I have to ask, sincerely -- how many hours does one put into a game that does have a good "end game"?
As a game developer myself, when someone asks me what it's like to make games during a casual conversation, one of my favorite "go-to"s is to talk about reviews -- that it's so gratifying to see people who have paid <$30 and received hundreds of hours of entertainment. And then I inevitably mention the flip side of the coin, when you receive a negative review from someone with hundreds or more hours (who also paid <$30).
Everyone's entitled to their opinion of a game (or anything else, for that matter), obviously. I do feel that the collective bar has risen quite dramatically for games though (for many totally valid reasons).
Sometimes I (rhetorically) wonder about other forms of entertainment (ie movies), how they can remain viable with such starkly different time-per-dollar value propositions!
Well it turned into 1600 hours because I just tried to maximize the spaceship launch count to 1000 and beyond. I would still put a 10/10 score on factorio, but it still means it could be a better game, that's my only criticism, I want it to be even better. When a game is excellent it's obviously going to attract more criticism because it raises the bar on itself.
> I do feel that the collective bar has risen quite dramatically for games though (for many totally valid reasons).
Yes, it's a saturated market and it's hard to find a game I can like. It's quantity and quality, there are a lot of indie games, too many of them, maybe, but that's how capitalism works. I would rather not play games I find not good enough, than the opposite. I have a hard time getting some satisfaction from a game, I don't know why.
I spend a lot of time trying to find new games to play, and sometimes I'm just immensely frustrated that I don't play anything, or just play some stupid game like untangle. I'd rather play some very cheap indie game like loop hero or micro town than playing call of duty online even if it's free and a AAA game.
I prefer playing a game that has a lot of replayability, than finish several other games that I can play once. There are a lot of "good enough" games, but there are VERY FEW excellent games that are so good you can play and replay them again and again.
Time spent replaying an excellent game is much better than playing other new good games. That's winner take all in the industry, at least that's how I view it. "A Delayed Game Is Eventually Good, But a Bad Game Is Bad Forever".
Sometimes I feel like I'm very very difficult to please, but I like it that way. I grew up with video game magazine that gave very hard review score.
As a game developer myself, when someone asks me what it's like to make games during a casual conversation, one of my favorite "go-to"s is to talk about reviews -- that it's so gratifying to see people who have paid <$30 and received hundreds of hours of entertainment. And then I inevitably mention the flip side of the coin, when you receive a negative review from someone with hundreds or more hours (who also paid <$30).
Everyone's entitled to their opinion of a game (or anything else, for that matter), obviously. I do feel that the collective bar has risen quite dramatically for games though (for many totally valid reasons).
Sometimes I (rhetorically) wonder about other forms of entertainment (ie movies), how they can remain viable with such starkly different time-per-dollar value propositions!