I want something like a MMORTS with automation and no hella long timers, on a multi faction map (4?) where you wage war and the game is intended to have an eventual total winner (maybe across 3 months?) Where wins create real consequences like buffs, resources, strategic locations etc. Then it can reset and we can play again.
I could see roles and interactions playing out a lot like EVE online where some mine, some build things, some just want to fly a puny ship and shoot stuff.
This could be fun but on a globe w/ contemporary warfare units.
In the past I've found hints of this flavor in games like Future Cop LAPD's "Precinct war mode"[2] (playstation), Dark Age of Camelot MMORPG, Earth 2025[1]
If you swapped to turn based (with time restricted turn length) and inserted a dedicated tactical combat at varying element size layer to enhance the strategic layer I would probably actually play an online game.
There are big social problems among Millennials and younger (at least in the West); many of them are desperate to participate in their societies meaningfully and be rewarded (individually or collectively) for doing so. The "I want a big picture, a grand goal that we strive towards. Something noble that we yearn for" quote from this article sums that up perfectly.
I, thankfully, have this kind of satisfaction in my life, and it doesn't come from gaming. But most of my friends do not have this, and they desperately look for it in video games. Perhaps even this is the ultimate goal of Meta. I wish my generation and younger the best in their struggles to find meaning in life, and let's hope it's not anything too damaging to themselves or others.
> "I want a big picture, a grand goal that we strive towards. Something noble that we yearn for"
In fact this is not unique to millennials but is an age old struggle of humanity where religion is discovered, abandoned for one reason or another, then rediscovered again once secularism/nihilism doesn't provide the fulfilling sense of purpose everyone yearns for, ad infinitum
This is absurd. Even if climate change is just a feel good farce it would at least help people pretend that they have a goal. Instead we do absolutely nothing, we are scared of losing our jobs and having nothing to do while simultaneously having this mountain of tasks in front of us that we won't even consider touching.
It turns out that people don't just want a "mountain of tasks" to help them "pretend that they have a goal"... that just fuels the feelings of purposelessness. They want their existence and life itself to have meaning and purpose.
That's my conclusion too. Game are, at their core, something close to a real world activity but not the real thing. Even cats play games like that to learn. But current games, that is video games, are most of the time not a substitute where you can experiment with something close to the real thing. They are a form of entertainement. That means that what you accomplish in those games is nothing.
If you want something with stakes in, there are options in games (competitive players are like professional athletes this days for example), but the alternative that makes the most sense is just real life.
> All I seek is a full sensory experience of what I see and feel within a virtual environment.
Escapism is definitely aiming at that future we just don't have the tech, but that doesn't mean they can't be enjoyed anyway. Personally I thought we would already have VR and so I keep playing to experience it as soon as possible.
> Think of any popular game (csgo, valorant, Fortnite, apex) ... Of course, they have differences like unique visuals, new items, and various ults/powers, but at the very core, it’s the same rotten stew.
I think this criticism is coming from an angle that would surely include chess... it's boring, has 8/9 pieces only, and it hasn't changed in decades or centuries. I think that is missing the point, especially with multiplayer games.
I used to think I wanted a higher purpose in games, but what I really wanted was a community with some kind of large-scale competition. The MMOFPS Planetside 2 gives me that, but I get the impression you can also get it from Eve, from competitive gaming scenes, from traditional MMOs, or even from older things like MUDs.
Friendly competition with and against thousands of other people is like a higher purpose, but it's more pragmatic, easier to find, and probably more fulfilling than a game with a higher purpose but no community.
Play Ingress. Lots of community and large-scale competition; plus the visuals and framerates you find in the Real World while hiking to a portal are pretty impressive.
This concept looks great, and while I do not play any games with online components or games on Steam, I might just buy this. I’m definitely going to grab a bookmark for the page and watch the progress.
