twintail said:
I think there's a point to be made about negativity in general almost seemingly being such a strong trait in the gaming sphere now, that once it latches on to a game it feels like that's sort of the end of the road for it.
I mean, that's not always the case, but it sure feels like it.
And your can see it in innocuous comments like 'i can't believe they wasted X years into this'. Even if negativity is not that intended function of that phrase, it inevitably becomes one.
And I think what makes comments like this and woke politics, is that the idea of gaming as a creative outlet and the expectation of variety feels hollow.
It seems like there a ppl who can't accept that there are devs who wanted to make a particular game. Concord is a good example here: if the end result of the game is what the Devs wanted, why dismiss their work as wasteful or unnecessary.
At the end of the day, this negativity towards games etc etc just boils down to one thing: hiding behind the entitlement that not every game is made especially for you, and being unwilling to admit it. |
Its a catch 22.
On one hand you want devs to be free to create whatever they want, but on the other hand you want it to fit your own likings. You also, at times, want the devs to take big risks, but you also require them to be able to pay the bills (and profit) with their earnings.
What this inevitably leads to, is either some games end up generic and boring, or they end up arguably too creative and too risky, so they flop. There's no getting around it. You're always going to have failures in gaming, along with hugely successful games, some of which nobody (or few) saw coming.
