I’m having just as much or even more fun than I had 30 years ago.
I do however refrain from buying any overhyped AAA game when it comes out and wait maybe a year or two until people’s reviews on it are out.
Then under those conditions I can avoid heavilly monetised games like the plague: not just microtransaction crap but also things with Season Passes and even games with lots of DLCs as lots of those are usually a bad sign.
In the last few years I also just avoid MMORPGs because I don’t really want to have responsability towards other people (such as guild members to go on scheduled raids) and prefer setups were I can do things when I feel like it and can do it.
Basically give yourself time to find out from others how the game really is, then avoid anything with even the slightest wiff of having a business model that gains from people spending a significant proportion of their life in the game as those tend to have lots of grindy stuff, scheduled events that you “cannot miss” and lots and lots of disguised (and not so disguised) sales push - for the whole work for a living whilst being constantly under pressure from sales pushes trying to sell you useless shit, there’s already Real Life.
Funnily enough, I end up mainly playing Indie games and older AAA games and I do mean it when I say I have as much or even more fun as I ever did gaming - it probably helps that I’ve long transcended being dazzled by whatever passes for hyper-realistic graphics at the tech level of that time (I’m from the days of Pacman) and care way more about gameplay since that’s were the fun is and I play games for fun, not for artistic appreciation.
Pretty much yeah, there is a reason why Madden and FIFA (formerly) were top sellers every year with extremely minimal changes. It’s a safe game that sold like crazy. Same with Call of Duty. If we want something fresh, indie games for the most part try not to fall into the saturated market and stand out above their peers
Dude is spot on with Starfield. I’ve played the shit out of so many Bethesda games. I was SO excited for Starfield. But I just didn’t have the time. I didn’t even get to that planet where he does the quests, I just quit and I’m afraid that if I pick it up I’ll accomplish nothing in the little time I have.
I always considered myself a dedicated gamer, like gaming was my sole hobby. Lately the last game I really could get fully into was stardew valley because I could fit in a single “day” or two in my schedule and finish on a hype every time.
Last RPG I played I had to make note of what was happening because by the time I picked up the game again I forgot what was happening.
Sure, if you don’t have time to binge play anymore it’s harder to get into genres that depend on following a narrative for tens of hours. Have you tried going back to Daggerfall or Morrowind? Because those weren’t bite-sized then, either, you just had five hours after school to sit down and play.
Which is fine. It’s perfectly acceptable to say that you no longer have time or energy to get into long-winded stuff and prefer faster paced games. I agree. But that’s not because modern games are poorly designed.
Hell, these days I can boot up a PS5 and be right where I left off in 20 seconds. When I was a kid loading up a game was a 15 minute proposition before the damn thing even rendered anything on-screen.
(Preface - I’ve not yet picked up Starfield, though I have hundreds [far too many] hours in other Bethesda games; Cyberpunk 2.0, though, has thoroughly captured my attention.)
I hear what you’re saying, but the YouTube commenter apparently loves Elden Ring, which I found to be an awful game and painful to play. Man, I love complex, deeply explorable games, but I played Elden Ring for 8 hours and never felt like I was making an inch of pleasurable progress. The commenter complains about games being a chore, but what about games like Elden Ring that aren’t chores, but are literal punishment?
I guess I had trouble accepting the commenter’s point of view after he rah-rah’d for Elden Ring…
The point of elden ring and its siblings is the feeling of earned progress through effort and skill. You learn how to kill a boss slowly, and you fight and grapple for every level to build that strength. You do a similar thing with the environment.
The complaint of chores is one of tedium, not challenge. You dont learn to complete the chore list, you just fill time with it.
If you dont enjoy the challenge souls games offer you, its not your type of fun. But I feel the same way about car games, doesnt mean theres fault in the racing genre.
You’ve just described a chore you enjoy vs a chore you don’t. If you enjoy it, great, it’s not a chore for you! If you don’t enjoy it, it’s a boring tedious chore.
I found Elden Ring to be aggressively, intentionally designed to waste my time. At no point did I feel any sense of enjoyment. I found Starfield to be a bit lacking in depth and variety but otherwise OK-ish.
Elden Ring really scratches that exploratory game itch for me. Every meter felt worth visiting. You never really know what awaits in the next corner. If you’re lucky it might be the entrance to a completely unique area, all with its own set of enemies and bosses. It’s a game that dares to put an optional secret area behind a secret area behind another secret area.
Even on second play through I was caught off guard by some new surprises.