Oh boy, here we go. First, I meant that on multiple levels. Tarkov has some interesting dynamics with competition and dual classes of players, and competing incentives to both team up and betray others based on in-game tasks and rep systems. The high emphasis on looting (my understanding is it's like Rust but more) and penalties for dying (you lose what you brought in), make for tense interactions. They just added in-game VoIP this last wipe (late December. Every 6 months or so they wipe player status and make everyone start over along with a big patch to change some of the game, because it's still beta).
That's the player side. The other faith you'll lose is in the developers to fix your pet peeve bug, because while they make large gains and fix many things, other small things tend to be left for a long time that drive people crazy.
I've not played Rust, but from what I've seen of it and what people have commented, Tarkov is like Rust but more extreme and more realistic. Depending on why you liked Rust, you might downright love Tarkov, and it's already highly addictive, so maybe don't install it? It often feels like Dark Souls the looter FPS edition, because it's so, so rough sometimes.
Tarkov has the most comically incompetent development team of any game I've seen. They are the polar opposite of the Rust team (big monthly updates, minimal/zero regressions) despite both games using the same engine. The big Tarkov update yesterday just broke a core gameplay component (player scavs killing a _PMC_ now aggros all AI scavs) and there are a ton of graphical regressions in addition to a fun new race condition that results in glitched backpack windows staying visible (even on the main menu, etc.).
My killer game idea right now is EFT built by a competent developer with more interesting quests than "kill N bad guys" and "collect N items".
Eh, they're definitely not great, but I think a lot of is is different expectations of the developers and the players. It's in beta, and the dev team treats it like such and treats the players as both beta testers and the QA department.
Sometimes that results in the players wondering "what could possibly thought this was okay to submit? Did they even check it at all?" just like every QA department since the beginning probably has occasionally.
The real question will be whether they actually change that when they release 1.0, which is supposedly in a year or so.
Planetside 2 is probably the one PC game everyone even remotely into gaming should try.
The massive battles are pretty much unlike anything else I've experienced in online games. The scale makes it different.
It's quite something to be a part of a 40-man platoon doing a Max-crash on a base to retake the points with just a few seconds to spare. Even better when this gives your team the overall victory on the continent.
It manufactures cooperation and friendships on a level unlike any other game I've played. If you join any actively led platoon and you have a microphone, you immediately feel like you're part of something big, and you've got a 50% chance of being recruited by the outfit running it and/or invited to their discord.
My impression of Rust and Tarkov is that they manufacture meaningful competition well, but they don't create friendships as quickly, and they especially don't create friendly rivalries and working relationships between people on the same team.
You might enjoy foxhole a lot. It’s a grand scale mmo war game where two sides fight over a giant map over the course of a few weeks. There’s extensive player led logistics lines, massive front lines, and every battle, base, and item are all made by players.
From my experience it’s got a great community, thousands of players working toward the same goal, participating in little excursions, fighting the front lines, supporting the bases ect.
I really do not like these type of articles. I did X, Y, Z and therefore it is justified enough for me to make overreaching claims.
Video games are still very fun and very profitable for the rest of us. Wish I could mute HN accounts like I mute ppl on twitter, not enough to signal an explicit exclusion but enough for me to ignore whatever they have to say in the future because of misalignment of values in the present.
It didn't claim that video games weren't fun or profitable, and the author even admitted they'd had fun with them. It just claimed that the current status quo of them has gotten kinda stale for them.
Video games being stagnant isn't exactly a new idea; we've more or less been stuck with the same interfaces with slight improvements for twenty years now.
I'm aware. I use VR daily, for both work and play.
It's not new, though. Luckey's work was a revival, not a conjuring. There was a motion-tracked HMD in 1961, and Sutherland established more or less our modern take on it not long after.
If we comparing video games to the games in real world（basketball, baseball football... et.al.) the format he do not like anymore: two team fight to eachother is the very basic and old format.
I guess this type of game will exist in far future.
Yeah i noticed this blog advertised already second time this week, first time it was stupid comparison of photo in PNG format (!) with amazing small WebP (I mean anything would be amazing next to photo in PNG), now for change he is expert on games, dunno who upvotes this...
this is like the 7th or 8th inactive HN accounts (haven't posted for weeks or months) suddenly posting on this thread to offer snarky retorts against criticisms of this blog.
