Modern Games Are Wasting Our Time
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 เม.ย. 2024
- Modern games aren't respecting our time. #gaming
🐺 Channel Membership - / @franklygaming
🔵 Discord - / discord
Socials
Twitter - / franklygaming
Instagram - / frankgarcia.10
Support My Work
🐺 Channel Membership - / @franklygaming
🎮 GOG Affiliate Link - af.gog.com/partner/FranklyGam...
NOTE Any game purchased on GOG after clicking my link will support the channel!
Chapters:
0:00 A Waste of Time
1:55 The Open World Value Proposition
13:17 Pacing is So Important
25:25 The Absolute Worst Part of Modern Games
34:35 Time Matters - เกม
this guy fucks
Thanks me
you again ? go away hes better than you
Is that what the kids say now 😂,kewl
👉👈
Oh it's me again😁
I did not finish the video, I got the feeling it started wasting my time, true pottery
How it should be haha
Yeah, 12 minutes in and he felt like he'd been repeating himself for 6 of those minutes.
@@Blxzyeah. I like this guy’s videos but I feel like I never finish them because he repeats himself over and over. He talks about wanting games to cut the fluff and focus on quality. He could stand to do the same.
@@levi22es "He could stand to do the same."
Might be easier if he sat down to do the same. I would. Been standing up all bloody day.
@@ncshuriken lolz
Something to consider in a large open world game:
How often do you just walk and take in your environment?
Or is it a world where you sprint or take the fastest vehicle or travel without much consideration?
Really good point this is actually what makes Skyrim so much better than say far cry to me
@@FranklyGaming The game that really did that for me was Ghost of Tsushima, which is another really awesome game that will soon come to PC.
Also keep in mind how long that behavior persists. How late in the game do you find yourself stopping or slowing down?
There is one counterpoint though.
When a game has really good gameplay that you enjoy just playing the game without a story motivation and willingly do content to test new ideas in combat and experiment with the mechanics, I think that justifies having side content that serves no story purpose beyond just being a combat encounter.
@@NuclearMolotov yep gameplay can trump it all, I would classify that as justifying the length though in those cases
Well said! Last time i played The Witcher 3, it was in VR and i fast traveled only a handful of times in my 120hr playthrough - it was just so immersive to feel the world around me, the trees swaying in the wind, the scale of the streets of Novigrad and Oxenfurt, the light of the sunset... Same with Cyberpunk 2077, for a different reason - driving my motorbike through the world felt amazing, even though i played it on a flat screen. :)
The last open world game that made me want to run through it instead of fast travel was Mirror’s Edge Catalyst.
Traversal in most games is just walking or running in a straight line, and it gets boring. Catalyst is a parkour game where you need to time jumps and slides correctly to get places, and it’s super fun. Also helps that the game looks amazing.
The only part I really disagree with is your stance on microtransactions. While I agree it's up to you whether you buy them or not, provided you're an adult. But we are also talking about targeting children in this. It's about deliberately trying to cultivate and then ingrain those habits in very small future consumers. The way this video addressed the situation is a gross oversimplification lacking most (if not all) nuance.
I also think the loot boxes take was a L. Talk about a form of gambling that should never be in video games to begin with.
I don’t want gambling in video games 🤮
yeah completely agree. "its a personal problem" is kind of a dick thing to say. its like saying "lol you have a gambling addiction" or fuck you for being neurodiverse.
I'm fine with microtransactions in a live service multiplayer game. its what keeps it going and as long as its not pay to win, I'm glad I can keep coming back to a favorite coop game of mine with my friends because its not stale, but in a single player game shit like dragons dogma 2 is shameful.
microtransactions are a travesy on gaming industry and should have no place in it
Stop using children to make up your point. This is lame and a coward move.
Who pays for the children to buy microtransactions and who let them access garbage?
Your kids work, gain money and waste every buck putting their credit card in a website with 2 or 3 verifications steps to buy mtx on their games?
This is a problem of adults being dumb and irresponsable, not children.
As a former game dev, even having worked on a live service, free-to-play mobile hell, your sentiment about microtransactions going to developers sounds nice, but that's not how it works at all. Publishers (and studio management) do not reinvest profits in thanks to developers, they use it to line their own pockets, their investors and end of financial year bonuses.
It's rare enough for developers to be rewarded based on how well a game performs, such as New Vegas, let alone the idea of giving extra revenue back to overworked, underpaid devs. Every dollar you spend on a skin or hat isn't going to some guy in QA who's struggling to pay his rent on time, it's going to people like Bobby Kotick, Andrew Wilson and all the other corporate parasites. At most, profit margins are used to justify whether it's worth taking another financial risk of funding development on the next game, update, etc.
MTX doesn't help the consumer, and it certainly doesn't the developers. Do not support it under any circumstances.
For me it’s just even if they make more money in general I’m fine with that it’s more a principle thing I guess.
Like on principle I’m fine with a single player game charging extra after a full price purchase as long as it doesn’t affect the game negatively.
Whether that goes to the higher ups or QA either is fine whatever, obviously I would prefer the entire team and creatives as well but end of the day it’s peoples decision to spend more on things like say cosmetics that don’t affect the game, i would prefer studios have a ton of passion and great people working that care about the product, and ruthless business trying to get as much money as possible to maintain functions.
I guess in other words I just don’t feel sorry for consumers, like me, who spend on mtx, it’s a personal problem. I do care if the mtx affect the game in a negative way like pay to win etc
Because to add on to this too, the reason I’m fine with them making all this money is if they really want the best business possible, they will pay their people well or big bonuses for high earnings, like Larian did.
If they don’t that’s their own problem going to bleed talent over time not my problem.
I’m fine with them charging consumers either way though as long as the games good
Yeah the only exception to this are those small self-publishing outfits that sees success every now & again - and even then, there's no guarantee that it's going to see reinvestment in the studio & the developers & not just go directly to the founder's retirement plan while seeking a purchaser of the company & IP or something.
The only post-launch monetisation I would support unambiguously are expansions, whole new parts to the game - literally buying more game. Don't have a single problem with that.
Most games that fail nowadays are due to corporate greed. Shareholder interest ≠ Consumer enjoyment
Tell it to EA, who from FIFA ultimate team alone EACH YEAR earn more money than Elden ring from its sales. People have mental health crisis and companies use it. If there was not demand, there would not be offer.
Nope, corporate greed is not the problem, if so fortnite, overwatch, cod etc won't be big..
Let's be honest, stop blaming everything on just these corporates when our demands for games has a growing pressure to impress. Graphics, sounds, cinematic structure, need money and funding..our superficial demand is high within the gaming community. So let's be honest here we are also to blame for the failure.
@@isimioyekunlemarktaiwo3643 Agree. There are many great indie games, who have great game mechanics, but not graphical polish of AAA. Also people wish too much be a part of the conversation about newest games, that buy games just because of it. That is why I respect Franky for his decision to review only games he likes (I remember 1 time he reviewed what he hated and that review was terrible).
@@isimioyekunlemarktaiwo3643 the creator of Baldurs gate 3 will completely disagree with you, he recently gave a speech saying that the problem with the industry is greed.
