I had to do a special posting from a Game Informer editorial Shockbeast posted on Twitter. So I’ll give thanks for this listing.
The problem with modern gaming in general is combined into specific categories:
Pay to win
Following the crowd
Limited balance of risk and reward
While some can be combined into other categories, the point still remains the same. Too many recent gamers complain about certain aspects in gaming where older gamers like me would actually prefer those areas.
Who actually complains about too much content?
Why would paying for content is better than actually playing and unlocking?
Is sense of reward trophies or obtaining gear/levels/characters?
Why when a battle royale game releases it’s compared to Fortnite?
Why can’t reviewers review games within their respective genres?
This whole debate of “living games” is nothing more than blatant brainwashing combined with following the crowd. Think about it – name an offline game, you as a player experienced, and didn’t buy another game for a while because of the immersion?
Elder Scrolls series
Mass Effect original trilogy
Grand Theft Auto series
And so on
You know what the listed games have in common? They’re all made with the intent to keep you playing as long as possible. Why? Because they provide value for your money instead of 1/3 of the game and charge you extra later.
You, as a gamer can own multiple immersive games, swap between them, and still get your value because of two factors – time and content. Which ends the debate – whether you buy 3 games or 30, the main point is your money for your time. Spend and use wisely.