nanoUFO@sh.itjust.worksM to Games@sh.itjust.worksEnglish · 1 year agoStarfield's been left out to dry at The Game Awards—and even dedicated fans are 'not terribly surprised'www.pcgamer.comexternal-linkmessage-square118fedilinkarrow-up1359cross-posted to: PCGaming@kbin.social
arrow-up1359external-linkStarfield's been left out to dry at The Game Awards—and even dedicated fans are 'not terribly surprised'www.pcgamer.comnanoUFO@sh.itjust.worksM to Games@sh.itjust.worksEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square118fedilinkcross-posted to: PCGaming@kbin.social
minus-squareCowbee@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoWhat’s good and what’s popular do not necessarily align. Removing “complicated” features for the sake of mass appeal makes the game worse, but more profitable, much of the time.
minus-squarecoffinwood@feddit.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoAlso not true. Complexity alone doesn’t make a good game / movie / book / piece of art. And lack thereof doesn’t make anything worse. Why is it that when many people like a thing because that thing appeals to masses, it’s automatically categorised as lower quality? Nobody seriously claimed Starfield to be the game of all games. It’s good. It’s fine. It’s not perfect. So what?
What’s good and what’s popular do not necessarily align. Removing “complicated” features for the sake of mass appeal makes the game worse, but more profitable, much of the time.
Also not true. Complexity alone doesn’t make a good game / movie / book / piece of art. And lack thereof doesn’t make anything worse.
Why is it that when many people like a thing because that thing appeals to masses, it’s automatically categorised as lower quality?
Nobody seriously claimed Starfield to be the game of all games. It’s good. It’s fine. It’s not perfect. So what?