https://www.ign.com/articles/ive-never-seen-it-this-bad-game-developers-explain-the-huge-layoffs-hitting-riot-epic-and-more
How many clowns like this person are out there in the Western game dev community? Like if your game is shorter and has worse graphics why the frick would I want to spend money on it?
The game flopped because the art style was generic as frick and it didn't stick out at all in the sea of similar looking games and genres. We had a game similar to this called Ghostwire Tokyo. Nobody really gave a shit about that game either because shooting things in first person with things that aren't guns isn't fun to people.
Ghostwire Tokyo is great though. Only problem is the story is trash, so are the characters and the cutscenes, and the general pacing of the main quest. But it's fun to play
>Only problem is the story is trash, so are the characters and the cutscenes
probably because the english "localization" is made up
>Ghostwire Tokyo is great though
Only good thing about that game is the environmental design, gameplay is puke.
>Ghostwire Tokyo is great though. It's shit in every way but it's fun to play
doubt
They "think shorter = no replayability" and "worse graphics = pixel graphics".
Meanwhile, DRG (which has moronic devs, but still) and Against the Storm are doing fine because they can be played on a toaster, and reward both those who want to pick up and play as well as those who want to invest large amounts of time into them.
But DRG is a game with little replayability and worse graphics
Against the Storm is doing well because it's so unique it doesn't need to rival with anyone.
Team sizes matter a lot here. Mohawk Games that made Offworld Trading Company and Old World is a successful company despite their games not selling very much, they can survive and thrive on relatively small revenue because they only got like 20 or so people on their payroll. Ascendant Studios had over 100 employees before the layoffs.
People like you are the reason the word "soul" came into existence to describe games that were made by people who care about what they do
Stop making ESG slop
No shhhh, make more, MORE shitty games until the company doesn't exist.
>Stop making ESG slop
That's barely an issue. It's more:
>Moving Fast and Breaking Things
>They felt that some studios saw the writing on the wall and expanded out of a misguided sense of self-preservation.
>In some cases, that inflation meant betting on new technologies, even long after those technologies had proven risky. One former employee of OliveX, a company that claims to be making a fitness metaverse on the blockchain, called management “chronically shortsighted,” saying that “they bet on NFTs, and lost. Then six months later they bet on NFTs again and lost again. A couple of hundred people lost their jobs as a direct result of the CEO learning nothing.”
>But while executives were spending money on big investments or unnecessary office perks, other developers I spoke to say leaders were cutting costs on actual game development.
There's a lot more
morons at EA don't have a clue
Reminder that this phrase is absolutely moronic and anyone spouting it shouldn't exist in the land of the living.
>durr just make the PUTRID FECAL MATTER from the 7th gen I grew up with that was the entire reason everyone pushed for better, more open, less linear games please please PLEASE just shit down my throat $70+ games that last 2-6 hours and look like complete garbage
Actual subhuman behavior.
He got what he wanted, everything is painted yellow now.
It's not moronic, people just misinterpret its meaning - sometimes deliberately.
"Shorter" meaning "no open world crap with no content, just story quests scattered around a massive map and copypasted side quests in between".
"Worse graphics" = "does not require top of the line graphics card to run unoptimized Nvidia gimmicks"
All of this adds up to "cheaper and quicker to make, so no massive budget needed to justify predatory microtransactions".
AAA has been a failure for a good half decade now, and you need to accept it. moronic game devs try to use "please do not fill your game with garbage" to mean "please give me more half assed metrovania pixel games", but this does not refute the main point that AAA is a failure.
>AAA has been a failure for a good half decade now
Western AAA
>Western AAA
The Japanese industry is a completely different beast, for the most part not running on the same AAA business model, and even still having AA titles. For when it does use the AAA business model, see: Forspoken.
Honestly sqeenix might as well be considered western at this point.
yeah
AAA works because Sony and Microsoft have deep pockets when it comes to exclusives, but that entire approach is changing.
then say "more focused games not coded by jeets"
No, I want shorter games. Why is this so hard to understand? I want to buy and finish a game in 6-8 hours and feel like it was a very fun, enjoyable experience that I can now consider complete. I don't want 30+ hour games, no matter how fun they are.
as i've gotten older i'm starting to appreciate games from 1984 to 2004 that respect your time. there was shit even back then but by and large games from that era can be beat in no time flat if you know what you're doing. deus ex was a game i spent 30 hours on my first playthrough on, these days i can do it in 10. i like that
what happened to replayability in games? who the frick wants to sit through 100 hours of "interactive" cutscenes, walk and talk sections and collecting a thousand paper clips?