Compare it to Tears of the Kingdom for example. Wherever you go, you will find the same sets of enemies and often even the same environmental assets. After you’ve visited a few of the sky archipelago islands there’s few other surprises to see there. Encountering the first Flux Construct is a fun challenge, but after the 20th one it has turned into a mindless chore.
This is what got me to stop playing genshin impact. I might play it again if they ever complete the story and grasscutter catches up on the quests though.
If a game even remotely looks like a chore, I’m passing. I don’t have time to just mosey around limitless planets, mining for resources to build a gun or some shit.
Unless you let me swing around like fuckin Spider-man. Nothing’s a chore when you get to swing from chore to chore like fuckin Spider-man. Fuckin cool ass bitch with the pendulums and zipping and swinging and shit. Fuckin love Spider-man.
Spider-man games are one of my favourite. I really liked the recent one and the 1.5 featuring miles. I’ve lost count of how many I have blown days on. Prototype, hulk, etc., were decent but I generally prefer the spider-man games with spider man in them. That said my favourite spider-man game is gravity rush. I included the ‘-’ in spider-man because he told me to in at least one of the games.
Shit I’m so so so sorry when I wrote that I thought it was obvious I was making a joke about Spider-man being an entitled millennial but now, looking back that obviously was not clear. That’s 100% my bad!!!
Did you remember to collect all the backpacks around New York and take pictures of all the landmarks though? Plus, you gotta beat all those Screwball challenges if you want all the suits.
In a game where running is fun, running all over the place won’t feel like a chore. Well, only if you don’t use the metro. Once you start fast travelling it begins losing appeal.
If you want to be a completionist, you can’t blame the game. Spider-man is perfectly playable without finding every single collectible and completing every challenge.
Modern gaming? I’m playing war thunder since 2016 (with interruptions) and it feels like a chore since 7 years. Now as I think of it, the chores began for me back in the 90s in a point and click adventure on a 286 PC.
I’ve always thought that a lot of DLC and preorder bonuses are basically an admission that you won’t enjoy all of the game, you’ll just feel obligated to get through it. Like, if part of the game is earning coins, then that should be enjoyable, right? It’s part of the game, and games should be fun, so you should want to do that. So the fact that they let you pay more money to skip that aspect of the game really shows that many game mechanics are just not enjoyable anymore. They aren’t even meant to be enjoyable; it’s more profitable to put un-fun game mechanics in.
Imagine if preordering Sonic the Hedgehog 2 allowed you to skip Emerald Hill Zone and Chemical Plant Zone. No one would do that – that’s the content you bought the game for! You wouldn’t pay extra to skip it.
People enjoy different things about games, but I’m with you on that. If I didn’t want to go through the process of leveling up my character and gear, I just wouldn’t play the game. No way am I gonna pay more for the “privilege” of skipping any amount of the game I’m buying.
Holy shit I was just thinking this last night. I picked up Death Stranding Dirt Cheap and I’ve been working through the the Mountain region. And all I kept thinking was this entire thing felt like a chore. Like I just want to progress the damn story. At that point I decided I won’t be wasting my money on games that take 40+ hours to beat.
There’s just not enough time in our lives and so many great games to still play.
Nah, I enjoyed Baldur’s Gate 3, Elden Ring, Tears of the Kingdom, and yes even Starfield enough to not give them up just because rage-bait Youtubers told me to.
Just like I’ll eventually probably pickup Super Mario Bros. Wonder and Spiderman 1 and 2 at some point along with many other AAA games that I think I’ll have fun playing in the near future.
I dont include bg3, elden ring and totk in the AAA category. AAA no longer means high quality and fun, it means made by huge companies with more money than balls. CoD is a AAA game. And its shit. For example.
I dont include bg3, elden ring and totk in the AAA category. AAA no longer means high quality and fun, it means made by huge companies with more money than balls. CoD is a AAA game. And its shit. For example.
In no way is BG3 a AA game. It is firmly in the AAA category. The rough numbers I’ve seen indicate a team of 300+ people working on it, not including all third-parties that were involved.
As of 2022 game publishers and studios that are currently considered to be AA include Devolver Digital, Warhorse Studios, Obsidian Entertainment, Hazelight Studios, and PlatinumGames. Source
Not AAA, not even Obsidian is considered that, and it being AAA is dependent on having a AAA developer.
That’s not really a source, that still just one person’s opinion on what constitutes AA vs AAA. and companies like Platinum Games are really stretching.
