Having kids, demanding jobs, doing school runs, having side-hustles, and so on, all put a stressor on our availability for leisure. I suspect many older gamers who got into the industry as a result of work-from-home policies the world over are likely going to stick with gaming even further, which could further impact the way completion times are perceived as being "too long." A huge portion of that can undoubtedly be attributed to the pandemic, but even in earlier years, gamers in older demographics were growing steadily year over year, and the pandemic likely pushed that trend even further. Outside of that, I've barely had the time.Īccording to a study by Statista, in 2019, 41% of 35- to 44-year-olds responded to the question of, "Have you played a video game?" leaping up a massive rise to 76% in 2021. I probably completed fewer games than ever last year, mainly focusing on those I played for work. I know it's certainly true of myself, despite literally working in a job that revolves around game coverage. And it seems that in correlation with getting old, comes with diminished free time. Source: TwitterGamers react to Techland's 500-hour completionist play time. Backlogs a' growin', free time a' shrinkin' Is Dying Light 2 going to be another flat, repetitive, and bland open-world with high-fidelity busywork masquerading as gameplay, designed entirely around building a nice graph for a shareholder meeting? Or is Dying Light 2 going to be more like The Elder Scrolls, with hand-crafted interior locations, with unique and interesting character-driven quests?Įven if Dying Light 2 is comprised entirely of raw fun and hand-made content, there are plenty of other reasons why reactions to "500 hours" now is different from what it was 10 years ago or more. Therein lies one of the reasons I think people reacted with alarm to Dying Light 2's "500 hours" quip. Thankfully, it very much wasn't, focusing on interactive sandbox tools in what is ultimately a wide-linear structure, rather than Ubisoft's artificially large plains designed for maximum engagement, rather than fun. "Is this Halo: Far Cry?" I thought to myself. ![]() an open world, and a tutorial started rolling showing me how to unlock new areas, towers, I thought, and a familiar sense of dread washed over me. ![]() After the intro, you emerge from the bowels of Zeta Halo onto the surface. The opening of the game is exciting and cinematic, immediately embedding you into this perilous new situation in which Master Chief finds himself. I remember similar thoughts while writing my Halo Infinite preview. (Image credit: Source: Ubisoft | Windows Central) Source: Ubisoft | Windows CentralFar Cry feels like Assassin's Creed, which feels like Watch Dogs, which feels like Ghost Recon. The problem is, they all morph into this homogenous blob that has come to typify what people expect of an "open-world" game these days. I kept having to remind myself while playing, "Imagine you're someone who isn't absolutely sick of Ubisoft's games." I say this because, on the surface of it, all of these games are of generally high quality as a standalone experience. I remarked upon it in my Far Cry 6 review. ![]() To say Ubisoft-style open-world games are formulaic would be an understatement at this point. Just over the past few years, we've had Watch Dogs: Legion, Assassin's Creed Valhalla, Far Cry 6, and Ghost Recon Breakpoint, all of which share many of the same story themes, gameplay systems, navigation, and mission structure. Ubisoft also churns out these kinds of games at an almost alarming rate. There was a brief flicker of time where Ubisoft would build unique games like Child of Light, and more cinematic action games like Splinter Cell, but those times are long past. Each of their games, from Far Cry, to Ghost Recon, to Assassin's Creed, popularized the open-world action game to the point where the company barely even considers making linear experiences anymore.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |