Yeah, there is a huge gap between being forced to do what you need to do because the whole thing is on rails and not being given even a hint of what to do. So many games can’t find a spot in between the two extremes.
Not being able to find things isn’t finding my own way, it is just frustrating because I probably walked right past it and didn’t happen to look at it the right way to get the interact option. I need strong hints or even the choice to be told where to go or I get frustrated and quit games.
Depends on the game. Many games let you create a custom character and the character is defined by their actions.
Some games have zero character to the character you control.
Some are story based with strong characters where it isn’t about the player, sure, but those are less common than the ones that allow the player to either self insert or play a one dimensional archetype character.
Street Fighter II for getting me into fighting games. While I don’t play that version anymore it is a favorite because of how much I did play it and later fighting games.
Valheim - hundreds of hours of enjoyment from the first moment I was dropped into the world by a giant crow. So much fun time with friends, building stuff, and just exploring. Such a well done game with fantastic lighting, sound, and things to do. Only long tine gripe is fighting on slopes!
Helldivers 2 - yeah, another more recent game but it is also just the exact thing I am looking for in a mutiplayer game with friends. Nearly everything is viable in most difficulties, the game has mechanics for accidental team kills, the setting evolves, but in a way that encourages participation in scheduled events without forcing it, and the devs have listened when the player base pushes back on changes that don’t mesh with the tone of the game.
Enjoyed a lot of other games too, but those are ones that hit specific things that I love and enjoyable to replay over and over and over and over…
“This thing we did because some whiny group was wasting our time is costing us more time from the complaints.” is a business reason to reverse a decision.
Wanting closure is a preference and does not apply to all games. Counter Strike 2 doesn’t have a story and there is zero closure for example.
The industry trying to force games into a live service model when they shouldn’t be is a problem, sure. There are a few games where the model actually is a benefit though, like Helldivers 2. Other than wrapping up things somehow while winding down the game there isn’t an opportunity for closure while an endless war is going on. The setting itself is why closure isn’t on the table.
So I agree with the overall idea as it applies to games in general, but it isn’t some universal truth.
They paid for their expertise, even offering a bonus that was clearly less than whatever their projected profit would be, and then tried to squander it because they didn’t listen to their expertise.
Publishers in all kinds of industries are risk adverse to the point of not trusting whoever they made deals with to follow through. This is totally on brand for publishers!
One developer at a separate company who played Subnautica 2 and requested anonymity because they signed a non-disclosure agreement told Bloomberg they enjoyed the game and that it “seemed way more robust” than other titles in early access.
Yeah, this is clearly the publisher trying to get out of paying the full bonus.