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. ...
First off the idea that “other people share this opinion” is some form of validation of said opinion is…less than persuasive. “The earth is flat and you can find lots of people online saying the same thing” is an example of why you can’t just rest on other people agreeing with you as being the primary support of your positions. And it’s one of the first things brought up in the video so clearly this person feels it’s important to bring up.
Secondly the idea that older games respected your time or weren’t grindy is ridiculous. From core MMO designs, to JRPGs there are plenty of examples of old games that waste your time in some way or another.
It also sounds like he is saying that all games need to be simple games like Tetris. No story/cutscenes and no complicated game design that someone had to spend time learning. That’s certainly an opinion, but I don’t agree that game developers should only make games that target one specific person’s taste.
Opinion arguments, like “gaming feels like a chore” require different support from fact arguments like, “the world is flat.” You absolutely can not prove the world is flat, gravity works, or birds are real with an opinion poll, but a poll will support whether newer games are less fun or Coke is better than Pepsi.
IMO, the best argument against the video is that he’s focused on old games that he still plays - he’s comparing the best of old games with whatever has just come out. I’d argue that there’s something special and unique about a game you can still play a decade later - it’s not the story, which is definitely going to get tiring after 10-20 playthroughs; it’s not the quests for the same reason. Game mechanics, decent pacing for that one-more-turn feel, and maybe just aesthetic appeal. Where would he put games like Minecraft or Valheim, both of which rely heavily on resource farming and repetitive building?
I think that many of the new, big titles have tried to capture all possible niches - part FPS, part RPG, part basebuilder - and it’s hard to make all of those seem important to the game without forcing FPS players to do basebuilding and basebuilders to do RPG. That takes away from each person’s enjoyment of their preferred mechanic and imposes tedium.
Opinion arguments, like “gaming feels like a chore” require different support from fact arguments like, “the world is flat.”
Sure, but “other people say this” isn’t going to hold much sway in pretty much any context. It’s not really worth bringing up at all.
I think that many of the new, big titles have tried to capture all possible niches - part FPS, part RPG, part basebuilder - and it’s hard to make all of those seem important to the game without forcing FPS players to do basebuilding and basebuilders to do RPG.
Some do, but plenty don’t. Just like there are plenty of indie games not worth playing, there are plenty of AAA games you can avoid if you don’t think you’ll enjoy it. And the reverse is true for both cases as well.
You can get a lot of mileage out of what other people say by paying attention to the ones who give reasons for those opinions and focusing on the one whose reasons correspond to what you value in a game.
Overall I think a good review of a piece of media doesn’t even need to say if it’s good or not; what it needs to do is describe that aspects someone might find compelling or annoying so they can make an informed decision about whether it’s a good fit for their taste.
First off the idea that “other people share this opinion” is some form of validation of said opinion is…less than persuasive. “The earth is flat and you can find lots of people online saying the same thing” is an example of why you can’t just rest on other people agreeing with you as being the primary support of your positions. And it’s one of the first things brought up in the video so clearly this person feels it’s important to bring up.
Secondly the idea that older games respected your time or weren’t grindy is ridiculous. From core MMO designs, to JRPGs there are plenty of examples of old games that waste your time in some way or another.
It also sounds like he is saying that all games need to be simple games like Tetris. No story/cutscenes and no complicated game design that someone had to spend time learning. That’s certainly an opinion, but I don’t agree that game developers should only make games that target one specific person’s taste.
Opinion arguments, like “gaming feels like a chore” require different support from fact arguments like, “the world is flat.” You absolutely can not prove the world is flat, gravity works, or birds are real with an opinion poll, but a poll will support whether newer games are less fun or Coke is better than Pepsi.
IMO, the best argument against the video is that he’s focused on old games that he still plays - he’s comparing the best of old games with whatever has just come out. I’d argue that there’s something special and unique about a game you can still play a decade later - it’s not the story, which is definitely going to get tiring after 10-20 playthroughs; it’s not the quests for the same reason. Game mechanics, decent pacing for that one-more-turn feel, and maybe just aesthetic appeal. Where would he put games like Minecraft or Valheim, both of which rely heavily on resource farming and repetitive building?
I think that many of the new, big titles have tried to capture all possible niches - part FPS, part RPG, part basebuilder - and it’s hard to make all of those seem important to the game without forcing FPS players to do basebuilding and basebuilders to do RPG. That takes away from each person’s enjoyment of their preferred mechanic and imposes tedium.
Sure, but “other people say this” isn’t going to hold much sway in pretty much any context. It’s not really worth bringing up at all.
Some do, but plenty don’t. Just like there are plenty of indie games not worth playing, there are plenty of AAA games you can avoid if you don’t think you’ll enjoy it. And the reverse is true for both cases as well.
You can get a lot of mileage out of what other people say by paying attention to the ones who give reasons for those opinions and focusing on the one whose reasons correspond to what you value in a game.
Overall I think a good review of a piece of media doesn’t even need to say if it’s good or not; what it needs to do is describe that aspects someone might find compelling or annoying so they can make an informed decision about whether it’s a good fit for their taste.