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.
Claims analyzed
Video opens with a highlight reel preview, setting up the 'GTA 6 will suck' premise. — Just Vibes (50/100)
The video starts with a bold title and a quick 'based video' vibe check — setting the stage for some serious takes. 🎮🍿
Assumes three 'bad' characters mean the whole game will be bad — a logical leap. — False Equivalence (20/100)
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. 🍽️🤡
Connects 'three bad characters' from past updates to GTA 6 being bad — a leap of logic. — False Equivalence (20/100)
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. 🍎🗑️
Linking 'fat white women' to specific 'un-edgy' games like Concord and Veilgard. — False Equivalence (20/100)
Connecting 'fat white women' to specific game failures like Concord and Veilgard — that's a false equivalence and a straw man all in one. 🤡
Sarcastic claim that 'fat white women' make 'based edgy video games,' citing Concord, Veilgard, and Ghost. — Straw Man (20/100)
Using a straw man to imply a group can't make 'edgy' games, then citing unrelated, poorly received titles. 🤡
Rockstar's post-2020 storytelling is bad, implying a decline. — Missing Context (45/100)
Blames 'post-2020 storytelling' for Rockstar's issues — like a specific date magically made them bad writers 🗓️✍️
Blames 'post-2020 storytelling' for Rockstar's supposed decline, vague and unspecific. — Missing Context (45/100)
Blames 'post-2020 storytelling' like it's a known, singular thing. What exactly changed? The vibes? 🤷♀️
Calling Roblox and Fortnite 'gay garbage' — a bold take on gaming preferences 🎮🏳️🌈 — Loaded Language (45/100)
Using 'gay garbage' to describe games is just pure, unadulterated emotional button-pushing. Not exactly a nuanced critique. 🙄
Asserting San Andreas showed 'reality' with specific negative portrayals. — Cherry-Picked (20/100)
Highlighting only the 'violent gangs' and 'racist cops' as 'reality' in San Andreas? That's a very specific lens. 🧐
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)
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 🤷♀️.
Contrasting old GTA's violence with a supposed 2025 'inclusive' stance — Straw Man (20/100)
Setting up 'killed for wrong gang' against 'it's 2025, let's be inclusive' is a classic straw man. 💀
Modern Rockstar is 'gay and woke' and can't write villains anymore. — Loaded Language (45/100)
Calling a company 'gay and woke' because you don't like their characters is just throwing buzzwords around, not actual criticism. 🙄
Contrasts Trevor as 'actually psychotic' with Dax as 'oh man, you're so crazy'. — False Equivalence (20/100)
Comparing 'actually psychotic' to 'oh man, you're so crazy' is like comparing a chainsaw to a butter knife. Not the same energy. 🔪
Claiming Trevor is 'actually psychotic' while Dax is 'oh man, you're so crazy,' implying a superficial edginess. — False Equivalence (20/100)
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. 🤡
Comparing 'old GTA villains' to 'corny ass villains' to argue modern characters are worse, ignoring other factors. — False Equivalence (20/100)
Pitting 'old GTA villains' against 'corny ass villains' and then blaming graphics for character depth. That's a wild logical leap. 🤡
Creating a false dilemma between 'old GTA villains' and 'corny ass villains' to argue for past character superiority. — False Dilemma (20/100)
Setting up 'old GTA villains' vs. 'corny ass villains' like there are only two options. Classic false dilemma, bro 🤦♂️
Claiming 1:1 character models cause problems and look weird, citing examples. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
He's stating a subjective opinion about character models as a universal 'problem' — that's a vibe, not a fact 🤷♂️.
Nostalgia for a 'past edge' in media, vague and undefined. — Loaded Language (45/100)
Talking about things having 'such an edge' without defining what that even means. Pure vibes, no specifics 🤷♂️
Claiming 'Black Panther' had 'no comedic relief' and was 'solid real shit' that people respect. — Cherry-Picked (20/100)
Saying 'Black Panther' had 'no comedic relief' then immediately 'maybe once or twice' — that's a quick backtrack on a 'solid' claim. 🤡
Predicts GTA 6 will be 'gay as hell' based on past writers — a confident leap 🌈 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
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 ✍️
GTA Online makes 10x more money than old GTA, then pivots to a homophobic rant and an ad. — Loaded Language (45/100)
Starts with a financial claim, then immediately pivots to calling the game 'gay slop' and an ad. The whiplash is real. 🏳️🌈🤮
Speaker expresses uncertainty while agreeing with an unnamed point. — No Frame (75/100)
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. 🤷♂️
See the full analysis with sources and timestamps →