I'd love to see a buildable world where the things players create are the assets in the game, and once they're destroyed, they're gone. This would give players a sense of actual scarcity and I think it would seriously affect how they play and think about the game.
There's a limited amount of building that players can do, but some things like space stations and large ships can take dozens-hundreds of players to create and maintain, and battles over them can span days-weeks.
It comes with downsides. Even mid-range ships are expensive enough that their loss will sting low-key players, and nowhere is truly safe. It's also possible to trade game currency to offset the monthly subscription costs, so well-off players can offset their losses with cash.
You mean Minecraft on an anarchy server? 2b2t is pretty popular for a reason.
Also, I personally didn't enjoy don't starve as once you read through the wiki you understand that the reason you are dying so often is that the game is designed in a very illogical fashion with specific "puzzle" items that you simply die without. Your logical real world brain thinks you need clothes to not freeze to death in winter. Wrong. You need a hot stone. The hound attacks are a joke once you understand that you can build a bazillion tooth traps.
I haven't played one hour one life but it looks like it is actually closer to the original idea that dont starve embodies.
The model of game where there's a big shared goal among the playerbase that they can work together in is fun and can include stuff like easter-egg hunting, solving unsolved puzzles, figuring out speedrun strategies, etc. It's exciting playing a game knowing that if you figure something out or do things right then it could be what's talked about in the game forums among the playerbase and move things forward for everyone.
Another interesting model of game is one where the act of playing it leaves you with an interesting and personal artifact, like the bases you end up making in Minecraft, the factories and lines of automation you make in Factorio, the codebase you build in Screeps, etc. These games are great for pushing you to pick up skills in building kinds of things that you find interesting but wouldn't otherwise have a good excuse to work on.
Games that don't fall into the above two models seem to mostly be about exploring the same space that everyone else does, and that kind of thing has a tendency to run out after a while and can be limited in how often they give you unique experiences. (It could be a physical carefully-constructed space in the game you're exploring, or the space of possible ways a Counterstrike match can play out, etc.) I think it's important to recognize in a game when you've finished exploring the space of the game and now only re-treading familiar ground, and to decide if you're still getting something out of that. When thinking about designing games, I wonder a lot about how to make the experience space wide and avoiding having long-time players only be re-tread familiar experiences.
For anyone who likes that easter egg aspect and strategy games, I highly recommend the Anbennar total conversion mod for the grand strategy/kind-of-4X game Europa Universalis IV. The mod is more or less a 4X-game version of an extremely intricate D&D setting, and there's all sorts of content and interesting implicit setting elements you can only come across by trying out the many, many different nations, tribes, and adventurer bands in the mod.
I've carried around a certain kind of disappointment about video games ever since I was a kid. I knew I really liked them as a concept, but few stuck and I liked reading game magazines more.
I started playing TTRPGs like D&D with some friends about a year and a half ago. They feel closer to the ideal of what my brain wants from at least some kinds of games.
Somewhere between TTRPGs, reading (esp. fiction), and embracing balance (why have I always been looking for "that one thing" that I can put all my time into, anyway?) I feel I get at least some of what I crave from games.
Totally with you, koof. I think I’ve always enjoyed most write-ups and trailers of games and films more than the actual games and films. Only a few truly deliver.
For sure. We started with Cyberpunk RED actually, but we went to D&D simply because of how much prewritten stuff was out there. We've done a few small jaunts into other systems (mostly PTBA ones) in the meantime too. I've also been meaning to play Ironsworn solo (one day...).
Luckily for me, my favorite part of RPGs so far has been "meaningful stuff can happen anywhere and the gears of this world turn no matter where we put the camera (if a tree falls in the woods & no one is there to hear it, it still absolutely makes a sound)" which feels system agnostic.
author here. I agree! The best part of games is the social aspect, which if we have been losing (in the West, at least) since the deindustrilization times, games should be able to connect people more, rather than forcing them to the manual labor of grinding and gacha (there are players that seem to enjoy that though)
Actually, this reads like someone who watches Marvel movies over and over for thousands of hours.
