Exploring 50 Dead Racing Games on Steam

Setting the stage for a deep dive into Steam's dead racing games, including the total cost. — No Frame (75/100)

At 0:00

Okay, 50 dead games for $420. The commitment is real, and the math checks out for a good time. 💀

Why this score: The speaker is laying out the premise of the video, detailing the quantity of games purchased, their characteristics (unplayed, few reviews, dead multiplayer), and the total expenditure. This is a straightforward setup for the content to follow, not a manipulative framing technique.

Original quote: “i scrolled all the way to the bottom of the steam’s racing category and bought 50 games from there games that no one has ever played, with little to no reviews, and completely dead multiplayer worlds, all adding up to 420 dollars”

Sources: The Best Discounted Racing Games Money Can Buy From Steam's Winter Sale - autoevolution, Dead as Disco Price Tracker | Steambase, That racing game you’ve had your eye on is massively discounted on Steam this weekend | Top Gear

The first game purchased is incomplete and has been 'under construction' for over a year. — No Frame (75/100)

At 0:14

First game's missing files and 'coming soon' updates from a year ago? Peak Steam Early Access, baby! 😭

Why this score: The speaker is describing a specific experience with one of the purchased games. The claim that the game is incomplete and has been 'under construction' for over a year is a factual observation about the state of the product, not a rhetorical trick. It sets the tone for the quality of the 'dead games' being reviewed.

Original quote: “what could go wrong? well the first game doesn’t even come with its own files it’s been under “construction”, with major updates coming soon that was over a year ago”

The second game, 'Carkour,' looks nice but features 'really, really weird assets' in its obstacle course. — No Frame (75/100)

At 0:24

Looks nice, but 'really, really weird assets'? That's the kind of visual chaos I'm here for. 🤡

Why this score: The speaker is giving a direct, albeit brief, description of the second game. The observation about 'weird assets' is a subjective but straightforward commentary on the game's visual design, not an attempt to mislead or manipulate the audience. It's a simple, honest reaction to what's being shown.

Original quote: “the next game looks really nice though... and that’s about it carkour has you navigate through a difficult obstacle course with some really, really weird assets”

Rating the game a 0/10. — Just Vibes (50/100)

At 0:30

A 0/10? That's not a rating, that's a declaration of war on fun. 💀

Why this score: This is a subjective personal rating, not a claim that can be fact-checked. It's the speaker's opinion and part of the entertainment value of the review.

Original quote: “i’ll give each game a personal rating from 1 to 10, and this one, gets a 0/10”

Suggests his review depth exceeds IGN's for AAA titles — a direct comparison. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)

At 2:30

Throwing shade at IGN without any actual evidence of their review process. That's a bold claim, chief. ☕

Why this score: This is a subjective comparison without specific evidence. While it's a common sentiment among some gamers that major outlets like IGN don't always provide in-depth reviews, the speaker doesn't offer any data or specific examples to back up this claim. It's an opinion presented with certainty.

Original quote: “that’s probably more than what ign does for reviewing triple a titles nowadays”

Game description claims 'good graphics' and 'unforgettable adventure' for a 0/10 game. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)

At 4:30

The game's Steam description is selling a dream that the actual gameplay clearly isn't delivering. Talk about false advertising! 🤡

Why this score: The speaker is highlighting the stark contrast between the game's self-proclaimed features ('good graphics', 'unforgettable adventure') and its actual quality, which they rate 0/10. This is a classic case of marketing hype not matching reality, showing a confidence mismatch between the developer's claims and the product's performance.

Original quote: “the game features: good graphics, easy control, interesting gameplay, and unforgettable adventure”

Dismissing the game's own advice with a blunt 'wrong' 🙅‍♀️ — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)

At 6:30

The game says skill helps, he says 'wrong.' A bold, unbacked dismissal of the game's own premise. 🤡

Why this score: The speaker is confidently stating the game's internal logic is 'wrong' without immediately providing the evidence for why. It's a strong opinion presented as fact, which is a classic confidence mismatch.

Original quote: “wrong”

Stating the game is abandoned and buggy, which top comments dispute. — Missing Context (45/100)

At 8:30

Claims it's abandoned, but top comments say development is ongoing. Missing the current status. 🚩

Why this score: The speaker claims the game is 'abandoned,' but a top community comment (with 2100 likes) explicitly states, 'Déjà Drift is continuing its development. It's worth supporting.' This suggests the speaker's information might be outdated or incomplete, omitting crucial context about the game's current development status.

Original quote: “sadly, it’s been abandoned in a slightly buggy and unoptimized state”

Claiming 80% of gameplay is affected by bad steering — a confident guess 🎮 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)

At 10:30

Pulled that '80% of the time' out of thin air. That's a vibe, not a statistic. 💀

Why this score: The speaker gives a very specific percentage (80%) for how often a problem occurs, but there's no data or methodology presented to back up this precise figure. It sounds like an educated guess or exaggeration for emphasis, not a measured observation.

