• redhorsejacket@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    27 days ago

    This article, or corpo propaganda depending on your cynicism, asserts as fact that “gamers” are clamoring at the gates, screaming about the length of time between installments in franchises. That rings hollow to me. If anything, it seems like franchise fatigue is a much more common ailment. However, Lemmy is the entirety of my social media presence, so I am sure I’m not tuned in to the wider landscape.

    • theboomr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      27 days ago

      I definitely remember a lot of people whining about how long Infinite took to release, especially when it got delayed a full year, and then finally releasing after 6 years, it wasn’t even that good. The old 3 year cadence was pretty perfect imo, plenty of time for each game to have a good run before the next one, and not close enough together to cause fatigue.

      • redhorsejacket@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        27 days ago

        I suppose I cling to the old adage that a bad game is bad forever, while a delayed game may some day be good. It’s less true today than when Miyamoto said it (No Man’s Sky being the commonly cited example of a game which was able to turn its radioactive launch into a fairly positive experience), but I still believe it’s more accurate than not. I’m picking on a straw man here, but I wonder how many of those “gamers” bemoaning Halo’s long absence also look down their noses at the yearly release mill of sports games. Far as I’m concerned, new games in a franchise should come when the creators feel they have something new to showcase. A new mechanic, new engine, a new plot, whatever. Obviously, the games industry at large is perfectly happy to ok boomer me, and I’m perfectly happy to keep mining through my backlog of games which manage to be fun without live updates.