Stop defending companies like a little consumer, yes the problem is greed. Just because some games manage to succeed doesn't mean there is no problem. These companies are making millions and then they fire the people who made the games, only to hire more and repeat the same over again, you don't know s💩 dude.
Is it the only problem? No, ideology is also destroying the industry, so it's more than one thing, but greed is a huge part of it.
Gaymers still buy it
All of this based on the idea that I respect myself in the first place.
Hahaha shit dude
This video deals with the most important aspect that no one talks about: time. Like all hobies, gaming also costs money buy also requires time. As for myself, I find myself playing games instead of watching TV because I find it a more interesting medium. Being active while also enjoying a wonderful story feels much more fulfiling to me than just seeting on a couch and maybe even scrolling through tiktok or instagram during the show or movie. Like my favorite shows and movies, I tend to revisit games I loved. Even if I know the larger events that are happening in the game, the smaller details are what makes it interesting and being active changes things instead of just watching the same episode. I do believe that everyone views things differently about gaming but thats what makes it fun, the variety. Keep having fun people!
Well, you don't have to "pay" for a game...get my drift? lol paying for unfinished games and live service games just makes the CEOs richer. When Steller Blade does come to PC i'll buy it! hopefully it wouldn't be too expensive like other AAA games are now.
Biggest offender: Starfield
That's why I play older generation games because I'm getting my times worth and spiritual worth
Right. No need to play for 5 hours to get your times worth with older games. My fave oldie platforms are probably PS1, and arcade (mostly the 2D stuff between 80's & 2000'ish). With arcade especially, you can play 10 different games in an hour and get a good impression of them all. And many of the classic era 2D arcade games just had amazing visuals + explosive gameplay. Not to mention something like 5000+ games to see. All available through a MAME emulator!
@@ncshuriken good for you
@@unib4324 Yea it ain't bad for me thats for sure.
"gamers should expect less" Now write that down and twist it into $100 game for 15 min gameplay.
If it's 15 minutes of feeling like a God, blasting every boss each with different intentions, and giving redemption arcs to your "if evil, why hot" characters?
I might just buy it
There's a lot of stuff in life that people pay $100 for to enjoy for 15 minutes to an hour. Expensive food, for example.
There are plenty of people who pay twice this just to pay an electrician to change out an outlet cover.
People pay hundreds and even thousands of dollars for brand new, brand name shoes and bags to put them in the closet and wear once a year.
Plenty of dummies mess around with drugs and alcohol that cost that much just because.
@@addonexus2656 red herring. you even insinuate this with the intro about 'expensive' food. it would be more like saying paying 100 dollars for burger king.
the main point is that people want equivalent value exchanged. the consensus is that modern games charge too much and give too little back.
@jeremiahjohnson2784 It's not Burger King, if the burger is made with kobe beef.... and as addonexus stated, people will pay outrageous prices for an experience that lasts mere moments or hours. He used food as his main example, but I'd like to expand on that to show that you will find it just about everywhere...
First example- Tickets to this year's Superbowl averaged $8600! That average includes cheap nosebleed seats for about $2000 all the way up to catered suites going for upwards of $20,000... and this is for an experience that lasts maybe 8 hours at the most? That breaks down to $250/hr for nosebleeds, $1075/hr average, and $2500/hr for a suite. And ask anyone that dropped the money for whatever level ticket they bought, and a vast majority would probably say it was worth the cost. (Unless you are a 49er fan 😢)
Second example- A round of 18 holes of golf at a high end course can range from $485-$1000. 18 holes takes about 2.5 to 4 hours to play, depending on if you are walking the course or renting a cart. That breaks down to an average of $241/hr. Not to mention, you gotta schedule your tee time at least 30 days in advance, or good luck getting one, so clearly there are a large number of people perfectly ok with the cost.
Third (and final) example- Dirt track racing cost about $400 each weekend of race season, and that doesn't take into account the $10,000-$30,000 start-up cost of buying all the things needed to begin with, and that $400 gets you about 20 mins of on track full throttle time. Maybe 40 min, if you qualify high enough to get into the A-main. That breaks down to $1200/hr for non A-main qualifiers, and $600/hr for those that do qualify. Not to mention all the time and work that goes into maintaining your ride throughout the week... but the pits are always full every weekend during race season, so the cost is clearly justified.
My point is that paying $100 for a gaming experience that is only 15 min could easily be justified if the gaming content provided for the cost was absolutely fun, entertaining, and thrilling, and gaming is one of your hobbies. It comes down to your subjective view of "affordable." You wouldn't find somebody that has never watched a football game in their life dropping double digit dollar amounts on football tickets, let alone 4 or 5 figure amounts... but to the person that can remember owning a jersey of their teams current quarterback as well as every one of the past 6 quarterbacks dating back 30 years, they might throw down stacks of cash without hesitation. It all comes down to how much you weight the entertainment value of the experience you are buying into. And for top quality, no bs, 100% bursting with passion obvious labor of love gameplay, I imagine $100 for 15 min might even seem cheap to some people. Hell, you might find me at the midnight release begging the cashier to, "take my money!" So I can get home and play the hell out of the following 15 min of pure gaming bliss. Then, once the credits roll 15 min later, I might just launch straight into ng+ for another 15 minutes of utter elation... 😂
my biggest reason for supporting cheats in modern SINGLEPLAYER games is to skip the built in grind and make your game fun again. Like assassin's creed's new games, some of the WORST offenders, and become so much more playable when you remove the level gating.
This is for me what NG+ is really about. Replaying the game with full level full gear badassery
I've been doing it more and more and using the accessibility options when games provide it like Prince of Persia: The Lost Crown. I'm over busy work.
One of the big reasons games have evolved this way is because of the fact that a huge part of the target demographic are people without jobs or other responsibilities who are looking for ways to "waste" their time away. This is seen in the constant battle between younger "hardcore" gamers in high school or college, and older gamers who want to play a few hours after the kids go to sleep.
for the record the "people without jobs or other responsibilities who are looking for ways to "waste" their time away" typically plays MMO's and the only reason other companies started the more mundane boring crap was in hope of bringing those players to their game and completely disregarding the core fundamentals of what makes open world game good so the likelihood of those player even wasting their time with crap like that when they got MMO is very unlikely and now companies like Ubisoft is stuck with this idea because parents who don't keep up with gaming news and how bad those games have gotten, buys the game and is just gonna blame the void that still plays MMO's instead of blaming the company who made this choice in the first place
also don't blame the young for having free time because last i check when i was kid in the 90s my parents struggle too to maintain their hobbies too because they had kids but was also able to pick them up again ones we had a families of our own so making that statement seems more ungraceful for the free time you use to have and will get again than something worth justifying companies needing to cater to you only having 5 hours a week to play or so
i used to play GTA, wow, Skyrim, monster hunter, and other games like that but now days I'm perfectly fine if i can just play some random indie game witch i also can play the the kids
but hey... if you can't let go of the trending AAA titles then that's on you and only you because your kids don't deserve to get the blame for you having them
@@konohake true
mtxs aren't there to help the devs, it's for the shareholders. who have every vested in interest in wasting your time for engagement if you aren't gonna pay
i dont know why people are complaining about elden ring being too big, when the truth is, most everything in elden ring is optional, its up to you if you want to take longer or speedrun everything, i admit that there are repetitions when it comes to the bosses, but still i prefer what they did than what all most other open world games to date
Ya it’s a tough call I like the grandness of it all in a way too for sure but still think optional but not their highest quality is pointless still in a way
I disagree, most content is not "optional" if you want to have a "normal" time playing it - if you do not want to make it harder on yourself, which let's face it, most people do not even in fromsoft games. Elden Ring "optional" content needs to be run through or at least parts of it grinded for levels, and yes, you can beat it at level 1 but most people don't challenge themselves that way - even in older more linear titles people used to grind to get levels and then proceed with a boss or an area.
