Mostly nay. I am not against open-world in premise, but most open-world games do it poorly. I think that a lot of studios make their games open world because these types of games are popular, but don’t give a thought to what that means for their specific game. They want their worlds to seem expansive and think this is an easy solution but it isn’t.
If you make an open-world game, it needs at the very least two things: a compelling method of traversal (mechanics of interacting with that open world), and thoughtful, intentional design (not just large stretches of trees and rocks between towns). I think Breath of the Wild is a paragon of good open-world design.
An adventure puzzle/platformer for the Game Boy. The mechanics are fun, and has you transforming between a human, frog, and snake to get through various areas. I’m about an hour in and the puzzles are fairly simple, but the charming writing and art design carry the game for me. I’d recommend it if you’re looking for something somewhat casual. I have laughed out loud a few times while playing it.
If you want to check it out, you’ll need to run it on an emulator.
The game is a Japan-only release, but there’s an English fan patch you can find on here
You’ll need the base ROM for the game, which you can find here
Once you download both of those, use this to mash them together and you’re good to go.
Indy studios can be just as bad as major studios. I didn’t mean to suggest that a smaller studio is definitely better. Even small studios can be run by people trying to extract as much as possible with little regard for employees. Even small studios run by well-intentioned people can do crummy things just to stay profitable (again, capitalism ruins everything). Ultimately, I think people should look into the studios they support, how they are run, and their philosophies. Maybe that is asking too much, haha.
Are games “destroyed”?: There will always be people making cool games in the same way that people will always want to make art. If you look at the releases from the largest studios that get the most public attention, maybe you could chart a downward trajectory in quality with some exceptions. In general capitalism kinda ruins everything, including the arts. When profit incentives are prioritized over all else, it’s not great for the outcomes. As the games industry continues to mature, there will continue to be cyclical massive layoffs, less investments in innovation, and more reliable “safe” bets that often results in bland content. Again, even within such a system, independent and smaller developers will always be making good stuff. The more the community embraces and supports independent development, eschewing AAA titles, the better the health of the art from, IMO.
Are there lots of positive reviews for bad games?: Certainly. I think this is more a symptom of the games industry maturing as a capitalist enterprise than a cause of bad games. Many review sites have a business/engagement model that requires they release reviews as quickly as possible, and so depend on access to advance review copies. Big budget studios aren’t going to provide early review copies to sites that might give them bad reviews when there are plenty of sites who basically guarantee that they won’t.
I remember playing this back in the day. I just replayed it, and even though I knew exactly where it was going to pop up, it still startled the s*** out of me, lol.
Adding one I don’t see mentioned yet, this is for the GBA:
Mega Man Battle Network - Unique and fun battle system: it’s part deck-builder, part action rpg. The world and exploration are fun, with varied dungeon design. The series is quite long and expands into the DS, but the first 2 are my favorites.