I get that they’re successful, and it’d be fantastic if this became the trend. But Battlefield and Call of Duty sell consistently with much less development effort and a lot lower risk of flopping.
It looks like Call of Duty is typically 3 year development cycles, and one took only 1.5 years. Baldur’s Gate took 6 years.
It’s gotten harder to find games that don’t feel repetitive or similar to other games I’ve played. I think that’s part of the joy of gaming for kids - it’s all new experiences.
I find myself appreciating unique indie games now, especially if they don’t try to consume all my time. I don’t get much out of a 100hr open world game where I have to collect 500 keys since I already did that in so many other games.
Shadow Gambit: The Cursed Crew - I usually hate tactical strategy games, but this one’s good. The quicksave/reload feature makes it pretty fun to experiment and goof around.
Dead Cells (I’m behind)
Grounded
Tears of the Kingdom
Mediocre
Dredge - It was a unique experience, but I never really understood the fear/consequences despite fully finishing it.
Armored Core 6 - The balance in this series always ruins them, even though I try to love them every time. Being forced into a specific build takes the fun out of customization.
Did Remnant 2 feel more unique than Remnant 1? I tried the 1st and fell off in the 2nd world because it all felt too similar with a handful of enemies and procedural chunks. Reluctant to try the 2nd if it’s got the same lack of variety.
How did Remnant 2 compare to Remnant 1 for you if you played both? I started Remnant 1 just before the 2nd release, and I really liked the concept but everything felt too generic and started to get old really quickly. I think the biggest issue was the procedural generation made everything too similar. The worlds all felt the same with only a few enemy types.