And let's face it if one of these "modern" open world games asked you to grind to level so you can proceed (which they do) you'd say oh it's bad design - then they sell time savers, which I agree suck, they solve a problem they created and it still overall sucks.
The same way you can beat Elden Ring at level 1, you can beat AC Valhalla or Odyssey at level 1 with starting gear and the experience would be the same tedious and repetitive until you beat a boss with your 20 damage per hit.
I loved and played all fromsoft games but Elden Ring was overall medicore, with moments of brilliance (which I admit is more than you can say about most "modern" open world games which are just bland and safe) - but it does not change the fact that it is what it is, a fromsoft game, plagued with modern issues repetition and grind and is solely overrated due to what it is and who made it
You know for some of us wants to see every aspects of it so I have a hard time knowing I lost out on something. I like all kinds of games tho. I have a more problem with that everything has to be an open world and as for From Soft I want the next one to be a more directed experience because it feels more focused. Personally the older Ive gotten the more I appreciate how Japanese developers and how different they think.
You will always find people complaining about the less intricate catacombs or the repeat bosses but NOWHERE will you find someone praising how exploring even the smallest part of Elden Ring will end up giving you either a good weapon, or armor set, or summoning spirit or better yet and actually the best part of exploring: You will very rarely not find something related to the lore anywhere in the game. Pretty much every location serves a purpose, has a history to it that you can learn. Every item description contains a new clue for the big ass 60 hours narrative puzzle that is Elden Ring. Most if not all boss/enemy placements have an in-game reason, most if not all weapons. The environmental storytelling Fromsoftware is used to portray in their games is top notch and very rarely another game dares to do something like that. This is a game that rather than giving you 3 hours of expositional cutscenes and dialogue, will give you a tremendous open world full of stuff that you can absolutely complete (or even ignore). There's no way in hell you could ever argue that Elden Ring wastes your time. If you actually feel like your time is valuable and at the same you don't care about the lore, you can literally beat the game going in a straight line ignoring 70% of the world. You can beat the game leveling up only your weapon, which depending on what weapon you use will take you around 30 minutes if you know where to go. There's no mandatory grind. There's no mandatory exploration. Even Miyazaki himself said you should try not to go everywhere on your first playthrough.
This is honestly just a pointless debate. People who love the game will 100% it and people who don't will be able to skip 70% of it. Let's not delude ourselves just because we can't help it but put down one of the only actually good open world games of the last decade at the same level of the uninteresting braindead insulting garbage that companies like EA, Ubisoft or even fucking Bethesda are dishing out.
hell i prefer elden rings world over any other fromsoft game by a gigantic margin XD not even ds1 comes close to ER in level design, lyndell is what anor londo whishes it could be, not only that most of ERs optional stuff is fuckin amazing and is better than alot of the main content of the older games XD
i think one of the most constantly overlooked features is traversal, and finding ways to make it fun and engaging. spiderman nails it, and assassins creed has come close a few times.
personally I think the worst offenders are games like destiny where you fight the same thing over and over for a small percentage chance to get something worth anything. and anything where you have to grind resources endlessly to make one thing that your going to need to keep making so that you can make something else to make something else is awful. Tarkov is another example of a terrible game where you have to grind to get gear so that you can grind to get better gear.
I hate grinding
The real trick is to make a game’s length completely justifiable. Lots of studios don’t understand this or don’t care.
Also, the older we get, the less time we (should) have to spend on games. We don’t all get to stay 12 years old forever and feel like time stays still.
And with so many (way too many) games to play nowadays through digital storefronts and subscription services, it’s easy to feel like you’re missing out on something else when you spend too much time on just one game.
Exactly, that’s why I brought up slower or long games that are good too, it’s all about making a game as long as it needs to be, and nothing more
I like long RPG's. I want to get lost in the world, I want to explore, I want to go somewhere away from the drudgery of life. I want a massive world where I can relax or fight or build and make a life for myself in game.
But there are hundreds of good RPGs. Due to current games length, you simply don't have the free time to complete them all. So the idea is that quality and variety are more important than quantity.
Get a life
@@lastofanancientbreed8616 I've had a life. I'm a British veteran, I've been all over the world. What have you done with yours?
Lol.
@@AK-bx3ftwell I’m only 15 but even I know fighting on behalf of Israel is a cuck move
I played Alone in The Dark these days and I enjoyed the game, it has flaws like any game (combat is a bit slow), but overall it was a lot of fun for me. I finished Emily's campaign in 4 hours and a lot of reviews said that the game was short and lacked content. Our mind is already corroded by the idea that games have to be more than 50 hours long to be good, in the same way that there are people who cannot focus on long videos due to their addiction to Shorts/Tiktok
I'm loving AITD. Such a good game.
Do you think it was worth the 60 bucks though? Just wondering, I am thinking about getting it next. I don't want to pay that for a game I will likely play through once and that's it. I just got Rise of Ronin and also have my eye on Dragon's Dogma. It came out between two other big releases so picking it over those, I would need a reason. I would love another Survival horror franchise besides Resident Evil to be successful. While those games can be beat quick the replays add a lot of fun to it. I didn't see incentive to do that with Alone but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
Look, I recommend waiting for a promotion, I bought it because I REALLY miss horror games and I believe that the fact that it satisfied that lack makes me like it a lot. And this month there were a lot of releases, so just focus on one or the other and wait for some promotions (I'm also keeping an eye on DD2)
@@rclima2328 Thanks for the input. I was thinking I'd wait on that one. While it isn't scary, if you're a Playstation plus member Amnesia: The Bunker is 12 bucks right now. It's more tense then scary but when you figure stuff out, it gets rewarding.
agree with you. also enjoying aitd. and I prefer it being on the shorter side
You don't have to finish games in one sitting. It's always what you make of it. Assassin's Creed Odyssey for example: the game is obviously made with selling time savers in mind. But with a trainer to bypass the resources grind, playing every quest when I felt about it. Not rushing to the end. 250 hours for everything and it was fun. I stopped playing for a week when it wasn't.
But this is always for open world games. Different games, different way of playing.
250 hours for everything with trainer to bypass the resources grind? wtf were you doing 250 hours,my dude i finished everything in that game every side quest and dlc in 130 hours and you almost did double with a trainer wtf :D
P.S no i didn't bought any time savers from ubisoft,i just played the game.
@@EyefyourGf I did everything. Every quest, every dlc. And no fast travel. The sea shanties where too good. I enjoyed the setting what can I say. It's the only open world ubigarbage game I had this with.
