On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 09:12:16 +0100, JAB <
no...@nochance.com> wrote:
>I have a slightly different view, at least from my experience with
>Amazon Prime. I have practically zero interest in the 'big hitters' as I
>will have heard of them and if I was interested in playing them, well I
>would already have it in my library. The little games, yes there is a
>lot of filler but there's also games I've very much enjoying playing and
>I would probably have bought them if I had heard of them before.
I admire the Indie developers and am thrilled they exist; in an
industry where the triple-A publishers are so averse to risk, its the
Indies who push the envelope and experiment with new ideas. This does
have its downside, though; a lot of these new ideas either aren't very
good or - due to a lack of resources - aren't developed fully enough
for their potential to be realized. Add to that the general lack of
polish (again, due to a lack of resources) and Indie games tend to be
/very/ hit and miss. A lot of games are conceptually clever in concept
but absolute shit to play.
With triple-A games, the problem is less that you're going to get a
bad game, and more that it's going to be derivative pabulum. As much
as I bitch about how directionless and repetitive the "FarCry"
franchise (and, indeed, all of Ubisoft's open-world games) has become,
you are assured of a fairly solid playing experience. It's just that
it's the /same/ experience you've been having for the last twenty
years.
That, and too many Indie games revolve around their 'retro' graphics,
which I've absolutely no love for. There are a lot of classic games
from the 80s and 90s that I loved - and still love - but I loved them
/despite/ their limited graphics, not because of them. I've done my
time in (C/E/V)GA purgatory and I don't want to be dragged back,
thank-you-very-much. So any game that uses the retro style
automatically gets dinged for it, even if the rest of the game is
solid.