Original quote: “the car simply does not steer at lower speeds, which is like... 80% of the time in this type of game”

Claiming a drift game 'literally' doesn't drift without tuning — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 12:30

Using 'literally' for something that's clearly a design choice, not a physical impossibility. The word is doing overtime. 🙄

Why this score: The use of 'literally' here is an exaggeration. While the game might require tuning to drift effectively, it's a game mechanic, not a literal inability of the car to slide. It's loaded language to emphasize the perceived poor design.

Original quote: “literally, the car doesn’t even slide without you tuning it in the settings”

Claim about unlock time and developer age based on car choice — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)

At 14:30

Did 'quick maths' to get 6 hours, then jumped to 'developer is 9 years old' based on a Supra. That's a leap, not a calculation. 🤡

Why this score: The speaker makes a specific claim about the time required to unlock a car ('6 hours of drifting') which is presented as a factual result of 'quick maths.' However, the subsequent conclusion that the developer is 'only 9 years old' based on the choice of a Supra is a subjective, humorous, and unsupported inference, not a logical deduction from the 'maths.' The confidence in the developer's age doesn't match the evidence provided.

Original quote: “there are other cars, but after some quick maths, i found out that it takes around 6 hours of drifting to unlock the fastest car, which is a supra, suggesting the developer is only 9 years old”

Claiming to be the only one past level 2, then completing 20 levels — Volume Game (45/100)

At 16:30

Goes from 'only person past level 2' to 'completed 20 levels' real quick. The flex had a quiet asterisk. 🤫

Why this score: The speaker makes a bold, exclusive claim ('only person to ever make it past the second one') which is immediately followed by a more modest, yet still impressive, claim ('completed 20 of them'). This creates a 'volume game' where the initial, more dramatic statement is softened or clarified, but the impact of the first claim still lingers. It's a bit of a rhetorical bait-and-switch.

Original quote: “out of 40 levels, i’m the only person to ever make it past the second one i completed 20 of them before the game softlocked and didn’t unlock the rest”

Calling for asset-flip games to be removed from Steam — a strong opinion, not a fact 🚩 — Emotional Button (45/100)

At 18:30

The speaker's frustration is palpable, calling for games to be 'taken down' and 'not even scored.' That's pure rage, not a review criterion. 😡

Why this score: While the previous claim about asset flipping is factual, the jump to 'these games should be taken down and don’t even deserve a score' is a strong, emotionally charged opinion. It's a call to action based on frustration, not a neutral assessment of the game's quality or Steam's policies. It's a valid sentiment, but it's driven by emotion.

Original quote: “this one however, is just the entire asset copied and released on steam these games should be taken down and don’t even deserve a score”

Dismissing a game as 'fake' based on observed mechanics. — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 20:30

Calling a game 'fake' because the physics are bad is a bit dramatic — it's just a bad game, not a conspiracy. 🎭

Why this score: The term 'fake' is loaded language used to express strong negative sentiment about the game's quality, specifically its unrealistic physics. While the observation about the physics might be valid, 'fake' is an emotional descriptor rather than a neutral assessment.

Original quote: “this game’s so fake”

Game review with a specific playtime estimate and score. — No Frame (75/100)

At 22:30

Giving a specific fun-time estimate for a game is a bold move — but hey, it's a review, not a scientific paper 🤷‍♂️

Why this score: The speaker is giving a personal review of a game, including a subjective estimate of how long it can provide fun. This is a personal opinion, not a fact-checkable claim, and is presented as such.

Original quote: “anyways, the driving feels surprisingly responsive and bugfree, mostly thanks to the increased gravity the game lacks content though with only 2 cars and 4 tracks that you can easily cut it’s not worth the price, but the unique driving and visuals can provide fun for 30 minutes”

20 seconds of loading for a garage, then unlicensed cars — just pure observation of bad game design 💀 — No Frame (75/100)

At 24:30

Just calling out the game's actual performance and asset quality. No tricks, just pain. 🎮

Why this score: The speaker is directly observing and reporting on the game's loading times and the visual quality of the car models, noting they appear unlicensed. This is a straightforward observation of the game's state.

Original quote: “that was 20 seconds of loading for a simple garage now we have a bunch of cars that are clearly not licensed,”

Declares it the 'worst racing game ever made' with extreme confidence. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)

At 26:30

Calling it the 'worst ever' is a bold claim, even for a game with trees on the track. That's a lot of bad games to beat. 🏆💩

Why this score: The speaker makes a highly subjective and absolute claim ('worst racing game ever made') based on limited evidence presented (collision, no reverse gear). While the game clearly has issues, declaring it the absolute worst requires a much broader comparative analysis than what's shown. It's an opinion stated with definitive authority.