Larian is definitely bigger than those companies either way, and if Baldur’s Gate 3 is a AA game, then I guess so is Starfield. The companies are pretty similar in size at this point. And games like Skyrim and Fallout 4 would definitely be AA games as well.
I was simplifying my reasoning because its rant territory.
Essentially, companies like activosion dont take risks, they cater to a mass audience and produce the same games over and over. There hasnt been a unique or good version of cod since mw2 and blackops 2 days. Evidenced by them remaking both mw1 and 2 recently, because they know they have nothing new to offer and cod warzone could have ended the franchise. Since nostalgia sells games as well as popularity they just opted for cashcow remakes preying on players nostalgia and taking advantage of the disillusioned.
They call it AAA but ithe term has become ubiquitous with just popular games made by big profiteering entities like activision.
Its not nonsensical, its just not very well represented by my initial statement.
AAA just refers to production scale/marketing budget. While it can often be conflated with high quality, that’s not what the term refers to. Similarly, Indie does not mean low quality, high quality, or a particular level of risk
Madden, as a famous example, has always been AAA, but has rarely innovated much.
They call it AAA but ithe term has become ubiquitous with just popular games made by big profiteering entities like activision.
The term AAA has always just meant games made by larger developers/publishers to distinguish from games made by smaller ones. That’s really it. Large vs small budget would be another way to think of it.
It’s never implied anything about innovation or risk-taking, or uniqueness or mass-appeal.
AAA games originally meant games with massive budgets that innovated. They gave rise to story driven games with high quality gameplay elements . One of the first AAA games was final fantasy 7.
From wiki
One of the first video games to be produced at a blockbuster or AAA scale was Squaresoft’s Final Fantasy VII (1997),[4] which cost an estimated $40–45 million (inflation adjusted $73–82 million) to develop,[5][6] making it the most expensive video game ever produced up until then, with its unprecedented cinematic CGI production values, movie-like presentation, orchestral music, and innovative blend of gameplay with dynamic cinematic camerawork.[7] Its expensive advertisement campaign was also unprecedented for a video game,[8] with a combined production and marketing budget estimated to be $80–145 million (inflation adjusted $129–234 million as of 2020).[9][6] Its production budget record was later surpassed by Sega AM2’s Shenmue (1999), estimated to have cost $47–70 million (inflation adjusted $73–109 million as of 2020).[10]
As opposed to
At around the period of transition from seventh to eighth generation of consoles, the cost of AAA development was considered by some to be a threat to the stability of the industry.[16] Staffing and costs for eighth generation games increased; at Ubisoft, AAA game development involved 400 to 600 persons for open world games, split across multiple locations and countries.[17] The failure of a single game to meet production costs could lead to the failure of a studio – Radical Entertainment was closed by parent Activision despite selling an estimated one million units on console in a short period after release.[18][unreliable source][19][unreliable source] Triple-A games also began to lose uniqueness and novelty; a common trend were a range of “grey brown” first-person shooters that drew on the popularity of the Medal of Honor and Call of Duty series but did little to advance gameplay improvements.[20][21] Ubisoft game director Alex Hutchinson described the AAA franchise model as potentially harmful, stating he thought it led to either focus group-tested products aimed at maximizing profit, and/or a push towards ever higher graphics fidelity and impact at a cost of depth or gameplay.[22]
The limited risk-taking in the AAA arena and stagnation of new gameplay concepts led to the rise of indie games in the early 2010s, which were seen as more experimental. This also led to the creation of the “AA” market in the industry, larger studios that were not at the scale of AAA developers but had more experience, funding, and other factors to make them distinct from the smaller teams usually associated with indie studios.[21]
So like i said. AAA used to mean high quality but has lost that meaning as time has passed and game companies stopped taking risks.
All those quotes (none of which I could I actually find working references to support, I even have a copy of the “High Score!” book referenced in the article, at least the 2nd edition) are focused on budget and production value. Any expectation of quality is just based around bigger budgets leading to higher expectations.
Other than Assassin’s creed and I have enjoyed pretty much all of the big releases (I might just be fatigued with assassins creed, origins was too long and they just got longer after that).
Pretty much from the dawn of gaming. There was another video posted just the other day about ADOM and how it’s pretty much unplayable unless you’re willing to put endless hours in to learn and memorize all the inscrutable details it makes use of, mostly by dying constantly.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
I’m having just as much or even more fun than I had 30 years ago.
I do however refrain from buying any overhyped AAA game when it comes out and wait maybe a year or two until people’s reviews on it are out.
