this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
167 points (94.7% liked)
Games
32987 readers
1021 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Games are designed like this because too many gamers still subscribe to the extremely flawed "dollars per hour = value" assessment. XP systems and bloated open worlds cater exactly to this fallacy, because more is always better...right?
Games like the Tony Hawk 1+2 remaster for example did not need an XP system shoehorned in (not to mention an "achievement" for reaching level 100). Games can have inherent value that isn't tied to how many hours you have to interact with them.
Agree with you, but I don’t think all achievements should be easily accessible.
Reaching level 100 should be an achievement. And I’ll never get it, and that’s ok.
My issue with that achievement is that it's strictly an enormous time sink - it stands in stark contrast to the other elusive achievements in the THPS remaster that are genuine tests of skill.
It doesn't help that the game caps the max XP you can earn per session, so even if you are a THPS savant you still can't earn XP any faster than everyone else who has to cheese it past level 80.
I posted a comment on Reddit talking about how disappointed I am hearing that the AC set in Japan is going to be made by the Valhalla people and I got destroyed for it. Like I wanted Japan since brotherhood and now I get this? I don't like the newer games because they just don't respect your time and that's a bummer for me.
I agree. I'm also a bit of a completionist by nature so it's doubly as painful since I can't just do the main story...
I have gotten a bit better about it in the last few years to be fair. Though sometimes I relapse and realize I've wasted 80% of my free time that day doing mediocre side content.
I personally do enjoy long and open games. But Valhalla managed to go way too far even for me. It very noticeably came at the cost of quality, with many dull side quests. The map was actually too big. It needed to drop a region or two, because there was just soooo many regions.
Odyssey had the same issue. In fact, I found it worse there, because I recall I completed even less of that game.
The DLCs for all the AC games have at least been much tighter and a better example of a reasonable size.
You know this is a really good point and it’s why I really don’t care for open world single player games. I’ve tried to pick up RDR2 multiple times and I always just end up stopping after a day or two cause it’s not enough dopamine