With modern games, by the time the game has booted up and all the company logos are done, I either have to go do something else or I barely want to play it anymore. Whereas I can load up a Doom (1993) wad in a few seconds and be in the game immediately. I do love that.
God yeah I know what you mean. Sometimes I pick up an old game like DX and think to myself "I'll just play a few minutes", oop I already beat the game without realizing it. This simply does not happen in modern games anymore, they're huge timesinks and I just don't care anymore.
I was playing the first Spider-Man on my PC recently and it's good. The story and characters are actually engaging and the gameplay is varied and fun, though a bit shallow. But there's so much shit in that game that I got burned out before I even got halfway through the story. It's tiring.
Then you don't want games, you want to feel accomplished and like you actually did something for once in your life. And you can frick off with that shit
not that guy but some game concepts only work for a certain amount of time before it gets boring which is why souls games are boring pieces of shit
I played Granblue Relink last weekend and despite the criticisms of short main story and bland characters, I was genuinely glad to have a game I could finish in 20 hours instead of 60.
Is it worth playing just for miyuki sawashiro?
not really, she's not in the spotlight often. Her lines are bone dry, they're practically written with an AI using a prompt for 'female knight'
But she does have a lot of combat voicelines and battle banter
goddamnit
it's objectively correct though and the 7th gen had way more good games than the 8th or current gen
also no one saying that would ever condone paying 70 you absolute moron
Wasn't that originally a quote from one troon about developer crunch? It wasn't the greenlight to actually make shit games lmao
lmao why did it fail indeed
>wasting money on celeb VAs
Why do they do this? Video games are not movies, no one cares.
I once saw an indie dev complain about his company being on the verge of bankruptcy despite hiring several notable (for video games) voice actors for an 8-bit Mario clone. I really don't get that "must have VAs" mentality.
>that one shitty visual novel that dropped millions on getting fricking Sting in their game
you're fricking kidding me right
Nah, it was pretty hysterical.
I don't even think the game sold 100 copies, partly because they had almost zero marketing, and the marketing they did have was the usual nonsense of
>I HATE GAMERS, DON'T ANY OF YOU DARE BUY MY GAME!
Typical.
Where the water tastes like wine is a great example of a guy with too much money overpaying people to bring his weird idea into reality where he himself lacked the knowledge and skill to do so. $140,000 gone.
You're fricking kidding me right? Holy shit that game looked like something I could make in a year with one or two friends for less than 3000 bucks.
Holy shit dude, that's absolutely baffling. Voice actors don't even sell a game, who gives a shit if some A-list actor is in a fighting game? I actually have a similar story though not related to VA:
>know indie dev who releases a side-scrolling roguelike
>it does pretty well, gets decent reviews and sales
>he keeps updating it with free content
>ends up working on an update for four years that's so big and costly he even admits it might as well be its own sequel, but it's free
>eventually the publisher steps in and says the dlc is canceled because it's taking too much time and money
>fans are mad at the publisher for canceling it instead of the dev who was spending all this time and money on a free fricking update
I don't even understand why indie devs are like this. Almost nobody is expecting super highly polished indie games with gigantic budgets and 200 hours of playtime, it's entirely in their own heads.
Every game needs VAs though or Americans won't buy it since most of them can't read
They mean why pay for famous and expensive VA when any art school kid will probably do the job for class credit and a free lunch.
>hiring several notable (for video games) voice actors for an 8-bit Mario clone
game? i need to see this
Here you go. Keep in mind the dev has said that if this game fails, their company will go bankrupt.
>check site
>see this
lol
Yeah that's why the game exists. According to the director "a lot of people said they liked Bernie World even if they didn't care for the politics" so they rushed to push out a Mario clone without politics, except instead of rushed I mean they spent thousands on an 8-bit platformer that still isn't out yet even after four years
these guys are fricked
I made it to 0:02. Jesus frick, what is that? I thought you said voice actors, not dubgays. Christ.
I've watched this without sound and it still looked boring as frick
Watch it with sound, trust me, it's great.
Same shit these days isn't it
Some devs just have brainrot
>enjoy an indie fighting game
>has voice acting, all relatively unknown actors besides Tara Strong who they got a really good deal on because of connections
>sales are above average for an indie fighter but the devs don't spend the money well
>get a new publisher to add more capital and speed up development
>IMMEDIATELY blow a huge amount of cash on multiple A-list voice actors for DLC
>tell the community they can't afford to get the smaller voice actors in the studio to do more lines
Fricking infuriating
They've had it coming for twiddling their thumbs for >3 years and doing nothing with story mode and level 3s.