Games to me are like books. I play them once, and move on. Occasionally I find a great game, and after a few years I might pick it back up and re-play it.
I in no way mean this as a negative, but I find it amazing that people like you exist. Despite owning over 10,000 games (due to a digital hoarding compulsion) I think I have played no more than 30, 45 at the absolute most, games in the last 15 years.
I seem to be the exact opposite of you, in that I play a game for huge amounts of hours and just never try another unless I truly feel compelled to play it. I have multiple thousands of hours in 5-6 games over the last 4 years. Before Elden Ring in February the last game I bought was God of War in 2018.
I am truly amazed that people can exist on so wide a playing spectrum.
Can you elaborate what you mean by that? From this list there's a pretty wide variety of genres and exploratory styles of games. Maybe instead of shitting on somebody else's list of recommendations, you should put up or shut up yourself.
White toast? You sound like one of those guys who pays $15 for "avocado toast".
And just to make sure this post is not entirely a roasting session, I personally would put Ori ahead of hollow knight, but they are both great games.
I think that only storyline-driven games are interesting since I have a thing for appreciating good stories. As a result, I find that most games are boring since they heavily depend on lore or don't directly present a clear story (eg. Elden Ring or BoTW). I'm not really sure what the last two paragraphs of this post are trying to get at, but I also fail to see the enjoyment of multiplayer games, since I only find video games another medium to tell a story. If they aren't for stories, I can't really find any enjoyment from them.
What's the purpose of playing a video game, or slaying an enemy, or exploring a world if I don't have an intricate plot that supports my actions? As such, I see no fruition in most games. The only games I've enjoyed playing in the past four years is Persona 5 (and now Yakuza 0) since they are extremely plot-driven and my gameplay is a means to further a story. If there isn't a purpose to my playing, then I can't play.
You and the author are both making the mistake of generalizing games as boring based on your specific tastes.
Unlike the author, I dislike online games, I want a more controlled experience. Unlike you, I dislike plot-driven games. I can't imagine anything more boring than watching a cutscene or reading dialog. The exception is something like Portal where the story is told seamlessly in-game.
"Games I don't like are boring" is hardly a subject worth writing a blog post about.
Sure, you can write a blog post for any reason, but writing about something you are not interested in is probably not going to be interesting. Like when teenagers talk about why one genre of music is better than another. It boils down to opinion, there's nothing interesting to say there.
I suggest for you Outer Wilds. It's an exploration game, with a cool mechanic that I won't spoil and a story that is just great, never had a game experience quite like it.
Check out “Farhaven AR” in the Apple App Store. It was made as an immersive adventure with the player at the center to buck the trend in today’s games and return to the basics of enjoyable gameplay and storylines. It’s free right now too.
I'm just not interested in pouring vast amounts of time into building game skills that have zero applicability elsewhere. Life is too short. In this sense, video games in general are a unitasker[1].
Now, if there are games with some pedagogical value, e.g. puzzle games where we need to apply/develop knowledge of chemistry to solve problems, I could warm to the idea.
>I'm just not interested in pouring vast amounts of time into building game skills that have zero applicability elsewhere. Life is too short. In this sense, video games in general are a unitasker[1].
From my perspective you are doing something wrong. I need to make nlogpost about this or I already made one.
I quit gaming when I went to college too, started again only recently. All the complaints about games having no purpose and feeling the same are valid for the mainstream titles IMO, but the good games are out there.
I really enjoyed Red Dead Redemption 2, Outer Wilds, INSIDE, Disco Elysium, Twelve Minutes recently. Basically games that actually have a story or feel like art instead of a grindy competition.
Just like any other entertainment type: the surface level popular stuff is quite bad, but there are some gems. The problem is that you have to work to find the gems that resonate with you, and that's actually the job part of it!