If you need a trainer to play a game it's trash
There's a lot of middle ground between one sitting & 250 hours. I think more than 30 hours for a main campaign without sidequests or challenges is where a game seriously starts to outstay its welcome IMO.
Frankly gaming encapsulated everything wrong with modern gaming minus games being broken on release. I tried finishing days gone but the filler, boring world, and boring characters made me quit. Give me dragons age origins, mass effect, last of us 1, and Bioshock any day. Games with narrative as the focus, little to no filler, and imo, great pacing. A++ vid
Pacing is what it is all about, and thanks for supporting my channel!
That's interesting because I didn't like any of those games.
In the comments of a totk video, I mentioned being thankful that the game respected my time by never forcing me into protracted sessions, giving me natural stopping points, and also making sure I never considered my actions to be a chore.
I was not recieved well. I was accused of being "bitter that my life was taken up by work" (its not lol), accused of being easily distracted, etc
Its sad because there are so many games i want to experience, but the amount of time they demand from you is unhealthy. If I wanted to spend 500 hours in an rpg I'd play an mmo.
I recently finished my second playthrough of cyberpunk along with the phantom liberty DLC, and that's when i realized how unique open worlds like cyberpunk, witcher 3 and RDR2 are. Every mission you do in these games has a purpose, even if what you're doing may be repetitive. In cyberpunk, there are dozens of gigs, and though they may be only a few types of gigs(thievery, gun for hire etc.), every gig has a story to it. Similarly, the witcher contracts in witcher 3 all involve the same thing, killing monsters - but all contracts have a story attached to them. What i mean to say is, games like these make you feel immersed with the side content, they truly make you feel like a merc or a witcher or a cowboy in those worlds, even if the stuff you're actually doing may be repetitive. These games however are sadly few and far between. For every one of these games, you have 20 open world games with bullshit video gamey stuff to pad out the length of the game like ubisoft towers and ubisoft enemy outposts. Ubisoft has done massive damage to the video game industry. Even if their almost all of their games now are soulless corporate products made for mindless consumption, they still sell incredibly well, so their open world formula has been adopted by many other studios.
I have no idea where i was going with all this, and i have no idea how to finish it, but I have to say man, i love your channel and your videos, you put your heart and soul into these videos. I feel the same way about video games, but I may never be able to put those emotions into words like you do. I came across your channel roughly a year ago, and i absolutely love listening to your videos. Keep up the good work mate :)
Really appreciate the kind words of support! And totally agree on the cyberpunk missions they are all very deliberate
This open world rpg era is so annoying
I hope Resident Evil is going that way....
It's annoying because there haven't been too many games that have been as good or immersive as them so far. The genre has been real dominant right now
Open world is good, the problem is it's seldom done right.
They make an immersive open world with pretty scenery.
And absolutely nothing to do therein.
Skyrim for all its flaws is one of the few good ones with things STILL being discovered 13 years later.
I would love a cowboy game, too bad the only two cowboy games of recent memory are fucking open world rpgs.
It happened to Sonic, it happened to Halo, and it’s even happening to Call of Duty.
The open world plague will consume all.
Pacing is everything, not just in games, but art, music, story in general - I think these AAA companies know it well, and if they want, they can create the best pacing and experience, but the fact is, big games are mostly products, and they are there to milk your money first, and being something fun the second, fun/pacing sometimes don't convert into sales, that's the sad facts. Also we hardcore gamers want in a lot of cases don't align with regular consumers, so we generally feel modern gaming sucks. Just my personal take on this matter.
"open world" should be a compromise for when linearity cannot achieve a desired design goal, not the goal itself. same with things like "flashiness" or "mechanical depth". too much of that without other aspects to tie it together with the rest of the game and you get a flash-in-the-pan or a mechanical mess type of game.
spice is nice, but nobody wants to upturn a salt shaker into their mouth
why climb a mountain of trash when you could sit on a throne of gold?
A wise man once Said "if a game isnt fun, Why bother?"
You hit the nail on the head with Elden Ring. At first, finding mini dungeons in the world was pure joy, and enhanced my sense of exploration and discovery. But the constant reuse of environmental elements, enemies, and bosses to such a degree began to undercut that fun for me. I burned out around 80 hours into the game when I realized I essentially had an entire northern region I still had to conquer. Sekiro is still my favorite From Software title and I almost platinumed it twice.
Nowadays publishers are just banks, creating wealth for shareholders. Games are just cash grabs.
It's a much maligned game but I feel Dragon Age 2 has decent pacing. It literally has 3 Acts and most (not all) of the side quests are interesting and some even affect things in later acts. Decent companions help as well.
Sure BioWare used the same assets over again and sometimes the long walks without fast travel can be a slog but in regard to story and narrative, the pacing is excellent.
DA2 still has filler content though but most of it is organic, kind of. Meaning that a larger side quest pops up in the same area as a fetch quest, so it's less annoying.
mass effect 2 and the witcher 2 both feel the same
me2 is quite acclaimed between the trilogy though
In GTA IV you learn physics, not such a waste. But then again GTA IV was the peak of gaming.
I was so happy to hear Hellblade 2 is going to be a similar 8-ish-hour length as the first game, just with higher production, more characters & improved combat, for $50. Another studio would've made it an Iceland exploration simulator with map markers, collectibles & side quests.
Where do I find the game you talk about around 18:41? I can't find anything under "Theory".
It’s called “furi” you should give it a shot!
17:00 As a writer I can attest to this. If something doesn't fit into the narrative anymore, even if it's a good idea that I spent a lot of time writing, it gets cut to make the story flow better and make sense.
Basically, gaming needs ruthless editors like books and movies have.
You missed the point by a Galaxy mate... Older games Fueled Escapism and let you relax from your daily grind ... New games Push Social Agendas on you , don't let you Relax and Fuel Escapism ... they want you Fueled with hate, snappy ...that would jump on anything ... Divided in your Bubble ... It was never about padding mate , since its the meat of the game ... it was about Story telling, that would let you Escape into the world ... then fuel your hatred against some Race\Nation\Creed\Religion ... since all modern games are like that , Fueled by ESG Advisers that push those things ... And you no longer get games when you Become Spiderman the protector of Law and Order ... but a BLM supporter that would rather Burn down a city then help it ...
Truth. Also, the entire context of this comment will fly over the head of this channel owner.
Technology advancements have a lot to do with wasted time, 25 years ago I could buy a Sega Genesis game for £30 that was over within two hours of starting it. Back then my passion for games was greater and the experiences were way shorter and got completed. Sadly the newer games I'm buying aren't getting finished. I have over 250 Steam games now and play about 5 of them a week.
I could never play a game like elden ring if its anything like souls games, I don’t enjoy challenges and difficulty as life is already difficult enough
Don't worry dude, lots of people don't like soulslike either... It just the fanbase and the trend that keeping it afloat, reviewers 'must' like the game in order to not get cancelled.
I enjoy hard games like Hollow Knight because I can move with precisions, meanwhile I must spam roll in elden ring while following some guides in order to not waste my time dying (and the game can't pause, like seriously?)