Then under those conditions I can avoid heavilly monetised games like the plague: not just microtransaction crap but also things with Season Passes and even games with lots of DLCs as lots of those are usually a bad sign.
In the last few years I also just avoid MMORPGs because I don’t really want to have responsability towards other people (such as guild members to go on scheduled raids) and prefer setups were I can do things when I feel like it and can do it.
Basically give yourself time to find out from others how the game really is, then avoid anything with even the slightest wiff of having a business model that gains from people spending a significant proportion of their life in the game as those tend to have lots of grindy stuff, scheduled events that you “cannot miss” and lots and lots of disguised (and not so disguised) sales push - for the whole work for a living whilst being constantly under pressure from sales pushes trying to sell you useless shit, there’s already Real Life.
Funnily enough, I end up mainly playing Indie games and older AAA games and I do mean it when I say I have as much or even more fun as I ever did gaming - it probably helps that I’ve long transcended being dazzled by whatever passes for hyper-realistic graphics at the tech level of that time (I’m from the days of Pacman) and care way more about gameplay since that’s were the fun is and I play games for fun, not for artistic appreciation.
Starfield has too many loading screens to be fun. I have the game on an SSD, but it’s still way too much.
Stop buying exclusively AAA games then. They rarely try anything new and their primary design goals are to get you hooked so you buy more crap.
Pretty much yeah, there is a reason why Madden and FIFA (formerly) were top sellers every year with extremely minimal changes. It’s a safe game that sold like crazy. Same with Call of Duty. If we want something fresh, indie games for the most part try not to fall into the saturated market and stand out above their peers
Dude is spot on with Starfield. I’ve played the shit out of so many Bethesda games. I was SO excited for Starfield. But I just didn’t have the time. I didn’t even get to that planet where he does the quests, I just quit and I’m afraid that if I pick it up I’ll accomplish nothing in the little time I have.
I always considered myself a dedicated gamer, like gaming was my sole hobby. Lately the last game I really could get fully into was stardew valley because I could fit in a single “day” or two in my schedule and finish on a hype every time.
Last RPG I played I had to make note of what was happening because by the time I picked up the game again I forgot what was happening.
That’s a you problem, not a game problem, though.
Sure, if you don’t have time to binge play anymore it’s harder to get into genres that depend on following a narrative for tens of hours. Have you tried going back to Daggerfall or Morrowind? Because those weren’t bite-sized then, either, you just had five hours after school to sit down and play.
Which is fine. It’s perfectly acceptable to say that you no longer have time or energy to get into long-winded stuff and prefer faster paced games. I agree. But that’s not because modern games are poorly designed.
Hell, these days I can boot up a PS5 and be right where I left off in 20 seconds. When I was a kid loading up a game was a 15 minute proposition before the damn thing even rendered anything on-screen.
(Preface - I’ve not yet picked up Starfield, though I have hundreds [far too many] hours in other Bethesda games; Cyberpunk 2.0, though, has thoroughly captured my attention.)
I hear what you’re saying, but the YouTube commenter apparently loves Elden Ring, which I found to be an awful game and painful to play. Man, I love complex, deeply explorable games, but I played Elden Ring for 8 hours and never felt like I was making an inch of pleasurable progress. The commenter complains about games being a chore, but what about games like Elden Ring that aren’t chores, but are literal punishment?
I guess I had trouble accepting the commenter’s point of view after he rah-rah’d for Elden Ring…
The point of elden ring and its siblings is the feeling of earned progress through effort and skill. You learn how to kill a boss slowly, and you fight and grapple for every level to build that strength. You do a similar thing with the environment.
The complaint of chores is one of tedium, not challenge. You dont learn to complete the chore list, you just fill time with it.
If you dont enjoy the challenge souls games offer you, its not your type of fun. But I feel the same way about car games, doesnt mean theres fault in the racing genre.
You’ve just described a chore you enjoy vs a chore you don’t. If you enjoy it, great, it’s not a chore for you! If you don’t enjoy it, it’s a boring tedious chore.
I found Elden Ring to be aggressively, intentionally designed to waste my time. At no point did I feel any sense of enjoyment. I found Starfield to be a bit lacking in depth and variety but otherwise OK-ish.
Elden Ring really scratches that exploratory game itch for me. Every meter felt worth visiting. You never really know what awaits in the next corner. If you’re lucky it might be the entrance to a completely unique area, all with its own set of enemies and bosses. It’s a game that dares to put an optional secret area behind a secret area behind another secret area.