There's a video game that never bores me called Linux. You should try it out.
In Linux, you can download software, and learn to use it to solve a wide array of problems. You can edit files, one of life's simple pleasures. If you find yourself repeating a task, you can find ways to automate it. Doing an old task faster means you levelled up, which gets the blood flowing. You can explore vast worlds (ecosystems/code bases) and satisfy your intellectual/narrative curiosity. The game has multiplayer elements too.
All of this is lots of *fun* if you're not doing for $JOB. I'm personally addiccted to this video game, and play it hours daily.
The above is sort of a joke, but I really do feel this way. Linux+OSS is a video game.
It is. Especially if you go down the source builds and compiler optimisation rabbit hole. Before you know it, you're reading Phoronix every day for benchmarks. Next thing you're fixing your gentoo USE flags at 4:17 in the morning.
There are different goals with games. For the author, they want a specific genre that hasn't really been done before (massively multiplayer co-op) because they want a grand unified goal to cooperate with people towards.
That doesn't mean that games are boring though, especially when looking at the subset op mentioned. In most of those games the goal is to beat your opponent (with the exception of metal gear and payday) through dexterity or skill - it's high intensity and can get hollow when you stagnate in skill level.
Other goals might be engineering success (factorio, dyson sphere project, satisfactory), or unique experiences (stanley parable, superhot), or group fun (among us, gorilla tag), or just a great storyline (disco elysium, undertale, hades).
One goal might be played out for OP, but there are many other ways to enjoy games.
Hi! Author here. I do agree, it does read as I'm looking for a very specific type of game, which sentiment many others would not share (totally expected and should be that way)
I hoped to put the focus more on the repetitiveness of innovation within many genres of games. That is somewhat of a product of my own subjective observation.
This is a really childish article. This person is not an experienced player of games.
Not to gatekeep but: trying to say you are an experienced gamer, and proving that with less than a thousand hours of the most popular and normal games of the last 20 years does not lend credence. And your 4th most played needing 14 hours? Please.
There other comment nailed it. This is like watching only marvel and complaining about movies. And not even a lot of marvel movies.
It is not worth my time to dig into the minutea of this, but let me just say: you do not have any idea what you are talking about. If you it don't like video games that is fine, but this article is just bad and ignorant. And written by someone who is not familiar with the medium.
As I've gotten older, my taste in video games has changed and I find most of them unrewarding. But one of my favorite games is Factorio. There's something so satisfying about creating, automating, and advancing civilization on those alien planets. The train system alone is so fun to play with.
This reminded me of the youtube video 'What Games Are Like For Someone Who Doesn't Play Games', specifically the section 'Thinking Games Would Be Cooler' (begins at 14:43):
I think games both appeal and do not appeal (to different people, or the same person at different times in life, respectively) because of the limitations of what the game allows you to do. It can be empowering to feel like you understand the world of the game you are playing, or disempowering to have to follow the arbitrary rules created by the developer.
129 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 174 ms ] threadI want something like a MMORTS with automation and no hella long timers, on a multi faction map (4?) where you wage war and the game is intended to have an eventual total winner (maybe across 3 months?) Where wins create real consequences like buffs, resources, strategic locations etc. Then it can reset and we can play again.
I could see roles and interactions playing out a lot like EVE online where some mine, some build things, some just want to fly a puny ship and shoot stuff.
This could be fun but on a globe w/ contemporary warfare units.
In the past I've found hints of this flavor in games like Future Cop LAPD's "Precinct war mode"[2] (playstation), Dark Age of Camelot MMORPG, Earth 2025[1]
[1]: https://www.giantbomb.com/earth-2025/3030-36263/ [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Cop:_LAPD
Except in EvE online your units are drunk and don't know how to fight.
There are big social problems among Millennials and younger (at least in the West); many of them are desperate to participate in their societies meaningfully and be rewarded (individually or collectively) for doing so. The "I want a big picture, a grand goal that we strive towards. Something noble that we yearn for" quote from this article sums that up perfectly.