I play a lot of souls games, my favorite genre, and for me Elden Ring is way more difficult than Dark Souls games or Bloodborne, and the open world is really confusing. Souls games are not difficult just for the sake of it, is not the same as playing other games in hardcore more; the game is fair and gives many tools for you to be strong.
@@nickochioneantony9288 Not liking soulslikes is completely okay but your take on reviewers is pretty wild. Nobody would cancel them if they make a negative review about a game that is actually bad. Many people criticised DS2 and both Lords of The Fallen games because they really are flawed in more ways than one.
Also what do you mean "just the fanbase and trend keeping it afloat"?? Isn't it like that with pretty much all games?
If soulslikes weren't actually good the fanbase wouldn't grow like this. Demon's Souls sold less than 1M in it's first year, DS1 sold several million after a few years, DS3 sold over 10M in 4 years and Elden Ring got to 20 million in just one year.
@@valentinvas6454 ahh this is exactly what I meant, a souls fan defending the genre with all its passive-aggresive tone.
People don't like crpg like Baldur's Gate, it's fine, don't like shooters, it's fine, etc... But don't like souls game, well it's time to tell them to git gud.
Yes, Elden Ring sold a lot, it wins goty... But the case here is the player who didn't know any good of what the game expect them to do. Many first-timer bought the game because of popular reviewers recommended it. But in the end, only some of the hardcore could finish the game (16% finished it, as I recall).
I for one didn't expect that I must roll myself a hundred times before I beat a boss in an awkward angle (absolutely break the immersion). Nobody told us that the game is so painfully punishing that it would take so much time just to get my exp back because the game cannot be paused. That is a simple complaint, but it kills the fun factor.
Many casuals are all in for hard games, we can beat Celeste challenges, Hollow Knight bosses, Hades in 30+ heat... It can be so much fun, but nothing can kill my excitement faster than dying in a Souls game, especially when the fanbase use cult-like justification.
@@nickochioneantony9288 I wasn't even defending the games I was merely stating that souls games are just as open to criticism as others if it's valid.
Oh my God the "git gud" things is so misunderstood nowadays. It's being said as a joke most of the time and other times it's said by the toxic minority. None of the decent souls fans would call out anyone for not liking the games. The vocal minority is always the worse and those people would bash even me for using certain weapons.
The 16% data must be old or misleading because I just checked and 40% of Steam users and 55 of PS users defeated Hoarah Loux who is the penultimate boss. I think ER has different achievements for certain endings.
It's interesting to hear that you found ER more punishing than something like Hollow Knight. For me it's roughly similar. In fact I had more trouble with POP Lost Crown on normal difficulty. ER can be made pretty easy if you know where to go for weapon and flask upgrades on top of good weapons, spells, summons etc. My friend would enter boss rooms, summon 5 headless knights and remain in the back and shoot magic spells. Most bosses could be destroyed this way in less than half a minute.
This is so true, and it's something that I've felt for a long time. The common complaint of "they want $20 for that 4 hour long game? that's way too much!" just boggles my mind.
The people who want at least an hour of "gameplay" for every dollar that they spend make me think of a person who is not only happy eating stale discounted bread for every meal of every day, but who actively pursues that over all other forms of sustenance. The idea that quality does not equate quantity is lost on them and they scoff at paying $20 for a quality meal because that same $20 could buy them ten loaves of expired bread.
I whole-heartedly agree that long games are generally a waste of time filled with repetitive gameplay that long overstays it's welcome most of the time. With rare exceptions, I would much rather play 20 games that are between 1-4 hours long than play 1-2 games that take 40-80 hours to complete.
the witcher 3 is really a game using a mediocre formula to host superb writing and cinematic, yet every other company sees it and takes the opportunity to gaslight players to think the length and scale of it made the witcher 3 good. it's both infuriating and pathetic.
Excellent video. It’s become a chore to play some of these new AAA titles due to how much time is spent essentially doing nothing in them. I’m much more selective about what I play these days
Go play Portal 2 with a buddy. Best 8 hours you'll ever spend. Now go play Skull & Bones with them for 80 hours. Point proven. Also, damn you for beating me to making this video Frankly, you sexy sexy man.
Would Chess be better as an open world with fetch quests, better graphics, and skill stats?
Brilliant write up, really hope we see more quality over quantity in this medium.
thank you for supporting my work!
modern games: jack of all trades, master of none.
I needed this video. I must value my time and drop games if I am not enjoying it. I dragged myself to end Greedfall last time, It's good game but it overstates its welcome
Thanks for giving it a watch and happy to see it resonated!
@@FranklyGaming Yeah, I already feel a sense of relief after deleting my backlog list. I would continue to play some games from there but without any obligation. Thank you very much, and I wish you all the best!
Modern games wasting our time?
*cries in Donkey Kong 64*
100% agree with you. Unfortunately, nothing's going to change as long as the cash flows in... Companies are using more and more psychological bias to keep us engaged and get us to pay for something that we don't need AND waste our precious time. We've got to get smarter as consumers. Not only for video games, but in general.
The Open world was too big and empty in elden ring. They lost sight of level design they had in Dark Souls, Bloodborne and Sekiro.
I need a good story in a game like Witcher 3 and HZD,
Souls and Bloodborne is just run around and kill anything that is not you .
@@Crashed131963 theres more philosophy to it than that, but at face value yeah it is. Id much rather play Red dead 2 or Witcher 3 for open world experience.
@@splinterborn The "phylosophy" thing about souls games is bullshit.
Dark Souls was born from people who didn't know how to make a game, so it went out very buggy and frustrating. They saw that people liked that formula cause it made them feel smarter or wathever, so they kept doing that and making even more money. All the great "lore" and "symbolism" of the souls games are only random fantasy walltext of useless information. It's not subdle, it's not interesting.
The art direction is great, yeah, but apart from that it's a 60 € rage game.
And no, I don't play Fortinite, or Uncharted or most of AAA games.
@@Gy0952 Ah YES.. people who didnt know how to make a game, made a sub genre of games. That TOTALLY MAKES SENSE
@@deeqfeedIt doesn't make it good.
Same thing with Final Fantasy 7 remake, disregarding the story changes. The first one was padded with almost 70% filler, on top of the same dungeon being needed to be completed twice (sewers).
Although JRPG's have never been good with side quests, they didn't take up such a huge chunk of gameplay time like FF7 remake. And the side quests themselves felt like the standard MMO filler from point a to point b, or kill x amount here with forgettable NPC stories to go with it. And of course anyone who dares to criticizes the game for it gets thrown into the nostalgia crowd.
The minute I saw information about the sequel being "open world" I knew that there was no way that I would touch it with a 10ft pole. A vast landscape and great graphics ain't going to save a game packed with more filler than actual main storyline content.
I also worked on my own story mod for an RPG, where I added in these short repeatable missions of the same quality as these filler type quests, funny part is it took me less than an hour to do each of them. And if I really wanted to, I could have slapped one together in close to 20 minutes (story/dialogue and scripting wise).
My first real realization of how mundane and repetitive open world could be was in Metal Gear. I originally thought to myself how great a concept it would be, and Metal Gear was the perfect candidate with being given the option to tackle things the way I wanted to, and honestly the variety of choices were there. But as the hours began drag on and on, I defaulted to a strategy that will get me through the mission as fast as possible, and then it started to feel like a chore.
