MGS

Sports games are lazy af with minimal upgrades but people who buy these games every year are idiots tbh

List has hella recency bias other than RE4 and MGS and both of these series have had remakes drop recently. Other than that, this isn't a terrible list. If you ask the average gamer to list the best games since 2000, it will probably look a lot like this

Cyberpunk doesn't deserve to be there with its tumultuous launch, RDR2 doesn't deserve the top spot, Batman shouldn't be there and it's kinda wild GoW got 2 entries. But overall, it could be worse

Surprising takeaway should be no GTA V on this list RE4, Batman, Skyrim, MGS beat it. Aligns with what I said in the GTA thread, V not gonna be looked back at fondly and very few people are going to be calling it their favorite GTA game after VI drops

Yeah, constant cycle - they take out just enough each year then re-add it like 2 years later maybe to make people want to commit again

It's f***ed

Length of story is more important than anything in gaming at the moment

You can't release a full price single player title without a minimum of 60+ hours of replayability. Otherwise put it on game libraries

Game length always has been and always will be a topic. People want to feel like their $60/$70 was good value for money

But I actually feel like gamers around my age have shifted in the opposite direction. Some of us have kids and it's hard enough finding time to game with work/maintaining relationship - we don't have time for repetitive open world games

Also, if that was the case then Resident Evil wouldn't be as popular as it currently is. There's definitely a higher demand for shorter, linear games than there was 10-15 years ago

i f***ing hate how the prerelease discussion about nearly every sizable release is basically nothing more than trying to predict what it's going to get on opencritic/metacritic or whatever. just shut the f*** up. idk when or how it really started to gain traction but it's one of the most useless and braindead forms of "discussion" in recent times

Minerva's Den is mediocre: anonymous level design, a story that with its short length doesn't stick too much emotionally, a cliffhanger powerful that carries the game albeit quite predictable.
Never understood the appraisal this dlc got, BaS, with all its problems, was more memorable for me.

Not even sure if this is unpopular or not but no single player games should go beyond 60-65 hours

Including JRPGs?

I miss when it was discussing mechanics. I dont care about the scores itself. People just wait for that number to drop similar to a rotten tomatoes.Often not listening to video reviews or reviews in full or reading them

I don’t think there is a set number how long a single player game needs to be. Personally I like around 15 hours like RE4 with unlockable difficulty modes, new weapons, new costumes to keep it replayable.

My hot take is 99% of games arent worth replaying including New Game Plus in that. New Game Plus is a cute trick to get people to replay often with a power fantasy and not enough changes to the gameplay to justify replaying the entire game with no discernible changes

Depends. If I stay with the example of Re4, replaying the game on professional is a different experience than playing it on the regular mode Every enemy being a threat and new weapons changing the game balance can give you a completely different experience from the same game.

New game plus where everything carries over from the first playthrough is boring. I agree with that.

I played Witcher 2 2012. I am shocked that 14 years later games still lack a level of choice and branching narratives because they are afraid to do so. I get that Mass effect for many didn't end well in the 3rd game . But with studios pumping out sequels that feel too samey an advantage they could have that would justify these high budgets would be "damn this is a highly cinematic game where not only is my 10-20 hour run different than my friend here but going forward in the sequel or trilogy it will pull my decisions together into a different experience ". That is what makes a game replayable to me. The ability to not being so strict and controlling on player creaitvity whether that creativiity is in combat, how a mission is completed, choices they make. Players do not like feeling like they all have to play the same exact way like an assembly line.

They for some reason phased out games that have single player, coop, multiplayer. Even if your coop and multiplayer modes "fail" sometimes it helps to try to build a value of more of a game of the week like a mighty morphin villain for 70-80$ then never really play again. Especially as we shift to a digital only future. If you arent really taking some level of risk. You are a safe game. You arent doing something that truly pushes anyhing forward. Then what is the point?

Many people will go even tougher on your game if they beat it in 12 hours never really want to play again ever in their entire life and they spent 70$ on it. With it having weak writing

Resident Evil definitely does change some

people that say "its just a game i dont care" in ranked / competitive mode should be banned from ranked. Go play in pubs bro

lol you said "get these scrubs off my team"

But if we are talking about games this decade the only one I replayed is Metroid Dread. They give you enough incentive to do that

Its very few worth it because there are too many new games to play and the gameplay loops often struggle to even justify 1 full playthrough often falling off in third act or getting tedious so try to marathon to get it done

It's still just a game lil bro maybe you need to go and touch some grass if you take it this seriously

Yup. Those especially. I can maybe excuse 75 hours if it’s justified

I get you I see it

I would agree if so many of these games didn't have dogshit matchmaking for normals. You get stomped in one match, the game gives you bots/dogshit new players for you to stomp so you don't stop playing, rinse and repeat