[grumbel]

I feel modern game design as the exact opposite problem: It's all show and no substance. It looks spectacular on video, but it doesn't feel spectacular when you play it, since it's non-interactive script driven gameplay, barely more interactive than a cutscene.

A bit of juice is fine and necessary, but the moment your juice starts to look like interactive gameplay, but isn't, it went way to far and just becomes noise. I rather have some less spectacular debris I can interact with, then just a particle system filling the screen with non-interactive nonsense.

TotalBiscuit was ranting about it ages ago[1]. 2kliksphilip also has numerous videos[2] on the lack of interactive physics in modern games.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOHyD49DaeA

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxQW2GL64U0

[neogodless]

I think you might be better served seeking out counterexamples. There are presumably more game makers and games now than there were yesterday. (Even if AAA studios consolidate.) So surely some are bad, some are too focused on visuals and not nearly enough on "the gameplay loop."

But games come out that break the mold of AAA style over substance, and sometimes they are great. Games like Stardew Valley or Valheim or Factorio had very small teams, and rudimentary graphics, and yet offered up countless hours of addictive gameplay.

What are some other examples of breakout hits?

[Raph_Koster]

You might like this article: https://www.raphkoster.com/2012/01/20/narrative-is-not-a-gam...