I, thankfully, have this kind of satisfaction in my life, and it doesn't come from gaming. But most of my friends do not have this, and they desperately look for it in video games. Perhaps even this is the ultimate goal of Meta. I wish my generation and younger the best in their struggles to find meaning in life, and let's hope it's not anything too damaging to themselves or others.
In fact this is not unique to millennials but is an age old struggle of humanity where religion is discovered, abandoned for one reason or another, then rediscovered again once secularism/nihilism doesn't provide the fulfilling sense of purpose everyone yearns for, ad infinitum
Edit: They=Millennials
If you want something with stakes in, there are options in games (competitive players are like professional athletes this days for example), but the alternative that makes the most sense is just real life.
Escapism is definitely aiming at that future we just don't have the tech, but that doesn't mean they can't be enjoyed anyway. Personally I thought we would already have VR and so I keep playing to experience it as soon as possible.
> Think of any popular game (csgo, valorant, Fortnite, apex) ... Of course, they have differences like unique visuals, new items, and various ults/powers, but at the very core, it’s the same rotten stew.
I think this criticism is coming from an angle that would surely include chess... it's boring, has 8/9 pieces only, and it hasn't changed in decades or centuries. I think that is missing the point, especially with multiplayer games.
Friendly competition with and against thousands of other people is like a higher purpose, but it's more pragmatic, easier to find, and probably more fulfilling than a game with a higher purpose but no community.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/505460/Foxhole/
That's the player side. The other faith you'll lose is in the developers to fix your pet peeve bug, because while they make large gains and fix many things, other small things tend to be left for a long time that drive people crazy.
I've not played Rust, but from what I've seen of it and what people have commented, Tarkov is like Rust but more extreme and more realistic. Depending on why you liked Rust, you might downright love Tarkov, and it's already highly addictive, so maybe don't install it? It often feels like Dark Souls the looter FPS edition, because it's so, so rough sometimes.
My killer game idea right now is EFT built by a competent developer with more interesting quests than "kill N bad guys" and "collect N items".
Sometimes that results in the players wondering "what could possibly thought this was okay to submit? Did they even check it at all?" just like every QA department since the beginning probably has occasionally.
The real question will be whether they actually change that when they release 1.0, which is supposedly in a year or so.
The massive battles are pretty much unlike anything else I've experienced in online games. The scale makes it different.
It's quite something to be a part of a 40-man platoon doing a Max-crash on a base to retake the points with just a few seconds to spare. Even better when this gives your team the overall victory on the continent.
My impression of Rust and Tarkov is that they manufacture meaningful competition well, but they don't create friendships as quickly, and they especially don't create friendly rivalries and working relationships between people on the same team.
From my experience it’s got a great community, thousands of players working toward the same goal, participating in little excursions, fighting the front lines, supporting the bases ect.
Video games are still very fun and very profitable for the rest of us. Wish I could mute HN accounts like I mute ppl on twitter, not enough to signal an explicit exclusion but enough for me to ignore whatever they have to say in the future because of misalignment of values in the present.
Video games being stagnant isn't exactly a new idea; we've more or less been stuck with the same interfaces with slight improvements for twenty years now.
The author just seems burnt out.
It's not new, though. Luckey's work was a revival, not a conjuring. There was a motion-tracked HMD in 1961, and Sutherland established more or less our modern take on it not long after.
Aside from Boneworks, the trend is less interaction, rather than more.
I don't feel compelled to clear missions and help characters in game because its all fabricated without any consequences.
There's a limited amount of building that players can do, but some things like space stations and large ships can take dozens-hundreds of players to create and maintain, and battles over them can span days-weeks.
It comes with downsides. Even mid-range ships are expensive enough that their loss will sting low-key players, and nowhere is truly safe. It's also possible to trade game currency to offset the monthly subscription costs, so well-off players can offset their losses with cash.