7:52 lol the most relaxed calling a game trash i've ever heard
When Spiderman 2 came out, the main gripe of people who said the game was average, was that it was too short. What more do you want? The game takes about 20-25 hrs to beat unless you rush through the game. So per it's about 3 dollars per hour of entertainment if you only play it once depending on if you bought it at full price. You'll spend 20 bucks to go to the theater to see a 2 hr film.
It’s ok to buy a game for 70$ or 80$?? Are you nuts?
Seriously
its been a long time since I agreed and disagreed with a take on this subject, especially the last bits of the video, MTX part dude. The more money they make the lazier they become.
100% agree. I call myself a dedicated average gamer in that with work and family commitments I get maybe 5-10 hours a week to play. This is why myself and others don't finish games. As soon as these padded out open worlds begin to disrespect our time, we move on.
It's called feature fatigue. Cyberpunk is a great example. Too much.
I have pretty much stopped playing any game that forces you to do grinding. It's stupid. I have to do the same boring thing over and over and over and over and over, just so I have a chance of maybe being able to participate in content that I have not yet participated in. I've spent hours running from that stupid murder ball at greyolls barrow, and I fucking refuse to do things like that anymore. If my level isn't naturally progressing to be able to handle what you are throwing at me that is shit game design. In my opinion. Eventually I stopped playing the game because it got boring. I did not enjoy Elden Ring at all. Only reason I made it so far was because I was dedicated but most importantly someone showed me the elder dragon exploit to gain 25 levels off top. had it not been for that exploit I never would have gotten past the first guars.
Exactly, and Elden ring is great in so many ways too which makes any sort of filler at all disappointing
Bro, you don't need to grind in ER at all. Just do the content and you will be appropriately leveled, and if you do a lot of the side content you will be over-levelled. What made you think you needed to grind?
When I see that a game is less than 20 hours, 10 hours even I feel it's surmountable.
Games that are +50, 70 or even 100 hours leave a negative connotation with me from the get go.
Especially newer games as they are likely just filler content. It's not fun nor curated.
I loved my time with BG3 but didn't even get to Act 2.
New games arrived and it was just so slow paced.
If I'm ever playing it again, I need to start over and have way more free time on my hands.
Ya it’s probably a fact of getting older too it just becomes a matter of why waste your time on something not really good, thanks for watching !
It happens with growing up
Yes! I felt this way about final fantasy 7 rebirth. The amount of time spent doesn’t feel rewarding. I was bored 10 hours in, I didn’t feel motivated to play it for the story if the meat of the game is just like every other open world game I’ve played. I loved the original, I even liked the remake but rebirth is just another open world of 100 hour of gameplay that doesn’t make me feel like I’ve accomplished anything.
I liked Elden Ring being long, I loved exploring the world, I liked jumping around with my mount and I didn't want it to end, it's an immersive and beautiful experience, it's not just about fighting bosses.
that's what games are meant to be, having fun, killing times and escape from reality stress
I don't agree with all your points, because IMO a bit of tedium is actually beneficial to the dopamine release after, and personally i want both quality stories AND long games (this results in a natural selection of only the best of the best that deserves my time - most of the time i spend replaying my favorites of the past 25 years anyway. :) But i love your content and wish more gaming related youtubers where at your level. Kudos.
Ya I actually agree with this 100% tedium with purpose is good I meant that but probably didn’t express it perfectly lol
Developers are not getting the microtransactions money. Executives and shareholders are...
The hinterlands in dragon age inquisition were such a waste of time. What a departure from the tight gameplay in dragon age origins...
Super great example
Dragon Age Inquisition was when my distaste for open world games started to form. I actually loved it up to a certain point until progressing the main story was gated by doing mind-numbing side quest. The game had a TON of filler. The Hinterlands was like the Devs were telling you from the beginning what kind of a waste the game would be.
@@Drstrange3000 Yes, it is almost like they wanted to make an mmo with mindless grinding...
It really does feel like an MMO@@samuelschwager
Between years 2008-2016 I can count many many games I have had good time with, good memories and mostly I came back to them.
Since 2016 till this day I could go with probably 8-10 games, maybe ? Most of them are boring, forced politics, annoying or boring characters or more movies than games.
These days everyone is roping in everything into politics. Games have had a hint of politics in them for a long time. Usually politics are important issues in society. All forms of media will use characters or story to express their opinions on that. Its likely that you played old games that express important opinions on issues and you didn't mind playing them because either they were subtle that you didn't notice or they aligned with your view. Through the last couple of years people mention politics when and where its unnecessary. But not being able to express how you feel in important issues at all in your work or art etc is called oppression and that is something our country has always been against. Other countries you will find cannot speak up on issues without being arrested.
I think you're overstating the case a bit. Theres been a huge amount of great games made in the last 10 years, heck just last year alone we had dozens of fantastic games that were great successes and fun to play. Yes there are bad games too, but that has always been the case.
@@jimralston4789 yeah ofc there has been awesome games, but I boycott most WOKE games or I dont have fun with ''movie'' games
Aside from maybe like 5 major releases in the last few years I don't think "woke" games are actually enough of a phenomenon to where only playing 10 games in the last 8 years sounds reasonable. Short arcadey games with basically no cutscenes are insanely common in the indie scene.
@@CosplayZine I feel like how politics has manifested in games and just media in general has changed though. Whereas historically this has been mostly a case of the writers' bias seeping into the world they are creating, or the fictional world being somewhat of a reflection of the writers' world; it now feels like an attack from one side of the political spectrum against the other, and rather than being influenced by the world around them they now seek to influence the world around them.
To look at an example with regards to gender, as both genders become more equal in the real world you would expect to see more fictional worlds where men and women are both of equal status with their only real difference being that they are differently gendered. Instead it seems that in a lot of works that women are elevated above men with all the women becoming girl bosses and badasses and the men being devolved into caricatures of masculinity. The issue here isn't women being portrayed as capable as this accurately reflects the world and where most stand politically. It's the juxtaposition between these beyond capable women and caricatures of masculinity as it depicts a matriarchal world which is not a reflection of reality and instead comes across as trying to attack and influence the real world.
I do think it is disingenuous to act like this occurs everywhere as there are plenty of games and movies etc. where this doesn't happen. It is a growing trend though, and it has been making its way into franchises that weren't like this to begin with.
good vid but you def started repeating yourself fairly quick.
Honestly I think there’s a place for both longer and shorter games, as they both work effectively in different ways. In an open world game like Witcher 3 for example, it works so well because you learn about the world and the setting through the amazingly well written side quests. Other longer games like the Persona series focus on you getting to know a huge cast of characters with distinct personalities throughout the insanely long play time, which would not be possible in a shorter game. Most open world games you mentioned can be completed in like 30-50 hours if you just don’t do most of the side content. So while I do think people and developers these days are obsessed with longer play times, these longer games aren’t inherently bad and many of the negatives mentioned can be viewed in a positive way.
This is how I think Resident Evil has been successful for so long, most of their games are 10-15 hours. In fact, Resident Evil 6, is often considered its worst game, and is the franchise's longest game.
