- 0 Posts
- 6 Comments
I started playing short games only (ideally 20, max 40 hours), mainly indie games. They’re tighter and usually go straight to the point. They often have one good idea and reiterate on it until they said all they had to say and don’t overstay their welcome. Also, replaying old games is always nice. I’ve replayed OG Fallout recently and had a blast, currently replaying New Vegas (which goes against my short games rule, but I also know it well enough to not waste time doing things).
I keep hearing this argument when it’s about Nintendo, but it never happens with the other companies. What Sony and Microsoft do is upgrade the hardware and change the aesthetic of the console, and that’s about it. The reason the Wii U failed is because it felt like an accessory (marketing focused on the pad and the actual console was very similar to the original Wii).
I don’t think they can do anything that isn’t hybrid now.
Same here, with the only exception of games I keep getting back to (basically my all-time favorites that I replay every few years) and games I drop and then decide to restart (and then drop, and restart, and drop, and restart).
Recently I’ve been avoiding games that are more than 20-40 hours (doing main+some side quests) because I came to the conclusion that there’s no game longer than that that doesn’t have a bloated-to-deatb story or gameplay mechanics that feel more like a treadmill than a game.
I think I only saw a trailer when it was announced. It looked kina horrible to be honest, but after reading this I’m imagining it like one of those games that are kind of bad by usual standards and that you can’t really recommend to anyone like you would recommend any other game, but that is just so unique and special in its own way that it sticks with you. Something like Pathologic maybe, but without the depression