>Video games are not movies
hold my sake
You mean draft beer, Sony's gaming division might as well be a western company at this point.
I could go for some sake.
They wanted the Thor/Dr.Strange audience.
I love the mandatory indian Guy Who only exists to reach a quota kek
The first part of the statement is right, even if the wording is a bit inflammatory. Longer games today usually just means more filler, padding, copy-pasted content, or other garbage that doesn't respect your time, I'd rather have a more focused experience. Even Elden Ring fell prey to this. And "better graphics" today usually just means whatever this shit is, I'd rather take something stylized that actually looks appealing and can be achieved on a lower budget.
It's interesting how white males are the only thing still allowed to be attractive. There must be sociological significance to this.
>someone to put on the cover (for self-inserting morons)
>someone for the quota
It's made for women.
>the women are ugly, so they can self-insert easily
>the men are pretty, so they can drool over them
The target audience simply isn't men. Women aren't buying anyway and the whole thing is doomed from the start.
But they keep making them, so the ESG money must be flowing. Possibly printed cash.
The culture war is stronger than ever and the banks are involved.
Every fricking time
pov you wake up in hell
frickin xi in the back
its so fricking BORING when "le realism" is only art style and direction it has. its just like with troonygays when troonyism is their only personality
What you ask
>(pic related)
What you get
>
GOAT game
it totally isnt the fact the entire character pool is a bunch of diversity gooback trannies
Did they seriously interpret that to mean the same crap as big AAA games but shittier
That meme died the moment that shitty king Kong game came out and all the homosexuals who said they want shitty, short game had to explain how they didn't meant it THAT WAY
It was bold of them to assume that it was fine to make the game dog shit too.
My friend, people love janky itch.io games like Lethal Company and Buckshot Roulette, not to mention all of New Blood's catalog.
>Lethal Company and Buckshot Roulette
Buckshot roulette costs one dollar
Maybe don't price it the same as AAA games then.
Obviously if a game is shorter, has worse graphics, it stands to reason that it was cheaper to make. That's the point of this quote. It's not that people want to spend the same amount of money on low quality games, but that they are okay with buying lower quality games, but the price should reflect that.
> Like if your game is shorter and has worse graphics why the frick would I want to spend money on it?
I dunno dude, most PS2/GC games were shorter and with “worse graphics” yet blow most modern games out of the water.
when people say "worse graphics" they mean "not realistic" you dumb fricks, not a boring ass artstyle that has a million particle effects with semi-realistic looking models
I didn't even know that this game was a thing until it flopped
Proof that any publicity is good publicity.
Hold the frick up, isn't that one of the unreal slop 5 games that the strongest housefire card can't even run on low at 4k?
the point of games having worse graphics is that they run on many systems
even ignoring the Black folk immortals of tel aviv doesn't even run at 60fps on the best of the best hardware without upscaling
>citing troony memes
ohnonono
I always assumed the meme was talking about 3-10 hour PS2 games like Silent Hill 2, Resident Evil 4, Devil May Cry, etc.
And I do like games in that style.
>we made a short game with bad graphics, why didn't it sell?
Well, their first mistake was using memes and Youtube essay titles as a primary source of data on what customers want. Games succeed on what they offer, not just on what they avoid. A ten-minute game about sitting in an empty room repeating the word "fish" from start to end would avoid every single one of the issues they listed, but people still wouldn't buy it.
with "worse graphics" people meant less visual fidelity, not looking like shit, and they want a shorter game with tighter gameplay, not a triple A experience with less content
they mean genuine indie kino like touhou, undertale and black souls 2. if you make a bad short game with worse graphics then you still made a bad game.
People often forget the crucial part where you have to MAKE A GOOD GAME. It's a minor aspect, I know, but quite important one.
This. It doesn't matter if the game is 3 hours or 100 hours if it sucks. I'd rather take a 3 hour game that's fun (frick you druckmann) than 100 hours of slop.
He can't keep getting away with it!
Oh, this thing?
>we want the ADD crowd
from the developers behind battleborn and suicide squad, it's eye cancer
Looks less fun than my mage build in skyrim, at least in that game I could flamethrower my enemies.
Looks like one of those shitty Meta Quest games.
Where are the "worse graphics"?
