New posts

Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="ATenderLad, post: 27891, member: 3864"] [I][SIZE=3]please dont[/SIZE][/I] Yesssss Steam being flooded with intentional nostalgia-bait is something I've complained about a lot too, but I wanna comment on this part a bit. RageBurner made an excellent point about games that were no longer deemed viable by publishers, and a single person simply went and *made* the kind of game no one else would. It's so much better than what came before, and clearly resonated enormously, that practically no one describes Stardew Valley as being "like Harvest Moon", they describe other games as being "like Stardew Valley". Yes, you mentioned your examples improved upon the originals, but I think creating something themselves that no one else would, and that millions of people clearly didn't know they wanted desperately, should be viewed as a victory of indie game development. I have almost the exact same words in a maybe-article I'm kicking around about genre, if I can just ingest enough caffeine to write the rest of it. I would add those games are also (to some degree) free to play, have massive social elements, and are available on basically every device, most importantly kid's phones. Actually, not to keep referencing Gorse's post endlessly, but a lot of the overlapping similarities in gaming are attributable to the tools available. There's fewer bespoke game engines in use with each passing year, CD Projekt Red is retiring their in-house solution from Cyberpunk in favor of Unreal Engine 5, for example. Similar to how web development grew beyond the scope of casual enthusiasts as more and more features became expected, making games for modern platforms can be a massive undertaking without licensing available engines and frameworks. While they are robust, and creativity is always queen, the whole industry being funneled into the same toolsets by the material conditions of the business all but guarantees a degree of familiarity between a sea of entertainment titles. I've read speculation on how the Minecraft generation would change video games (and I'm just *fully* rambling now, excuse me), and it's usually focused on the building, the Lego-flavored creativity. That being said though, when I have that conversation (I've worked with a *lot* of people younger than myself) the thing they love most about Minecraft? No borders. No walls, no fences. (That you didn't build yourself anyways.) Of course my little brother wants to show off his redstone-powered torture chamber, but most (younger) people I know seem to want games where they can pick a direction and travel at their leisure. Are open worlds ubiquitious because of people that grew up with Mario, or because it's genuinely pleasing to [U]The Youth[/U]? The massive success of Breath of the Wild makes me wonder; I've been bored of the formula of Hyrulian adventures, but the exploration and giant contiguous play-area doesn't speak to me. (That isn't to say I don't like open world design at all; Horizon: Zero Dawn paired a gorgeous world with one of the most interesting settings in video games. I just think it can be restrictive, and in particular it held back the sequel. Forbidden West has companions, larger set-pieces, and more plot twists to set up and pay off than the original. The focus had changed as well, you *already* know the secrets of the world from the first game, discovering them in Zero Dawn gave meaning to the exploration, but that trick doesn't work twice. I think skewing closer to a game like Mass Effect 2 would have made Forbidden West an incredible sequel, but reducing the open-world or removing it altogether was never going to be an option, from a cynical business perspective.) [/QUOTE]

Verification

Online statistics

Members online: 186

Guests online: 244

Total visitors: 430

Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads: 8,815

Messages: 220,972

Members: 686,816

Latest member: neffaty

Reply to thread

Online statistics

Forum statistics

TOP Supporters