Even on second play through I was caught off guard by some new surprises.
Compare it to Tears of the Kingdom for example. Wherever you go, you will find the same sets of enemies and often even the same environmental assets. After you’ve visited a few of the sky archipelago islands there’s few other surprises to see there. Encountering the first Flux Construct is a fun challenge, but after the 20th one it has turned into a mindless chore.
I tried Elden Ring because the kids were loving it. I gave it about 3 hours and I still didn’t really know what was going on.
Elden Ring gave me the most buyers remorse I’ve ever felt
Elden ring was such a great game for me, I’m really sick of these movies with extra steps kind of game. To each their own I guess.
This is what got me to stop playing genshin impact. I might play it again if they ever complete the story and grasscutter catches up on the quests though.
Truck Simulator players would disagree.
If a game even remotely looks like a chore, I’m passing. I don’t have time to just mosey around limitless planets, mining for resources to build a gun or some shit.
Unless you let me swing around like fuckin Spider-man. Nothing’s a chore when you get to swing from chore to chore like fuckin Spider-man. Fuckin cool ass bitch with the pendulums and zipping and swinging and shit. Fuckin love Spider-man.
Edit: Spider-man
Spider-man games are one of my favourite. I really liked the recent one and the 1.5 featuring miles. I’ve lost count of how many I have blown days on. Prototype, hulk, etc., were decent but I generally prefer the spider-man games with spider man in them. That said my favourite spider-man game is gravity rush. I included the ‘-’ in spider-man because he told me to in at least one of the games.
That’s because that’s how you spell Spider-Man.
I dunno. If anyone knows how to spell Spider-man correctly, it’s probably not some entitled self-righteous millennial
Edit: OH NO I’M SO SORRY I was making a joke, saying that Spider-man is an entitled millennial, not the commenter above
I only know because at least the Peter Parker spider-man frequently tells people how to spell it.
Shit I’m so so so sorry when I wrote that I thought it was obvious I was making a joke about Spider-man being an entitled millennial but now, looking back that obviously was not clear. That’s 100% my bad!!!
Did you remember to collect all the backpacks around New York and take pictures of all the landmarks though? Plus, you gotta beat all those Screwball challenges if you want all the suits.
In a game where running is fun, running all over the place won’t feel like a chore. Well, only if you don’t use the metro. Once you start fast travelling it begins losing appeal.
Yup, and I loved every minute of it. Traversal and combat in that game were so much fun that none of it felt like a chore
If you want to be a completionist, you can’t blame the game. Spider-man is perfectly playable without finding every single collectible and completing every challenge.
Did you just say you love spiderman. That part wasn’t clear…
No, he wants to swing around while fucking Spider-Man. And who doesn’t?
Yes, because 22 years ago nobody thought Animal Crossing felt like a chore.
Hey, don’t mess up with the game that saved the sanity of uncountable people in the pandemic!
Modern gaming? I’m playing war thunder since 2016 (with interruptions) and it feels like a chore since 7 years. Now as I think of it, the chores began for me back in the 90s in a point and click adventure on a 286 PC.
I’ve always thought that a lot of DLC and preorder bonuses are basically an admission that you won’t enjoy all of the game, you’ll just feel obligated to get through it. Like, if part of the game is earning coins, then that should be enjoyable, right? It’s part of the game, and games should be fun, so you should want to do that. So the fact that they let you pay more money to skip that aspect of the game really shows that many game mechanics are just not enjoyable anymore. They aren’t even meant to be enjoyable; it’s more profitable to put un-fun game mechanics in.
Imagine if preordering Sonic the Hedgehog 2 allowed you to skip Emerald Hill Zone and Chemical Plant Zone. No one would do that – that’s the content you bought the game for! You wouldn’t pay extra to skip it.
People enjoy different things about games, but I’m with you on that. If I didn’t want to go through the process of leveling up my character and gear, I just wouldn’t play the game. No way am I gonna pay more for the “privilege” of skipping any amount of the game I’m buying.
Holy shit I was just thinking this last night. I picked up Death Stranding Dirt Cheap and I’ve been working through the the Mountain region. And all I kept thinking was this entire thing felt like a chore. Like I just want to progress the damn story. At that point I decided I won’t be wasting my money on games that take 40+ hours to beat.
There’s just not enough time in our lives and so many great games to still play.
It’s honestly amazing even more games don’t feel like a chore considering how many of them involve playing a character doing their job.
Haha that is a good point
Stop playing AAA games!