The shitty port from UE4 to UE5 does make it looks pretty off.
>more particle effects equals more gooder
Looks like one of those fake games they have in tv shows lol
Man, I just saw on the TV a bunch of kids mashing their controllers... to a fricking strategy game. I swear, they do it as joke nowadays. They have to.
So its basically Shadow Warrior like, but much worse and ugly
I hate when your weapons don't have satisfying feedback. A player wants a weapon that really feels powerful. That's why shotguns are the most popular weapons in games.
Halo was the only game to do non kinetic weapons right, covenant plasma weapons utilized the controller rumble to tell you that you're slinging molten plasma and melting someone's face off.
Likewise if you were to make a magic game you'd want to just use basic shit that felt good to use. Like "casting" a big fricking rock at someone's face, casting flamethrower from your hands, something with explosives.
What is this green bubble shit? A dingy lazer isn't giving you a power fantasy. Did those morons plan to have their magic suck on purpose? Fighting a room full of brain-dead mobs could be fun if you had some sweeping aoe attacks, but it sucks when all you have are gay "spells" that plink 1 enemy at a time until you wait for a fricking cooldown to end so you can cast a lazer that just makes them disappear? No feedback, no death animation?
This is just horrible.
>Halo was the only game to do non kinetic weapons right
Wolfenstein's Lasergewehr feels fricking fantastic.
I thought Q3A had good energy weapons. Lightning gun, rail gun, and then the plasma rifle. They all feel good, and they're all useful. Plasma rifle not so much, but when you actually hit it's absolutely ridiculous, I think it's the highest damage in the game.
How can you play this without getting a headache? I'm in my 30s and feel like I need a paracetamol already
Tiknoggers are built different, their receptors are fried by 10. Curious how they'll end up like in the future.
Heretic and hexen have this gameplay, but why do they look fun while this looks boring?
weak particle effects, bland animations and overly busy everything is my guess
atmosphere and designed not for a marvel movie flashy audience.
legitimately video game devs have 90% forgotten, or not learned about if they went to shitty video game schools, atmosphere.
almost every single title is just devoid of it
It's slow as molasses. He's taking a leisurely stroll, and the enemies are just standing there, checking if they remembered to bring their wallet or something, utterly failing to keep up. Also tinting the whole screen constantly and the extremely exaggerated particle effects just makes it look bad.
>we made a shit game and it didn't sell
can you believe the gall of these gamers?
This reminds me how Spider-Man 2's budget was ~300 million dollars and in the Insomniac leak they asked themselves if 2 being triple of the budget of 1 was even noticeable to players. Sony told them for future releases to reduce the budget by 1/3rd. The AAA industry is doing poorly.
>This reminds me how Spider-Man 2's budget was ~300 million dollars and in the Insomniac leak they asked themselves if 2 being triple of the budget of 1 was even noticeable to players
Wait, seriously? The game doesn't even look noticeably better either graphically or gameplay-wise, the frick were they doing with all that money
That's what the ceo was asking.
>no one bought it
because you listened to twitter clowns and normies who do not play video games for enjoyment, they play video games to fit in or to "own the chuds" and nothing more.
stop designing your games around these people, they are not a market, they will never be a market, it's delusional.
>first person shooter but you're a mage and CINEMATIC STORY
i have a wishlist of like 4k games because i wishlist anything that remotely looks interesting or playable somewhere down the line. this isn't even on my wishlist.
there are rpg maker games on my wishlist that look more interesting than this, and they're not £20 even at 60% off like this shit lol
Nintendo software sells. When people say shorter worse graphics they mean Pikmin 4, Wonder or some shit. Or the dime a dozen single A JRPs but in a non-rpg genre.
>worse graphics
Didn't this game use lumen and nanite and all these other meme UE5 features that caused it to run like complete shite? How is this worse graphics? I specifically had no interest in this game because I heard it had terrible performance.
People don't want worse graphics, they want graphics that don't take teams of people years to fully realize and don't require massive computing power to render.
Yes it runs like shit, especially by linear FPS standards
>Immortals of Aveum
First step, stop releasing games named like this and that look like this. I'm not even gonna bother with this mobile aesthetic shit. "You do not have enough crystals to purchase that, hero" looking game.
