archetypes. It's used to support the argument that older games had superior, 'memorable' characters that 'can't even be rivaled today,' without acknowledging other factors or potential for new compelling characters.
Original quote: “So, let's just say we have old GTA villains like Big Smoke, Officer Tinpey, and Sunny Felli on one side, and then we have corny ass villains like El Rubio on the other side. Isn't it so funny that the graphics were [ __ ] in GTA San Andreas and yet some of the most memorable characters ever were…”
Comparing 'old GTA villains' to 'corny ass villains' to argue modern characters are worse, ignoring other factors. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 14:30
Pitting 'old GTA villains' against 'corny ass villains' and then blaming graphics for character depth. That's a wild logical leap. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker creates a false equivalence by directly comparing a few 'old GTA villains' (who are often viewed with nostalgia) to a single 'corny ass villain' (El Rubio) to argue that modern characters are inherently worse. They then pivot to graphics, implying that better graphics somehow hinder character memorability, which is a non-sequitur. Character quality is subjective and depends on writing, not just graphical fidelity or era.
Original quote: “I couldn't decide who I wanted to pick. So, let's just say we have old GTA villains like Big Smoke, Officer Tinpey, and Sunny Felli on one side, and then we have corny ass villains like El Rubio on the other side. Isn't it so funny that the graphics were [ __ ] in GTA San Andreas and yet some of…”
Claiming 1:1 character models cause problems and look weird, citing examples. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 16:30
He's stating a subjective opinion about character models as a universal 'problem' — that's a vibe, not a fact 🤷♂️.
Why this score: The speaker presents a subjective aesthetic preference (1:1 character models 'look weird' and 'cause problems') as an objective truth. While he gives examples, these are personal interpretations of what 'looks weird,' not evidence of inherent 'problems' in game development or player reception. It's a confident assertion without objective backing.
Original quote: “Like a great example of this, I'll give two examples of it. A western example and also a Korean example. I think the Korean example is obvious. It's going to be stellar blade, right? And so like that's a really good one. You could also say, I mean, another good one would be uh, you know, like [ __…”
Nostalgia for a 'past edge' in media, vague and undefined. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 18:30
Talking about things having 'such an edge' without defining what that even means. Pure vibes, no specifics 🤷♂️
Why this score: The speaker uses 'edge' as a nostalgic, emotionally charged term without providing concrete examples or criteria for what constitutes this 'edge.' It's a subjective feeling presented as a universal truth about past media.
Original quote: “everything used to have such an edge. It used to have such an edge to it.”
Claiming 'Black Panther' had 'no comedic relief' and was 'solid real shit' that people respect. — Cherry-Picked (20/100)
At 20:30
Saying 'Black Panther' had 'no comedic relief' then immediately 'maybe once or twice' — that's a quick backtrack on a 'solid' claim. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker initially claims 'Black Panther' had 'no comedic relief' to support their point, then immediately qualifies it with 'maybe once or twice.' This cherry-picks the film as an example while downplaying elements that contradict the initial, stronger assertion.
Original quote: “Black Panther didn't have that. I was just thinking about this, you know, there was like no comedic relief. It was just I mean, maybe once or twice, right? But in general, like it was just solid real [ __ ] And I think people respect that.”
Predicts GTA 6 will be 'gay as hell' based on past writers — a confident leap 🌈 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 22:30
Declares GTA 6 will be 'gay as hell' based on the same writers doing 'sanitized villains' — that's a whole lot of assumption on one pen ✍️
Why this score: The speaker is making a bold prediction about the future content of GTA 6, specifically its 'gay as hell' nature, by linking it to the writers of a previous 'sanitized' villain. This is a confidence mismatch because there's no direct evidence or official statements to support such a specific and strong claim about unreleased content. It's an opinion presented as a near-certainty.
Original quote: “foreshadowing? Do we feel like we are looking true evil in the face? No. And this is why I know that the writing and the worldbuilding and the characters in GTA 6 will be gay as hell because the people who wrote corny ass sanitized villains like El Rubio are the same people doing the writing for…”
GTA Online makes 10x more money than old GTA, then pivots to a homophobic rant and an ad. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 24:30
Starts with a financial claim, then immediately pivots to calling the game 'gay slop' and an ad. The whiplash is real. 🏳️🌈🤮
Why this score: The speaker makes a financial claim about GTA Online's revenue, which could be verifiable, but then immediately uses highly charged, offensive, and homophobic language ('gay slop') to describe the current state of GTA. This loaded language is designed to provoke an emotional reaction rather than provide a reasoned argument. The quick transition to an ad for AnoBA further highlights the lack of genuine analysis, using the controversy to lead into a sales pitch.
Original quote: “Cards. Think about it. GTA Online makes 10 times more money than the old GTA games ever did. But boys, just in closing, as I've said in multiple other videos, GTA isn't GTA anymore. It's safe. It's [ __ ] Just sanitized [ __ ] gay slop. All right, boys. I'm going to get out of here. Be sure to…”
Speaker expresses uncertainty while agreeing with an unnamed point. — No Frame (75/100)
At 26:30
He's just talking through his thoughts, admitting he hasn't played the game and isn't sure, which is fair enough. No tricks here. 🤷♂️
Why this score: The speaker is openly stating his lack of direct experience with the game and his indecision about whether the example is good. This is a transparent expression of opinion and uncertainty, not an attempt to mislead or frame. It's just a guy thinking out loud.
Original quote: “So, I don't want to go and uh, you know, like criticize it too much. So, yeah. I I I don't I don't know. I I'm not sure. I haven't played it. And so it just seems I see what his point is and I I I kind of kind of agree, but I don't know really if that's a good example one way or”
See the full analysis with timestamps →