JackHandy said:
Zippy6 said:
The modern Playstation blockbuster basically comes in two styles, the Horizon / Spiderman / Days Gone / Ghost openworld, and the story driven Last of Us / God of War. So I guess that's the current day "PlayStation-ey".
Really I want them to get back to seeing more mid tier games. I personally associate their IP like Ratchet, Wipeout and LBP more with PlayStation. Astro Bot was a good start. They need more of these smaller titles instead of the ones that take 5+ years to make. |
Actually, I would argue the biggest issue with the games you're talking about is the investment of time and complexity. As an adult, if I see anything but an RPG needing 50+ hours to beat it's like... nope. Back in the day, you could beat MGS in under ten hours. The only games that were massive were RPGs. And I feel like the industry was better for it. But that's just my opinion. |
I'm not as harsh in regard to massive games, but the size of a game is definitely a big consideration when I decide what to play next. Usually I don't want to play two massive games back-to-back, and sometimes I want even more than one smaller game between massive games. I've played massive games back-to-back in the past, and it ends up getting pretty fatiguing to me when it can take months to finish just one game. It's also annoying, because many massive games have relatively little respect for the player's time. I still do enjoy larger games too, but they're so big I have to be be picky about them and also mix in some smaller games so they don't become a chore.
And then those massive games also slap on a New Game+ mode, which usually contains barely anything new. Seriously? That NG+ is doing absolutely nothing for my will to replay a massive game: usually I just don't, and if I do, it's regardless of the existence of NG+. NG+ can be a great mechanic, but usually it's for smaller games. MGS games are a great example of smaller games that can and do really benefit from what are essentially NG+ features.