Games “back in the day” weren’t made with algorithms designed to mess with your psychology to keep you playing, even if you hate the game. They didn’t design the games into evergrinds that only a few sweaty types and professionals can genuinely enjoy either. Old games had a logical, satisfying end where you would put them down afterwards.
Well, many old games were. Arcade games specifically were often designed to get coins from players, with extreme difficulty encouraging grinds and sweaty playthroughs to achieve mastery.
If anything, multiplayer and GaaS brought us back there.
Many new games, especially single player games, are still designed with “fun” in mind, or with even loftier goals and themes, many without exploitative gameplay loops, yet still with distinct, pleasing graphics, art styles, and polished gameplay.
This is the direction the big companies are looking to move in. This is the direction Microsoft is banking on, too. Even if you like one service more, the end result may be the same. It’s a matter of time before we see subscription exclusives.
GamePass subscribers are the pre-orderers and mtx consumers of yesteryear, normalizing the industry to practices harmful to general consumers.
The idea there are zero well designed AAA games is such a narrow outlook.
Indie has its place, but there are experiences that cannot be replicated in the indie sphere at the moment. Consolidation in the AAA space will not make the medium better.
Did they, though? I think exclusives predate Sony and even the PS1. They’ve been a part of the console space since basically the inception of the medium. Xbox itself launched with an exclusive “killer app” in Halo. Timed third party exclusivity and exclusive Map Packs were very popular with the 360 when it was on top in the seventh generation as well.
I don’t think Sony has ever made an acquisition of the same scope as Zenimax either in price or in how much of the market was fenced off from a studio they previously had access to. That’s not even going into the Activision deal.
Maybe we can now point to Bungie, but that was still half the price. Most of Sony’s acquisitions over its time were studios that were already de facto developing exclusively for their consoles. Even Insomniac. If you look at their history, Sunset Overdrive is a lone anomaly.
Exclusives suck, but I don’t see them going away as long as consoles and capitalism exist. You’re basically throwing shade at Sony for daring to fund the development of critically and commercially acclaimed games that gave them the reputation of having a quality first party library. Starfield on the other hand was developed as cross platform title until Microsoft paid 7.5 billion to acquire a major publisher. Wasn’t this confirmed this week by the document leaks?
Few complain when Halo is released exclusively because no one is being surprised that those games are now exclusive titles. That isn’t the case with the new Bethesda deal.
Microsoft would develop their existing first party studios and improve the quality of their first party titles, invest in third parties that they already had exclusive relationships with, or invest in up and coming studios?
Had Bethesda published a Microsoft exclusive since Morrowind?
Now, it’s kind of the point. But I don’t know if it was my mouse or what but I found the controls to be too poorly implemented with how difficult of a game it already is. Sometimes, the hammer would basically glitch out or would apply way more pressure relative to my movements and fling me back down to the button. It served as an element of frustration that I think goes against the design goals. I’ve seen speed runs that make me think it could have been my hardware, but I’ll never know. Actually, remembering, I think I switched to a different mouse eventually that was better but still not great.
I also just didn’t really ever buy into the premise. I know it’s an ode to B games, but the piling of random assets is not what I would consider good design even if they serve the purpose of what the game is going for. There are plenty of difficult video games that are about perseverance but still put in the effort in level design, mechanics, controls, etc.
Tbh, I found it an interesting enough experiment with failed execution. I don’t understand people who hold it up as one of the better “art” games in the medium.
I typically patient game nowadays. I still have games from two years ago to get to and I’m currently slowly playing through Baldur’s Gate 1 so I probably wasn’t going to Day 1 this anyway.
But I thought about it.
Tbh, while I don’t really care for the big name review sites, there’s enough mixed reviews on the storytelling, procedural generation, and RPG systems, that I think I’m going to keep this in my wishlist for a while.
Might look at it closer later in the year and when I have more free time or just wait for the inevitable GOTY edition
Ace Combat and Kojima games do get criticism for their plots, though.
If you include a narrative, it’s fair game.
Would y’all be lenient on mediocre mechanics of a “cinematic, narrative” game if it had a great story because “you know what you’re getting into”? From my experience, most of a certain type of gamer wouldn’t be.
85 average and 8/10 scores are hardly big knocks, either.