Original quote: “considering its age, i’d say this is the worst racing game ever made the laziest asset dumps on this list are better than this “thing””

Compares game to notoriously bad titles, using 'Big Rigs 2' as the ultimate insult 💀 — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 28:30

Invoking 'Big Rigs 2' is like dropping a nuclear bomb of bad game comparisons. It's not just bad, it's LEGENDARY bad. 🔥

Why this score: The speaker uses 'Big Rigs 2' as a benchmark for terrible quality, which is a well-known, almost meme-level reference in the gaming community for exceptionally broken and unplayable games. This comparison is loaded language because it immediately conjures a strong negative emotional response and sets an extremely low expectation without needing to detail the game's specific flaws. It's a shortcut to conveying extreme disdain.

Original quote: “this thing is on par with darkair, poly racing, and big rigs 2”

Update corrupted the 'only person's' progress — hyperbole for comedic effect 😂 — Just Vibes (50/100)

At 30:30

Claiming 'the only person' played it is pure comedic exaggeration. The game is dead, but probably not *that* dead. 💀

Why this score: The speaker uses hyperbole ('the only person who played the game') to emphasize how unpopular or abandoned the game is. It's a comedic device rather than a literal factual claim, playing on the idea of a truly dead game.

Original quote: “and it corrupted the progress of the only person who played the game”

Setting up a unique selling point with a strong, definitive statement. — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 32:30

Declaring it has 'something the others don't' is a bold claim for a game review. Let's see if it holds up. 👀

Why this score: The speaker uses definitive language ('something the others don't') to build anticipation and highlight a perceived unique feature. This is a common rhetorical device to draw attention, but it needs strong evidence to back it up, especially in a critical review.

Original quote: “but this game has something the others don’t:”

Claims better drift physics than most games on the list, but it's a delivery game. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)

At 34:30

A delivery game having 'better drift physics' than actual drifting games? That's a low bar or a high joke. 💀

Why this score: The speaker confidently states a delivery game has superior drift physics, which is a bold claim given its genre. It either highlights the abysmal quality of the other drifting games or is a sarcastic jab at the game itself, but it's presented with a straight face.

Original quote: “there’s not much else to say other than it has better drift physics than most of the drifting games on this list,”

Game features are listed, but the context of their quality is missing. — Missing Context (45/100)

At 36:30

Lists features like they're a win, but immediately pivots to how bad the game is. Classic setup for a punchline. 🤡

Why this score: The speaker lists game features (modes, arenas, characters) as if they're positive points, but the immediate follow-up reveals these features are part of a poorly executed game. This creates a misleading initial impression by omitting the crucial context of quality.

Original quote: “only 2 tagging modes that can be played in 6 arenas with 7 special characters”

Difficulty implies developer is a 'chad alpha male' — just vibes, bro 🤡 — Just Vibes (50/100)

At 38:30

Calling the dev a 'chad alpha male' because a level is unbeatable. That's some next-level projection, my dude 😂

Why this score: The speaker makes a humorous, exaggerated leap from game difficulty to the developer's personality. It's a joke, not a serious claim, playing on internet archetypes.

Original quote: “it only features a few tracks and the final level seems to be unbeatable on the beta male difficulty, which implies the developer didn’t test it and is therefore a chad alpha male”

Explaining asset flip similarity with a previous game — a clear connection. — No Frame (75/100)

At 40:30

Connecting the dots between multiple bad games and a shared asset pack. Solid detective work! 🕵️‍♂️

Why this score: The speaker is logically connecting the dots between the observed similarities in multiple 'dead' games and a common underlying asset, which is a straightforward and verifiable explanation for the phenomenon of asset flipping. This is a clear, direct observation.

Original quote: “but why are these games so similar? the answer takes us back to the first game that didn’t even launch steam allows you to download older versions of any game and this one, is also the exact same thing same menus, same physics, same sound effects, same objects”

Claiming 60 hours of playtime from 50 games, but only 2 were good. The math ain't mathing. 💀 — Missing Context (45/100)

At 42:30

60 hours across 50 games is barely over an hour per game. The 'interesting experience' sounds more like 'endurance test.' 😭

Why this score: The speaker presents 'just over 60 hours of playtime' as a significant result, but immediately follows up by saying 'only 2 games ended up providing more than 2 hours of content.' This implies the vast majority of the 50 games were barely touched, making the 60-hour total less impressive than it initially sounds. It's a classic volume game where the big number hides the lack of depth.

Original quote: “but it was an interesting experience, resulting in just over 60 hours of playtime”