um yikes sweaty

when the open world craze was at its peak (and i was young and dumb) i really wanted a game where you could have multiple planets to visit. mass effect mako was blue balls, i wanted the WHOLE planet and also ALL the planets.
if ~14 year old me saw this he would tism rage and seethe. i still think its dumb but im gonna cope. no mans sky has whole planet exploration but fails to have effective gameplay that really requires the setting. outer wilds does planets perfectly, but at 1/5000th scale and only one solar system. filling 1000 planets with meaningful POIs on the whole surface is not only impossible but would end up outright unplayable if you were compelled to visit all of it. its a korok seed dilemma: there needs to be enough for the player to find them frequently, but some players want to find them all and end up resenting the game. some already hate starfield for boasting the size of the game, and those same people hate the game for not letting you circumnavigate the entire empty planet.

@why Open world was clearly a wide eyed dream, perhaps once upon a time when you could actually somewhat stand doing nothing in particular in a game

But now it's mostly a bad pacing meme where you'll end up doing nothing for most of it, and randomly generated static caves like in oblivion where there's absolutely no reasons to visit any of them as they have nothing of worth in them

Go back to smaller well designed innovative games. All these veteran game makers and they might as well have nobodies at the helm

@coolboymew yeah pacing in open world sucks. im sure the scaling in starfield will be extremely wack, bethesda has always struggled with that. these reports of "it really picks up 100 hours in" make me curious they could have some new hidden solution to this, but im gonna remain skeptical lol

@why oof

OOOOF

That sounds exceedingly bad TBQH

"BRO YOU HAVE TO PLAY 60 HOURS OF MONSTER HUNTER BEFORE IT GETS GOOD" but this time I really believe none of it

@coolboymew @why 🍶

@AngryWraith @coolboymew @why trust me bro, the game gets better after you spend enough time dulling oyur mind until it's the consistancy of paste.

@givenup @AngryWraith @why Just think about it, 130 fucking hours

In 105 hours I finished Dragon Quest 7 on PS1. A game people COMPLAINS about that it's too fucking long

In 130 hours I 100% Dragon Quest 11 S on Hard and beat the final, final, final, final, final boss

In 130 hours I nearly did all the quests in Xenoblade 3

130 hours for the game to "really get going" is insane

@coolboymew @AngryWraith @givenup @why I mean, this shouldn't even need to be said. I've never played an actually good game that took even 20 hours to "finally get good". Some people claim that about Xenoblade 2, but they're just full of shit, that had me hooked by the end of Chapter 1, it just means they hate anime and only started to understand the combat system at the 20 hour mark. I'd say Tales of Vesperia has a significantly worse opening, but that doesn't make it a "takes 20 hours to get good" game either.

130 hours is absurd, at that point it's straight up the gaming equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome.

@ChristiJunior @coolboymew @AngryWraith @why i agree a game hooks you fast or you put it down, so the game must be dogshit if they're trying to say "it gets better after oyu beat it" lol

@givenup @ChristiJunior @AngryWraith @coolboymew @why At a minimum it has to be good throughout the game while being great postgame. I'm not a fan of frontloading everything for game journos and ADHD streamers who'll never finish it, but the game has to be good enough to keep you engaged throughout.

@ArdainianRight @ChristiJunior @AngryWraith @coolboymew @why yea a consistently enjoyable experience would be nice, but that's asking a lot from the shits we got making games these days.