>You do not have enough crystals to purchase that, hero"
What people mean by that is they want PS2 tier games developed with PS2 tier budgets and personnel and sold at PS2 tier prices
If this happened there would be a much larger output of games, games would have more soul due to being cohesive and personal experiences developed by a small team, there would be a lot more new IPs and creativity and even woke shit would be toned down (a lot harder to create woke propaganda oscar bait movies on PS2 tier hardware given the tech limitations and tendency for cartoonish graphics). More focus on gameplay.
This reads like you’ve never played a PS2 game in your life, some of the most influential PS2 games include a cinematic platformer about a boy and a girl holding hands and an intentionally stilted and mecahnically shallow psychological horror game.
>an intentionally stilted and mecahnically shallow psychological horror game.
Played one of those last year. Fricking loved it.
>game about boy meets girl
>where he has to protect her
>girl is cute
>has gameplay
>no current year shit,
vs
>games about gay shit
>any female characters must be "strong"
>must also be ugly
>gameplay is optional
>current year shit is mandatory
Gee I wonder.
Silent Hill 2 cost less than 10M$ to make
I don't know if that's in 2001 dollars or 2012 when that interview was done but in the worst case that's still less than 20M$ after inflation. I also don't know if that's only development or includes marketing, really it doesn't matter. Immortals of Aveum cost 125M$ total, 85M$ development.
If it had cost 20M to make it probably would have been profitable.
I said it'd be harder, not impossible.
Imagine creating a game like TLOU 2 on the PS2.
Also, unrelated to this reply but
I'd also like to add to my previous post that face scanning would take a big hit and the amount of repulsive looking characters would probably decrease. Hard to think of anything that wouldn't be improved by going back to PS2 era gaming really
>What people mean by that is they want PS2 tier games
most normalgays don't want that. they quite literally want more TLOU
>if your game is shorter and has worse graphics why the frick would I want to spend money on it?
have a nice day zoomer homosexual
>Make good AA games that can still be profitable if they sell only decently, cost less than 90$ and don't work half the employees to death
>"Spend 100 million dollars making the most generic AAA trash but cut it in half and make it ugly? You got it boss"
>I just don't get what went wrong
Huh, maybe twitter doesn't reflect reality.
These are not "small game" system requirements, the frick is he talking about?
anyone looking to sell a game has to at least check the steam hardware survey results
>3080ti for 1440p 30fps
UE5 was a mistake
The director of IoA is on record saying that cutting the price by about half massively increased sales and might make back the budget. Maybe they should make games cost what they're worth.
>generic aesthetics, out of a movie tier
>generic title, out of movie tier
>unlikable characters
>ugly characters
>generic plot
>diablo style equipment system
>uninspired gameplay
>can only be played on high end machines
The game is trash
ff16 moment. especially during the final boss holy shit.
meant for
hyper realism is boring. I have real life for that.
realism is fine if that's what you're going for
it works in shit like racing games or simulators obviously, but even in like KC:D or RDR2 it works because they're supposed to look and feel realistic and be depictions of supposedly "real" events, someone that's ugly in those games is just an ugly person, they exist and it makes sense.
These awful pseudo-fantasy realism artstyles are just horrid because everything ends up looking like a shitty low budget movie with bad effects and ugly actors trying to play attractive characters.
I agree, there's a world of difference between Henry in KC:D looking like an inbred moron, and going hey, look at these Black person elves! and the Black person dwarves! and the Black person hobbits! and the Black person people! and the normal orcs! like the Amazon lotr shit
Well Henry in KCD still has appealing character design even if he looks inbred. There's no appeal in nigress with bugged out eyes #234 or Crimson Chin women.
Am I the weird one here? I do want shorter games with worse graphics. Give me something I can beat in a few hours time but is extremely fun to play, with simple, expressive graphics.
No. and worst is subjective when the alternative is just "be as realist as possible because making an interesting art style is too hard"
I loved "Titanfall 2", for instance. I just want that feeling of satisfaction you get after you've finished a great book or movie.
Wasn't that game hyped up as a graphical showcase for UE?
>UUUGH I ONLY WANT VIDEOGAMES THAT ARE ULTRA LONG MOVIES
And then vidya died thanks to anon being moronic.
Yes, it's your fault that videogames are dying.
literally nobody on Ganker wants that. if they say they do they're trolling
you're talking to a disingenous israelite who probably worked on this turd
I play old school runescape and I'm a zoomer so I can't hate on this
Talentless devs keep coping. I'll keep saving money and playing old games.
