I burned myself out of many a game as a kid attempting (and usually succeeding at) 100% them, so I learned my lesson. Nowadays I just play for fun and maybe go after the platinum if I liked the game enough. My time has value and I’m not going to squander it to “look at the minimap, go to waypoint/marked location, collect random collectible, rinse and repeat for 10-15 hours”, nor am I spending dozens of hours grinding some random activity.
For example, I did almost 100% all Yakuza Kiwami. Did all side quests and enjoyed most of the random activities! Iirc those I had most trouble with were karaoke and billiards, but I still had tons of fun learning them and gradually getting better at them. But fuck me I’m NOT going to grind the coliseum for hours just to buy random weapons that I don’t need but are arbitrarily required for the 100% completion.
I’ve also learned not to rush it. I frequently replay games that I like, so if I miss an achievement, that’s fine. Maybe in five years I’ll pick the game up again and grab the random achievement I missed the first time around. There’s no need to sweat it, no need to read guides before/while playing the game and potentially spoiling me some major story events, and no need to immediately replay the game just to reach that random achievement.
That being said, the game I had the most fun with was CrossCode. Movement is fluid, combat is snappy, story and characters are fun and puzzles are actually challenging. It’s the most charming experience I’ve ever had playing a game, and it’s why it immediately jumped straight into my top favourite games ever. There is technically a “completionist list” within the game with some abdurd and missable requests, but it’s not required to 100% the game and it’s basically just a pile of challenges that you can tackle on if you feel like it. If you don’t, you can just play the story, do the side quests and collect all the treasures, which is a lot of fun. The platinum only requires you to beat the story iirc, so you don’t even need to do any of that; I did it because I liked the game and wanted to do it. Twice! I bought the game on PC and console and 100% it both times.
Most other games that I enjoy completing are platformers/collect-a-thons, such as Spyro, Crash (except Crash 1, never managed to finish it, but had tons of fun nevertheless), Ori, Celeste, PS1 Oddworld games, etc… and metroidvanias, if they are not overly long (basically every one I’ve played except for Hollow Knight).
The longest run I had was Final Fantasy XIII. I liked the game so much that I kept going back to it over the years, slowly chipping at the side content and grinding my way to max level. I got the platinum almost ten years after starting my save file, and I wouldn’t have enjoyed it nearly as much if I attempted to rush it all in one sitting.
If I remember correctly to 100% Mario Odyssey you need 999 moons. The game gives you 850 or so normal/good/fun moons, but the last 150 or so you have to buy with coins. For me this meant grinding a flower challenge in Bowsers Castle ~20 times in a row.
I did it, but that part wasn’t fun.
The rest of the game is perfect, but that part would keep me from 100 percenting the game again.
Two games I have platinumed on PS4 that I still go back and play are Subnautica and Kerbal Space Program. Not sure if you mean 100% as in like scan and collect every item, or get all the trophies, cause I don’t think I’ve ever 100% a game in that way.
I had a ton of fun 100%ing Super Mario Odyssey. There’s a big amount of post-game content and a good amount of variety in exploring the different levels. Some of the moons need a guide though since they can be reallt vague.
I felt differently, so many of those stars and collectibles are uninspired filler. Trying to 100% it led to me significantly disliking it. They could have cut so much and it’d be a much tighter experience.
If they had added fast travel, it would have been a really solid game (to me, at least). The excruciatingly-long driving sessions were interminable, and it was this that made me abandon the game in the end, even though I was already about 2/3 of the way through it. The characters, acting and story were really good.
It’s quite repetitive, but no more than any other middling open world game. I happen to enjoy stealthily murdering people with a giant combat knife, so the repetition didn’t bother me. The constant criss-crossing around the map to go to/from objectives bothered me a lot. 90% of the checkpoints in each quest could have been a phone call.
I wonder if there’s a mod that lets you teleport to map markers 🤔 If so, I would play the game again.
I’ve played both. Quality of life is way better in the remake (who thought Reload should be bound to L?), and IIRC you can adjust the driving physics so you can decide whether you want a realistic or more arcade experience.
In either event, good luck with the race car missions
Yep, big budget games from megacorporations are usually terrible because their purpose is to make money, not to be a great game that people love. Even when there’s a team of dedicated devs that genuinely want to make something great, they have to fight hard for it in many companies, often losing their vision to their employer’s drive to make money.
This problem would likely be solved if we simply implemented a new economic system in the USA revolving around employee ownership of companies. Having stockholders is what really kills passion and innovation at big companies. The only focus is to please the stockholders drive the stock value up, return on investment, stuff like that. There is zero incentive for these big companies to give anything back to the developers, so there’s also zero loyalty. Why would these developers put their heart and soul into something That requires them to work 60 hours a week, and provides almost nothing in return to them? That’s what I’m hoping to see soon, gaming studios that are for profit, with all profits being used to cover salary of the hard workers
Maybe, but only if you made it mandatory for all companies. And how would you decide how many shares someone in particular owns without stifiling creation of companies? The person who created the company in the first place will be taking on more responsibilty, and should have more incentive to stick around if the health and growth of the company depends on them.
Even your indie LLC has stockholders, as every corporation in existence has stock created at inception. Owener ship of that private stock can be one person, multiple people, or all employees as mentioned. I’ve participated in private companies with all three of these. In private companies you can also have profit bonuses given to all employees regardless of holding stock or not (I was an employee at such a company and they did very well - so well they ended up being sold to a public company at an extremely high EBITA multiple)
This can exist even in public company structures, like WestJet, where all employees were shareholders (No longer the case as of 2019, as the company was sold and taken private)
Without enforcing employee ownership people are just going to people, and when they are anonymous and can easily buy and sell shares without care about the long term or how it affects others that’s where the problem comes in. The “I got mine” mentality.
Not sure I have a point, other then its not that simple.
bin.pol.social
Ważne