It's the only res I platinumed due to me and my friend having so much fun in co op
Res6
Another person who doesn't understand the problem with microtransactions, at this point I don't know if it's laziness to not research why it is bad or just refusing to understand why. You are just completely missing the point, it is not just "your money your problem", you really don't get it, and at the same time you complain that the games are wasting our time... How blind can people be when the problem is literally slapping them in the face to the point of complaining.
I was going to explain it here but i won't, like i said at this point it has been explained by so many people that those who don't understand is just because they don't want to.
I’m a little bit of a Fromsoft fan so I respect your opinion but I disagree with ER being too big.
1. Because it was my first entry into the series and revitalized my love for video games.
2. More importantly, yes ER has copy/paste content sometimes but all of this is optional. Fromsoft’s game philosophy is such that they dont really care if you do or don’t interact with the extra content. My first play through of dark souls, I missed the great hollow and ash lake all together. Miquella’s Haligtree, Volcano Manor, weeping peninsula, caelid, and ranni’s quest are a “few” examples of optional content.
Ya I definitely get this side too and I me a I do like Elden ring it’s one of the greats, I think it’s just as I’ve played and thought about it more even if the content is optional I kinda just wonder what’s even the point then of spending any time if it’s not as good as other stuff.
It’s a rough balance for sure though because grandness and scale make it better too
@@FranklyGaming " I kinda just wonder what’s even the point then of spending any time if it’s not as good as other stuff. " plenty of the side content is on par with the non-optional stuff, and in some aspects, like unique area and design, is far better than the main path. pick and choose what you like and dont like.
even in the older games, not all areas of design are created equal, theres alot of bad main content in the older games too, and some pretty mediocre side content, overall, elden ring is the best one when it comes to main path stuff, factor in everything else and the game is frankly far above the older games for me. elden rings side content points and laughs at practically all the older games in both quality and quantity if you ask me.
miyazaki said it himself, even though you implied that fromsoft made it open world for the sake of it, thats objectively false, miyazaki confirmed that elden ring is what he envisioned ds1 to be, ER is to DS1 what DS1 was to demons souls, he always wanted to make an interconnected open world game. elden ring's open world isnt just open world for the sake of it like ubisoft and other games are, its one of the only extremely handcrafted and meaningful open worlds in the modern era. it is literally the most handcrafted world ive ever seen in a game, hell even just trying to find the bad side content through exploring ER's world is more fun than alot of other games lol, and i would still say that even ERs worst content (mountaintops and some mini dungeons) is still better than what the worst of the older games has to offer. not a single area in ER is as bad as say the dev-built chalice dungeons, or izalith and blighttown, or shrine of amana etc etc
@@flamingmanureFrom Soft does what they told to do, so they made an open world. Don't believe every word from the mouth of the guy who was a genius for Demon's Souls, but now does what is told to do. And about the crafted thing, 90% is made in China. No reason at all to be fan of 90% of what you see in ER.
I force Geralt to walk everywhere. No Roach allowed.
Maniac... You need Roach to across from Novigrad to Velen/Oxenfurt efficiently, and those monster head you just hunt add the immersion. Stop punishing yourself
i feel weirdly in the middle, when a game is prices at $60-$70 a long boring game isn't worth my money, but also a great short game (1-2 hours) isn't worth my money. I feel cheated when a game is expensive but short, but i feel insulted when a game is expensive but bad/boring.
This channel is so based for saying what it did about Elden Ring. Few channels would even attempt to criticize something that is so universally loved. I appreciate the honestly. Tbh I had the same problem with Elden Ring, but my main problem with it was its story or lack thereof. And no, don't come at me with "oh it has just has a different way of storytelling", no. Lore drops isn't storytelling and it has existed in many other games before that also has an actual main story.
Ya I knew I’d be taking a beating for the Elden Ring takes 😂
Bro what are you on about, the whole game is about the main story and lore, every character, every conversation, your whole mission? Its not just vaguely mentioning it like you insinuate??
@@DemokerR101 Lore is different from story.
This is basically your entire playthrough. The world is huge but the only meaningful "secrets" you really discover while exploring are new enemies to fight. Then, you reach a main area where a boss resides and you fight your way through that area to reach and beat the boss. My issue is that for world this size there aren't any stories or side quests that add anything particularly unique or different other than just more fighting.
I really expected a great story especially with GRRM involved and a huge open world game which has lots of content. But the last third of the game was a massive slog to get through and by the time I was at the end I really had no sense of why I was even there, fighting a final boss I'm seeing for the very first time who did nothing to antagonize me for the entire journey leading up to that moment. I felt no sense of accomplishment finishing the game other than the fact that I beat a very difficult boss.
Agree. I only finished Elden Ring for commitment, but I was really burned out about 50-75% of the game. To me, DkS 1 from beginning to Ornstein and Smough is a great example of good pacing
Most Elden Ring fanboys vehemently defend the copy and paste world and bosses. The majority of them probably never completed prior FS games.
For me most games feel daunting to begin because I feel like if I don't finish the main quest then all of the other stuff has been for nothing.
I feel like most games design their side content around the main quest to give buffs and loot for the final boss, but in Skyrim I don't ever feel the pressure of the main quest. Instead I can just goof around for months without ever even getting the Horn of Jugern Windcaller and still experience 4 different games by just exploring
I guess that thing is, Players like us who don't want structured gameplay ar very less than we think, and majority of the audience out there is only casual who do not care about story.
But Elden Ring is one example which every studio should take inspiration from.
Great content. I personally disagree with Elden Ring being too long, for me, I didn't want it to end and found excitement in every single new thing I discovered along the way but I understand it for sure! Don't mind shorter more lean experience but also love being immersed for hours just depends.
skipping this video minute by minute because a content more than 30 minutes is wasting time and the pacing is bad to make me interested
this guy is the future
😂 facts lol
Been saying it for years. I believe the right size for open world map was achieve in Vice City. It was big enough to enjoy riding around, while memorizing it and use your recall to plan during missions or adjust on the fly. This lead to amazing and thrilling playthrough memories.
This is such a first world problem, to have access to so many amazing games that now we have just lost the patience to actually finish them
Games being too big and long is an amazing problem to have
I respect the sentiment expressed here, but I do respectfully disagree with just a bit of it. Personally, a AAA game that costs $70 is something I expect both quantity and quality. I'm not talking about perfection, but rather a substantial experience with enough meat to chew on that I can't finish in one 3-4 hour sitting. If a game can't provide that it doesn't need to cost that full AAA price in my opinion.
I don't think 'quantity' is what any developer should follow in modern gaming... I mean sure RDR2 was a miracle, but it also caused meaningless open world games to pollute us. Don't even mention the crunch.
A 13-18hrs singleplayer game with possible sequel is preferable. We nerds need deep lore in the game, just see how Hades established itself as a Goty contender with a simple roguelike formula, perfected with community supports. Or how Gears of War developed it's popularity for being original.
Even some Zelda fans prefer Windwaker than BotW. We truly don't need $70 game anymore.
When Spiderman Miles Morales came out it had a $70 price tag and was as long as a DLC.
