Unpopular Gaming Opinions - General Discussion Forum - Page 62

pushsquare.com:

LN78 wrote:

There's a very thin line between «good value for money» and «goes on for far too long». Sony first and second party titles are outstaying their welcome — the last few I've played — «DS», «HFW», «TLOU2» and «GOW:R» have all started testing my patience long before reaching their conclusions.

Yeah, anyone who says more game = better game needs to play all 90 hours of Assassin's Creed Valhalla.

I think it is a real shame the industry seems to have somewhat shifted focus to making sure every game is this endless treadmill designed to trap the player, rather than just being about telling great stories and providing interesting, innovative, gameplay loops.

It is why a game like the first Last of Us, as dated as the gameplay may feel nowadays, still only becomes better for me with each passing year, as games like that become increasingly rarer to the tidal wave of live service garbage and bloated open world filler.

It is a shame too, as about ten years ago I loved live service games and massive open world games, but I love cheesecake too, but I wouldn't want to eat it every day for a decade. Having a nice cadence of big, triple AAA, titles, mixed in with more focused, linear, single player experiences that are 10 to 15 hours long would be ideal for me. But now it is like, hey, which of the thousand hour games released this week do you want to play first?!

Thank God for indie games, honestly.

@Pizzamorg @LN78 Agreed. I think there is some strange algorithm that game producers use where they have to justify pricing by sheer time to completion. I’ll happily pay for a game that is shorter if it is quality content during that shorter span.

It’s why Miles Morales is a better game than Spider-Man. And why Lost Legacy is