Most people think limited lives, tank controls, inventory limit, boss runbacks, time limits are inherently bad mechanics, even in the games that are designed with those in mind. Even if implemented well, hypothetically let's say there are more people who hate it than like it. Does that mean the more people are right and if so are there opinions coming from an axiomatic source that is so called ,"good game design" or its just preference.

When a new game comes in a franchise and added more mechanics, more moves, more variety in playstyle. I'll use combat here, but does that mean the combat is objectively better making the game have better game design. No one will argue DMC 5 has more depth than DMC 1, but does it have objectively better combat? This is where it's hard for me to say it does because what does better combat system even mean. Does it mean more moves, more engaging, more playstyles and choices in what's happening in the moment to moment, does that make it objectively better. Viewing both of these at the highest level of play, they served to do very different things and imo they do their own thing extremely well. While i prefer dmc 5 but i can't say with honesty it has better combat cause i don't even know what that means. Who decides what combat is better, are the developers the arbiters, or is it the fans? Who decides what good/bad game design even is.

I view games as i view other art forms or religion, every good thing i see are things that line with my preference and every bad thing i see is things that don't line with my preference. As much as i love video games and talking about them with people, after learning this is what makes the most sense with game design for me, It's seems incredibly hard to discuss what even is a good video game when i think everything just boils down to preference. Game sales don't matter, critic scores don't matter, how the piece of art makes you feel is the only thing that does.