Modern Gaming feels like a chore compared to older games. It isn't just nostalgia. Most games are designed to waste your time for maximum player engagement. ...
So much on point. Gaming is about content these days, so stretch it out.
How many got annoyed with Diablo IV nerfs which Activision adopt on every game they release. Suck people in then nerf it to make you spend more time doing the same thing over again. I didn’t invest time or money into this, and I have to admit I felt very smug when I read about them doing this.
Gaming should be about entertainment, today’s triple A efforts just aren’t.
Somebody hasn’t gone back to play mainstream games on the PS2 era recently, when large developers had a fraction of the money and any game below 30 hours was ruthlessly slammed online for being “too short” and “not good value”.
I swear, people use the term “triple-A” just to refer to bits of gaming they don’t like, regardless of who made them or for how much money. The term is meaningless by now.
I have never played any PS2 games. Maybe that is the problem. What was acceptable for a console has become the norm now on a PC. But, if you are happy with the bloatware that games have become then good for you. I will not be supporting them with my cash.
No one’s saying you have to pay for games you don’t like. They’re saying you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about because grindy games have been a popular mainstay of the medium since its inception.
There have always been grindy games. BUT there has always been other options for the more popular non grindy games. Now we see a prevalence of the grindy games, 4and a lack of content in the other area. This is due to cost. It is cheaper to hype up a game with advertising than it is to add content. You clearly don’t even realise you are being conned, clearly.
You’re openly saying you didn’t play older games. You don’t get to say what something has become when you’re not familiar with the originating form. Games ALWAYS had “bloatware”. Console and PC. They were always designed to be padded and stretched out.
Then you either expressed it confusingly or you aren’t understanding my reply. Because it sure sounded like you were saying modern PC game design tropes were console-specific back in the early 2000s and that’s why you don’t remember grindy games existing back then.
I feel like the word content itself is completely wrongheaded. How much “content” does Tetris have? What would more content in a game like that even be?
So much on point. Gaming is about content these days, so stretch it out.
How many got annoyed with Diablo IV nerfs which Activision adopt on every game they release. Suck people in then nerf it to make you spend more time doing the same thing over again. I didn’t invest time or money into this, and I have to admit I felt very smug when I read about them doing this.
Gaming should be about entertainment, today’s triple A efforts just aren’t.
Yeeeeah. No padding in old games. None at all.
Somebody hasn’t gone back to play mainstream games on the PS2 era recently, when large developers had a fraction of the money and any game below 30 hours was ruthlessly slammed online for being “too short” and “not good value”.
I swear, people use the term “triple-A” just to refer to bits of gaming they don’t like, regardless of who made them or for how much money. The term is meaningless by now.
I have never played any PS2 games. Maybe that is the problem. What was acceptable for a console has become the norm now on a PC. But, if you are happy with the bloatware that games have become then good for you. I will not be supporting them with my cash.
No one’s saying you have to pay for games you don’t like. They’re saying you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about because grindy games have been a popular mainstay of the medium since its inception.
Did you even bother to read what I said?
There have always been grindy games. BUT there has always been other options for the more popular non grindy games. Now we see a prevalence of the grindy games, 4and a lack of content in the other area. This is due to cost. It is cheaper to hype up a game with advertising than it is to add content. You clearly don’t even realise you are being conned, clearly.
You’re openly saying you didn’t play older games. You don’t get to say what something has become when you’re not familiar with the originating form. Games ALWAYS had “bloatware”. Console and PC. They were always designed to be padded and stretched out.
You are talking to someone who enduring the tape decks during the commodore era. The grind then was just getting the game to run.
Oh, like PC games in 2001 weren’t just like that as well. This isn’t a platform thing, this is a development cost vs budget vs technology interplay.
So yeah, PC games were just like that, too, except back then the console ports were much, much worse than they are now, so that part also sucked.
You have just reiterated what I have just said.
Then you either expressed it confusingly or you aren’t understanding my reply. Because it sure sounded like you were saying modern PC game design tropes were console-specific back in the early 2000s and that’s why you don’t remember grindy games existing back then.
And then sell a pass to speed up your progress. It’s a terrible gaming model. It’s apparently a great business model though.
I feel like the word content itself is completely wrongheaded. How much “content” does Tetris have? What would more content in a game like that even be?