Re: 7 Worst Gaming Trends

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 14:20:21 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com>
wrote:

On 1/21/2025 7:56 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

But I'm all aboard in stopping the remaster gravy-train that too many
publishers have hitched their wagon to, though. I think I've been
pretty clear on that over the years ;-)

It's not even the 'remaster' with most games seeming to converge toward
Ubisoft and open-world play.  I'm tired of it.  I didn't even used to
know what that meant probably 10 years ago, now I'm jaded and old and
bored by the similar game-play.

I'm a bit more forgiving towards developers for the open-world thing.
Not that I'm in favor of them --I've frequently commented here on the
how pointlessly large some game maps have become-- but we gamers send
publishers very mixed messages on the issue.

For decades, the quest for ever-larger games world was a driving force
in the industry. From games like "Pong" (one unchanging 'map') to
scrolling titles like "Super Mario Bros" to sims like "Silent Service"
with maps that extended past visual range, the quest for ever larger
play areas was integral to the growth of the medium. Publishers
boasted about how their game had more levels or bigger maps than their
competitors, and were rewarded for it with increased sales. Gamers
often complained about how some games had worlds that felt smaller
than its competitors, and used this in the endless Internet arguments
about which game was better. A popular discussion that still exists is
'which game has the biggest maps!', although at this point --with
procedurally generated games like "No Man's Sky" and "Minecraft"--
it's all become even more pointless distinction than ever.

Still, size sells, and I'm sure that --for instance-- Rockstar will
cheerfully crow that the map in "Grand Theft Auto VI" is their largest
yet... because that's what we gamers, as a whole, tell them we want.
Were they to release the game with a smaller map --even if it were far
more meticulously detailed and interactive-- the company would be
lambasted for their decision.

Of course, the focus on size ignores that quantity doesn't equal
quality, and there's no real way to make these giant worlds as full
and interesting as we gamers would like. It's just too expensive, too
complicated; games are already costing upwards of $600 million to
develop. That sort of detail would likely quadruple the costs (and it
probably wouldn't really make the game any better anyway). So we get
big but vapid worlds to explore. Its what we demand, so its what we
get.

So, like I said, I can't really blame developers for pushing these
games on us... even as I regret that's the case.