Also, I personally didn't enjoy don't starve as once you read through the wiki you understand that the reason you are dying so often is that the game is designed in a very illogical fashion with specific "puzzle" items that you simply die without. Your logical real world brain thinks you need clothes to not freeze to death in winter. Wrong. You need a hot stone. The hound attacks are a joke once you understand that you can build a bazillion tooth traps.
I haven't played one hour one life but it looks like it is actually closer to the original idea that dont starve embodies.
Another interesting model of game is one where the act of playing it leaves you with an interesting and personal artifact, like the bases you end up making in Minecraft, the factories and lines of automation you make in Factorio, the codebase you build in Screeps, etc. These games are great for pushing you to pick up skills in building kinds of things that you find interesting but wouldn't otherwise have a good excuse to work on.
Games that don't fall into the above two models seem to mostly be about exploring the same space that everyone else does, and that kind of thing has a tendency to run out after a while and can be limited in how often they give you unique experiences. (It could be a physical carefully-constructed space in the game you're exploring, or the space of possible ways a Counterstrike match can play out, etc.) I think it's important to recognize in a game when you've finished exploring the space of the game and now only re-treading familiar ground, and to decide if you're still getting something out of that. When thinking about designing games, I wonder a lot about how to make the experience space wide and avoiding having long-time players only be re-tread familiar experiences.
And that’s fine. Call it ”done” and move on to the next game. There’s more games than anyone could ever play in their lifetime; keep exploring.
I started playing TTRPGs like D&D with some friends about a year and a half ago. They feel closer to the ideal of what my brain wants from at least some kinds of games.
Somewhere between TTRPGs, reading (esp. fiction), and embracing balance (why have I always been looking for "that one thing" that I can put all my time into, anyway?) I feel I get at least some of what I crave from games.
I play lighter and more narratively focused games where the focus is collaboratively creating worlds and stories.
Lasers and Feelings has been the biggest hit around my table but I also have a reoccuring game of Dungeon World every other week.
In just ten to fifteen minutes I can throw any random group of friends into a scenario that feels like a tv show.
Luckily for me, my favorite part of RPGs so far has been "meaningful stuff can happen anywhere and the gears of this world turn no matter where we put the camera (if a tree falls in the woods & no one is there to hear it, it still absolutely makes a sound)" which feels system agnostic.
But nowadays everyone just uses guides. I guess they didn't really enjoy that aspect. Now it's all about doing mechanics and advancement.
https://www.tiltfive.com/
It's board-games, but in augmented reality and multi-player, to give it a "spin".
If you don't branch out and expand beyond the bog-standard, yeah, eventually it'll all feel the same.
Edit: Some recommendations below. These aren't even wild experimental/arthouse games, just slightly more creative.
- Outer Wilds
- Disco Elysium
- Rhythm Doctor
- Return of the Obra Dinn
- Death's Door
- Hotline Miami
- The Talos Principle
- The Witness
- Into the Breach
- Invisible Inc.
- What the Golf?
- The Forgotten City
- Frostpunk
- Slay the Spire
- This War of Mine
- Hades
- Dead Cell
- Elsinore
- I Am Dead
- Subnautica
- Gunpoint
- Katana: Zero
- Hollow Knight
Games to me are like books. I play them once, and move on. Occasionally I find a great game, and after a few years I might pick it back up and re-play it.
I seem to be the exact opposite of you, in that I play a game for huge amounts of hours and just never try another unless I truly feel compelled to play it. I have multiple thousands of hours in 5-6 games over the last 4 years. Before Elden Ring in February the last game I bought was God of War in 2018.
I am truly amazed that people can exist on so wide a playing spectrum.
You should share a list of your own recommendations!
White toast? You sound like one of those guys who pays $15 for "avocado toast".
And just to make sure this post is not entirely a roasting session, I personally would put Ori ahead of hollow knight, but they are both great games.