Nah, I enjoyed Baldur’s Gate 3, Elden Ring, Tears of the Kingdom, and yes even Starfield enough to not give them up just because rage-bait Youtubers told me to.
Just like I’ll eventually probably pickup Super Mario Bros. Wonder and Spiderman 1 and 2 at some point along with many other AAA games that I think I’ll have fun playing in the near future.
I dont include bg3, elden ring and totk in the AAA category. AAA no longer means high quality and fun, it means made by huge companies with more money than balls. CoD is a AAA game. And its shit. For example.
This line of reasoning is nonsensical.
For what it’s worth BG3 is two AA’s not three AAA.
In no way is BG3 a AA game. It is firmly in the AAA category. The rough numbers I’ve seen indicate a team of 300+ people working on it, not including all third-parties that were involved.
BG3 is a AAA game.
As of 2022 game publishers and studios that are currently considered to be AA include Devolver Digital, Warhorse Studios, Obsidian Entertainment, Hazelight Studios, and PlatinumGames. Source
Not AAA, not even Obsidian is considered that, and it being AAA is dependent on having a AAA developer.
That’s not really a source, that still just one person’s opinion on what constitutes AA vs AAA. and companies like Platinum Games are really stretching.
Larian is definitely bigger than those companies either way, and if Baldur’s Gate 3 is a AA game, then I guess so is Starfield. The companies are pretty similar in size at this point. And games like Skyrim and Fallout 4 would definitely be AA games as well.
I was simplifying my reasoning because its rant territory.
Essentially, companies like activosion dont take risks, they cater to a mass audience and produce the same games over and over. There hasnt been a unique or good version of cod since mw2 and blackops 2 days. Evidenced by them remaking both mw1 and 2 recently, because they know they have nothing new to offer and cod warzone could have ended the franchise. Since nostalgia sells games as well as popularity they just opted for cashcow remakes preying on players nostalgia and taking advantage of the disillusioned.
They call it AAA but ithe term has become ubiquitous with just popular games made by big profiteering entities like activision.
Its not nonsensical, its just not very well represented by my initial statement.
AAA just refers to production scale/marketing budget. While it can often be conflated with high quality, that’s not what the term refers to. Similarly, Indie does not mean low quality, high quality, or a particular level of risk
Madden, as a famous example, has always been AAA, but has rarely innovated much.
I refer you to my other response.
https://lemmy.world/comment/5213678
Fair play. I’ll absolutely concede that your position makes sense. It’s not quite how I envision it, nor understand it, but that’s fine lol
The term AAA has always just meant games made by larger developers/publishers to distinguish from games made by smaller ones. That’s really it. Large vs small budget would be another way to think of it.
It’s never implied anything about innovation or risk-taking, or uniqueness or mass-appeal.
AAA games originally meant games with massive budgets that innovated. They gave rise to story driven games with high quality gameplay elements . One of the first AAA games was final fantasy 7.
From wiki
As opposed to
So like i said. AAA used to mean high quality but has lost that meaning as time has passed and game companies stopped taking risks.
All those quotes (none of which I could I actually find working references to support, I even have a copy of the “High Score!” book referenced in the article, at least the 2nd edition) are focused on budget and production value. Any expectation of quality is just based around bigger budgets leading to higher expectations.
Other than Assassin’s creed and I have enjoyed pretty much all of the big releases (I might just be fatigued with assassins creed, origins was too long and they just got longer after that).
So many of the responses to this (and the original video) boil down to “me like good games that I like, no like bad games I don’t like”.
I promise there were boring, repetitive, grindy games all through gaming history. This isn’t a “modern gaming” thing.
MMO games have been doing this shit since WOW became a thing
I mean I remember grinding for loot and levels in FF1.
If you think the WOW grind is bad, you should’ve seen Everquest or Ultima Online.
Pretty much from the dawn of gaming. There was another video posted just the other day about ADOM and how it’s pretty much unplayable unless you’re willing to put endless hours in to learn and memorize all the inscrutable details it makes use of, mostly by dying constantly.
There are definitely games that are designed to pull as much money from the player as possible, just avoid them. Don’t buy them, don’t play them.
I feel this way too, I’m currently doing all the riddles in Batman Arkham Knight, and although some are fun, most of them are boring.
I think most current games don’t even consider the fun factor anymore 😆
Remember when we could wreck the game with cheats like in GTA San Andreas or alike?
I used to just mess around with a buddy in the city doing whatever we wanted in the most uncomfortable form of local multiplayer that the PS2 offered.