• shoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Hot take: single player games are lame, co-op is where it’s at. That’s not to say there aren’t good single player games or I didn’t enjoy them in the past, but my evolving tastes and circumstances make me mostly skip them.

    1. Games in general have no respect for my time, so if I’m getting on for an extended session it’s going to be with my friends. If they do respect my time, why should I pay $40+ for an 8 hour experience when I could buy a dozen used books for that price and get more content and variety?
    2. Even games with compelling storytelling suffer because there’s a core conflict between who’s in control of the pacing and scene focus. What do I gain from holding a controller during the 8 hours of cutscenes in MSG4? Why play Dark Souls if I manage to miss out on 80% of the subtle world building? Does having a branching plot really make a story better?
    3. Putting aside narrative, games without a human element are either dopamine toys or simulators. Most games aren’t honest about that and are a palette swapped Total War, a tweaked 2D platformer, a fighting game with [gimmick], etc… It’s very rare to see innovation because innovation is hard. Even harder when you’re spending time on assets like character art, music, and world lore instead of the one thing that make games games: mechanics.

    I’ll still play the odd rogue like or crusader kings to kill time, but I generally don’t feel the need to expand my catalogue unless a game looks fun as a platform for social play (friendslop as some might say).

    • grinning_serpent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Co-op games pretty much always suffer from the fact that adding additional humans makes each player generally worse at paying attention and learning. So the game has to be designed as if it’s for a class of slow 8 year olds.