What's the purpose of playing a video game, or slaying an enemy, or exploring a world if I don't have an intricate plot that supports my actions? As such, I see no fruition in most games. The only games I've enjoyed playing in the past four years is Persona 5 (and now Yakuza 0) since they are extremely plot-driven and my gameplay is a means to further a story. If there isn't a purpose to my playing, then I can't play.
Unlike the author, I dislike online games, I want a more controlled experience. Unlike you, I dislike plot-driven games. I can't imagine anything more boring than watching a cutscene or reading dialog. The exception is something like Portal where the story is told seamlessly in-game.
"Games I don't like are boring" is hardly a subject worth writing a blog post about.
I believe that expressing an opinion is a perfectly merit-worthy reason to write a blog post, unless I misunderstand something.
I'm just not interested in pouring vast amounts of time into building game skills that have zero applicability elsewhere. Life is too short. In this sense, video games in general are a unitasker[1].
Now, if there are games with some pedagogical value, e.g. puzzle games where we need to apply/develop knowledge of chemistry to solve problems, I could warm to the idea.
[1] https://lifehacker.com/watch-alton-brown-demonstrate-why-uni...
From my perspective you are doing something wrong. I need to make nlogpost about this or I already made one.
Part of the problem with games is modeling the "fog of war" realistically.
One quickly realizes that logistics, preparation and Destiny are where it's at; the actual fisticuffs start to seem inevitable.
I really enjoyed Red Dead Redemption 2, Outer Wilds, INSIDE, Disco Elysium, Twelve Minutes recently. Basically games that actually have a story or feel like art instead of a grindy competition.
Person who burned out their dopamine receptors is surprised to suddenly become aware of the fact.
That's it, huh? Want me to pick up any other scientific advances for you while I'm out? A warp drive or time machine perhaps?
For a game to really grab me it has to be an exact match to the sort of game I really like.
I do wonder if it relates to imagination also seeming to fade with age.
I'm just alot less interested in games now than I was when younger.
In Linux, you can download software, and learn to use it to solve a wide array of problems. You can edit files, one of life's simple pleasures. If you find yourself repeating a task, you can find ways to automate it. Doing an old task faster means you levelled up, which gets the blood flowing. You can explore vast worlds (ecosystems/code bases) and satisfy your intellectual/narrative curiosity. The game has multiplayer elements too.
All of this is lots of *fun* if you're not doing for $JOB. I'm personally addiccted to this video game, and play it hours daily.
The above is sort of a joke, but I really do feel this way. Linux+OSS is a video game.
It seems that if you become good enough at this game you can make a good career out of knowing the ins and outs of it from what I observe…
That doesn't mean that games are boring though, especially when looking at the subset op mentioned. In most of those games the goal is to beat your opponent (with the exception of metal gear and payday) through dexterity or skill - it's high intensity and can get hollow when you stagnate in skill level.
Other goals might be engineering success (factorio, dyson sphere project, satisfactory), or unique experiences (stanley parable, superhot), or group fun (among us, gorilla tag), or just a great storyline (disco elysium, undertale, hades).
One goal might be played out for OP, but there are many other ways to enjoy games.
I hoped to put the focus more on the repetitiveness of innovation within many genres of games. That is somewhat of a product of my own subjective observation.
Let all people find what they truly enjoy!
Not to gatekeep but: trying to say you are an experienced gamer, and proving that with less than a thousand hours of the most popular and normal games of the last 20 years does not lend credence. And your 4th most played needing 14 hours? Please.
There other comment nailed it. This is like watching only marvel and complaining about movies. And not even a lot of marvel movies.
It is not worth my time to dig into the minutea of this, but let me just say: you do not have any idea what you are talking about. If you it don't like video games that is fine, but this article is just bad and ignorant. And written by someone who is not familiar with the medium.
I just want to kill people.
(And effective still-based matchmaking.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax7f3JZJHSw
I think games both appeal and do not appeal (to different people, or the same person at different times in life, respectively) because of the limitations of what the game allows you to do. It can be empowering to feel like you understand the world of the game you are playing, or disempowering to have to follow the arbitrary rules created by the developer.