Why don't they team up and make something quality without the greedy ass publishers? Seems like we're on the verge of "small" indie studios replacing most of the industry. I'd love to finally see a real competitor to the horrible AAA FPS games out right now. Stuff like Apex is so fricking bad and does not deserve the money it gets by being a shitty middle ground between CoD and every dead boomer fps
>Like if your game is shorter and has worse graphics why the frick would I want to spend money on it?
because the game is fun?
I'd rather play Katana Zero, a 4 hour fun game than 100 hours of boring shit like Read Dead 2.
and for a 4 hour game i'm going to pay you £5. i'm not paying you 20, 30, or anywhere up to 70.
morons in the modern era do not know what replayability means, the only replayability they've managed to figure out is just to make everything a roguelite which is not the same as replayability as clearly evidenced by games made 20+ years ago that managed to not be roguelites, not be short as frick and still have an appeal to replaying them multiple times or even every few years.
I'm not paying $60 to be bored with your time wasting open world garbage.
At some pubs when you buy a steak they will give you a tiny grissly piece of meat and then try and make you think you are getting value for money by dumping a whole heap of chips (fries) on the plate. I don't want all those chips, but if they get rid of them I am just left with a grissly tiny piece of steak.
>And sometimes, a game can fail even when every internal indication suggests it should succeed, which brings us back to Ascendant Studios and Immortals of Aveum:
>"At a high level, Immortals was massively overscoped for a studio’s debut project,” one former employee said.
I don't know what the author was going for, this sounds like yet another case of management and investors being terminally moronic and shortsighted but the actual devs knew it would fail. Palword costing $30 and only being 60% complete or whatever must be giving them massive seethe. That is the type of game Twittergay was referring to.
>shorter games
>a tree puncher
I very much doubt it. Those games barely have anything that isn't filler.
MAKE YOUR CHARACTERS ATTRACTIVE!
Having eye-catching pretty people in your game is literally free fricking marketing.
It's fricking annoying how braindead westoid devs are in their obsession with making ugly characters and pretending it's a good thing because muh realism or muh representation or whatever other dumb shit they tell themselves.
>shorter
>worse graphics
I think when people say that they're pining for 2003 era games, not the absolute visual bile that was Immortals
>Like if your game is shorter and has worse graphics why the frick would I want to spend money on it?
A common complaint is that modern games are bloated beyond believe. If a book can tell its story in 300 pages, stretching it to 600 would ruin it. There's a thing called pacing, and games have forgotten that word.
People also complain that a lot of focus is on the graphics, inflating dev cost and now consumer cost. But also needing 1k+ gpu's to run correctly to play mid games.
Hope this helps anon
>Palestinian flag
Opinion discarded
I always interpreted that meme as modern consoomers actively wanting poorer quality products by defending corpos shitty choices(see Pokegays)
>we took a meme on twitter seriously and our game didn't sell.
They didn't. The game was highly demanding relative to other games at release. They're talking shit because they don't know what "worse graphics" implies in the statement.
>it reviewed pretty well, currently sitting at a 74 on Open Critic and a Mostly Positive on Steam
for games a sub 80 means it's near-unplayable dogshit
Given that journos operate on a 5 to 10 scale 7.4 is really equivalent to 2.4/5
>reviewed pretty well
>74
You have to ask?
There is some truth in the sentiment behind that saying. But the saying itself if too simplified to be useful.
A more accurate description would be that we want games that are only as long as their content is interesting. No bloat. We also want good aesthetics, regardless of whether they have high or low graphical detail
That's the beauty in it. The text and and its implications are almost complete opposites. Wanting shorter games is lamenting the lack of content, and the focus on "graphics" the lack of style. Could just as well type more content and better looks.
>I want shorter games with worse graphics
>Immortals of Aveum fit that bill
In WHAT FRICKING WORLD does this generic AAA slop fit that bill?
He just does not really understand what people who buy games want. He probably doesn't even play much games in his free time himself and gets his industry insights from other developers and consultants only.
No one making games at Nintendo actually likes video games as a hobby, it explicitly looks for people with other interests. Excuse?
>implying i would want to play your 400 hour hyperrealistic (aka an excuse to not have an actual fricking artstyle) generic AAAslop with generic rpg mechanics on a generic open world sandbox with the same old story that only exists so that i could spend more time on it and pay microtransactions to make it less painful over something more entertaining like FTL or total annihilation that i could play in just an hour or even half per session and get over with
hell, even spreadsheet simulators and incremental games like aurora 4x and megami Quest 2 are more fun than what the fricking AAA companies are up to these days
>make game with aesthetics only a childless aunt could love
I wonder why it didn't sell?