Family sedan

The main reason why I get into playing games is for relaxation purposes, so it definitely helps me to calm down, ease off pressure and make me feel better as well happier. 

I like that he's active. Stir the stew a bit to get that flavor distributed. This aint ol papa's recipe. 

It's Donkey Kong Country. It comes with single player and multi player mode where there are 40 levels to which you must complete to recover the King's banana hoard that's been stolen. 

I believe it's better a video game should come with both single player and Multi player mode in order to offer flexibility to the players. 

It comes down to the fact that different games need you to be able to do different things, In racing sims you want to use your natural sense of speed and distance in order to know how far the apex of a corner is. This is only possible with an almost 'true' FOV, i.e., using the screen as a window to the game world.
In an FPS all this doesn't matter. If you play CS:GO, it's not important whether that crate is 3m in front of you or 5m. But what you need to be able to do is identify targets quickly and have a big FOV so your screen covers as much space in front of you as possible. In the olden days, Quake 3 pros played with FOV settings of 120+.

Seriously, it constricts the game view in such a way it's not going to be quite entertaining and enjoyable anymore which is not supposed to be so. 

Seriously, the auto save feature is definitely the best because you absolutely have nothing to do with trying to save on your own as the job has automatically been done for you. 

That's why I praise the games which have autosave feature. Most of the games these days have auto save option. Recently I have played shadow of The Tomb Raider, which automatically saves the game when you reach certain checkpoints. 
Otherwise, I too often forget to save Games. And at later stage I have to regret for that. 😆

Back in the late '90's some PlayStation games with two player split screen would tick me off because I thought my FOV was too narrow.

And I like the point about why make it stricter if some parents will ignore the rating system anyway?

not only that, but singleplayer matters for me too!

Well, it's simply because it sucks big time to have a game that's offers only Multiplayer playing feature. 

As almost everyone else here said, Multiplayer only games are a no no

Exclusive to the epic game store, or consoles. 
The first one is out of principle.
The second one is because I might have a ps, but I hate playing games on console due to the controller. So except for a very few select games I don't buy games for playstation.
  Multiplayer only games
Games that have no proper single player campaign can F right off.
  The inclusion of current day political debates in the game
No real world politics should ever be a central theme in a game, unless it is historical with no ambiguity around them.
  Games by Developers / creators who have a history of degrading / looking down on the gaming community
Examples: Patrick Soderlund, Adrian Chimleraz, Cliff Blezinsky...

 

If it's made by EA, Activision or any other company in this category of money sucking companies, is a deal breaker most times just because no matter how crappy the game is, they always charge full price for them.

Online only. That is the number one deal breaker for me. Strictly first person only would be in second place, depending on the game. For example I love Hexen, and it's a first person game. For those unfamiliar with it, make Doom a medieval game and you have Hexen. But for games like RDR2 and Skyrim, if they were first person only, I never would have gotten into RDR2, and would have never given Skyrim so many (failed) chances to draw me in. The biggest thing that turned me off from Skyrim is the controls. no matter how I change them they are just clunky and unusable for me.

Strictly multiplayer or online only

I just prefer genuine endings, as long as the ending feels natural with the flow I don't mind. Forceful sad and forceful happy is often easy to notice as well. 

It seems to me that most games have at best a bitter or ambiguous ending.
What do you prefer?
 
I much prefer happy ends, I don't like tragic ends to stories. I'm not for foreshadowing either. When a game ends every plot point should be tied up nicely with no open ends and unfinished businesses remaining. If the game was great, people will want a sequel anyway, you don't need to leave breadcrumbs for that.

Man, how does it happen? My eyes are rolling around and head spinning looking for something; just gimme something. Flopping around here and there; Where's my gold. Gimme my gems. They are mine. I want them red rubies, green emeralds, clear diamonds, sunny gold. Gimme that straight up cold silver and drench me in it. Metals minerals. Let my hands feel it. That is my destiny. I don't care what you think. It's all mine. The map says the treasure was here. I see something shiny. There has to be something under that tree. In the cave? On the highest mountain? That is the closest I can get to God. Billions of years to produce fine specimens. I want it all. I will kill for it all. Morph me into a dragon so I can bathe in these Earth treasures. Please. I won't kill. I'll just slumber and feel it's energy within me. It's all I need. 

It's true - some board games are very difficult to play using a controller especially when you need precision. As a matter of fact, most FPS are harder to play using a controller than using a mouse and keyboard.

You are into a room with specific goal and you can open explore the room, so under limitations you have freedom too. Think of GTA games for example. 

I enjoy playing NHL on easy mode because I like seeing how many points I can score over the opposing team. Feels great when you win a hockey game 20-0 😝. Also, playing on hard mode makes it almost impossible for me to win haha... losing is never fun xD

It's more like a horror genre where Alice is the character that does the onslaught. It's so fun and thrilling.