I got it for $20 from a used disc bargain bin and felt cheated .
I feel like you just arent the target audience for some of these games. Like i work full time and have kids so i can't afford to play every other game, so a game that takes a long time to finish is my preference becau i will maybe get 4 hours of game time a week and i need that game to last me at least 6 months. So Star Field and Skyrim are the kind of games i play.
I am the same! But I do appreciate when a game is long yet not to repetitive
Quality vs quantity
Time is speeding up and our attention spans are slowing down. Follow through, practice, commitment and dedication are being put to the wayside. I feel this. I am guilty of this. It's good to be aware of it and go towards something (games and beyond) that we can feel rewarded by and go through it to its completion.
For me, some of these warranted games are/have been: Ghost of Tsushima, Stray, Enalaved, Heavy Rain, Darkwatch, God of War. Also- hiking, board games like chess, hive, etc.
disagreed with most of your elden ring critique, the side content and reused bosses are all not only optional, but VERY out of ur way and plenty of which are secret areas that reward you because you found it, and disagreed with your dark souls analogy, elden ring is a higher quality and quantity game than any of their older ones (barring sekiro and the dlcs for obvious reasons), elden ring being the size of dark souls would make it a worse game, not better, u keep saying that bigger doesnt equal better, well same thing vice versa, it all depends on how they design the space, and elden rings space is laughably better, more complex, and intricate than even ds1, lyndell alone is what anor londo and central yharnam wish they could be. the level design of ER is on another league.
the game also has quadruple the enemy variety of any of the older games, over 30 mini bosses ( many of which, like crucible knight, are better than many of the early to mid game bosses of the older games), and 20 unique bosses, and the best main boss line up between all the games by far, the only real point i agree with when it comes to elden ring is that it shouldve had less of those mini trap crypts/dungeons, thats about it, then again, you could just skip the ones you dont like. what makes me question the validity of your opinon here is the fact that you actually think that all of dark souls' content is good compared to elden ring, which i find laughable, even when boiling and scaling both to the same size, elden ring is the best one imo, all the games have their fair amount of mediocre / ok / complete shite areas, and its worse in the older games considering that they are far smaller, therefore any mediocre to bad content stings that much more.
also, the underground areas, siofra and nokron, are both interconnected, therefore they will look similar, so i found it silly that u used them as an example for the copy pasted content, and even if they werent, elden ring points and laughs at the older games when it comes to unique area count, legit bloodborne, ds1/2/3 and sekiro combined dont even measure up to half as good as ER in that regard, just anoher thing elden ring beats the older games in in both quality and quantity.
"would you rather spend 20 hours on ok content or 5 hours of content thats never not fun" i would rather spend 5 hours in elden ring compared to any other fromsoft game by a gigantic margin. plenty of the older fromsoft games have "not fun" areas, most of your points regarding elden ring implies that the only thing u find to be "quality" content in souls games are the bosses, which elden ring destroys bb and DS in imo. overall, alot of souls veteran nostalgia driven critique against ER doesnt really hold much ground or has much thought put into it to be quite frank, overall most critique of ER boils down to it being not beinga copy pasted format like bb and ds3 are. thank god fromsoft actually innovated in more than just combat tweaks this time, elden ring is to dark souls what dark souls was to demons souls, this is coming straight from miyazakis words, and frankly it shows. i find it weird for anyone to prefer the older games to ER the same way bb or ds1/3 fans find it weird how some prefer ds2, but hey to each their own! pardon my rudeness though, im not one to hold back on honesty online.
Ya I definitely get this and if it all works for you then that’s perfect I think, for me some of the side stuff just felt pointless which was my main issue, but for a ton of people they absolutely love it too so works super well.
I do love the game just think it could have been a tad shorter. Also thank you for watching!
"Dost thou love life? Then do not squander time, for that is the stuff life is made of." - Benjamin Franklin
"Elden Ring made From a household name"
Is this guy for real?
30:45 most of that money don't go to the devs. The CEO of Activision (before he was kicked out) literally gave himself a pay raise and the developers didn't get a pay raise when COD didn't meet it's profit margin goal in 2022 I think it was? (idr the year)
What is the game depicted around 14:00?
I believe that's Dragon's dogma 2
@@JustForGaming_Alt-kf8lz I found out, but thank you!
Ubisoft and Bethesda are the EPITOME of this wasting of time... and I don't even mention some chinese games. TO ME, however, there are nuances that you have not taken into account, since you cannot help but see the situation from within the target range to which you belong (see the microtransactions part).
Pacing in videogames can usually be controlled by players and very few people can "create" their own rhythm or missions to fill empty moments (expecially in open worlds)... this is the problem! Furthermore, the pace sensitivity and suspension of disbelief change with mood (as you said) but also with age, and since when you create a game you have to consider ALL the kind of players, especially the demographics that would make you earn more money ('cause in the end this is the point), the problems increase! For each type of game there's a different "safe strategy" that is balanced between different tastes in terms of rhythm, mechanics and sometime even aesthetics!
Maybe, just maybe, the ones you mention as shining examples of good mechanics and pace are actually just the ones made for your demographic and nothing more!
I don't know. I think there's a much broader and more complex discussion to do here, even if I generally agree with you, expecially about fillers...
I am one of those that bailed on elden ring lol
Witcher 3 is an example of a game that does a fantastic job of weaving together the side content with the general theme of the game's world and overarching story. Many of the side quests felt like handcrafted material carefully written with intrigue and passion that served the purpose of further fleshing out the world, bringing to life the experience of living in it, and cementing the role of Geralt as a witcher.
I never finished Valhalla because of the amount of grind.
Fortunately they died out, it started with Shadow of War... and the devs realized that normal people don't want to spend that much time and kids play nintendo games.
Gaming addiction is the reason for both problems. People are addicted to playing games so more content makes them put out their money faster for that type of game. But two problems with that and one is that longer games usually mean filler of meaningless missions or game mechanics must be added. And the other problem is thag devs know that selling games or in game content is easist when they rely heavily on doppamine features and achievements and fomo that recklessly leads to more addiction and people who are addicted to games will often defend big corps for making mediocore content and preditory features as long as they slap the word "open world rpg" on it.
The Witcher 3 is a great example of how to make your side content count, and even then some of those map icons felt like a bit of a waste of time, especially as the game goes on. Once you have a full set of Witcher Gear, diving for those treasures is not really worth the time.
Ironic that a video about videogames about being slow, poorly paced wastes of time is a slow, poorly paced waste of time.
Meanwhile, me and the boys playing ultimate chicken horse on weeknights
Length and repetitive content is not the issue. Boring gameplay design is the issue. If you have a great combat sandbox, then almost nothing feels repetitive.
the relation to the time variable is that a game with a lot of content, there'll be a lot of time spent on it, and the more content, more work was made, hence justifying a higher price. The problem is, people forget it's not time and not even content we really consider here, but the range of possibilities and how entertaining it all is. In the end it falls to what you said, it's not about quantity, but quality, how valuable the hours we spent in the game were.
It's about what the consumer values the most, actually. It's entirely subjective.
@@Desert-edDave Nowhere I said it was objective. After all, how valuable the experience is, is defined by the player itself.