They also miss really bad why those games become popular on first place.

For example, the text mentions Minecraft, and all that “crafting” trend. What made Minecraft great was not crafting - it was the feeling that you’re free to express yourself, the way you want, through interactions with the ingame world. If you want to build a huge castle, recreate a wonder you love, or a clever contraption to bend the world’s rules to do your bidding, you can.

Or, let’s pick Undertale. It’s all about the mood, the game pulls strings with your emotions. Right at the start the game shows you Toriel, she’s a really nice lady, taking care of you as if she was your child. And being overprotective. Then the game tries to make you kill her, and your first playthrough you’ll probably do it. And you’ll feel like shit. Then you load the save back, and… the game still remembers. You’re still feeling like shit because you killed Toriel.

Stardew Valley? At a certain point of the game, you start to genuinely care about the characters. Not just as in-game characters, but as virtual people with their own backstories, goals, dreams. You relate to them.

It’s all about feelings. But corporations are as soulless as their “art”; and game corporations are no exception. Individual humans get it.

I love the data callout so much. I wish I remember the article I read this in, but there was a researcher who said we’re living in an age of data-driven stupidity and that’s stuck with me ever since.

It’s not that data is bad in all cases, but data aggregation is inherently reducing fidelity of detail in the process. When you’re approaching human-centric issues, such as making something fun and meaningful, data really can’t help you that much. You’ve boiled the messy human elements, the elements most crucial to a powerful result, out of the conversation.

Yeah, my wildest dreams are a bit more Expedition 33 or Chants of Sennaar.

… in addition to a number of other games that have iterated on the ideas.

I’m not gonna say that Nintendo is some saint of game design and innovation, but they’re nowhere near the worst, either.

So an eberron game?

I’m thinking you can pay to have more chances to re-roll the dice.

I prefer to pray for that instead

I’m hoping Baldur’s Gate 4 has a battle royale mode with different skins you can buy, and crossovers with Star Wars, Monster Energy, and Nike. And a Season Pass you can buy monthly for early access to each seasons cool new crossover!

That’s wildly unfair. Even the games within those franchises are often wildly different from each other and many are widely considered hallmarks in game design. Plus, Nintendo doesn’t make Pokémon.

They can be fascinated all they want, but I don’t think that’ll help them much, because they’re after a different thing. Indie games are fun, because people who make decisions about them largely like games and want to make games. With AAA, the decision makers are soulless MBA leeches that largely like money and want to make more money…

So then sit back and let the makers make their shi–oh we don’t need so many MBAs anymore? Oops!

Indie games reasonably start with more fleshed out and committed to ideas of what the game will look like in the end than AAA games. Constraints of money and less cooks in the kitchen

AAA games sound like it’s years of expensive pitches for gameplay and narrative, can be years of that even after publicly announcing the game, and then picking one and then deciding nevermind the markets hot on this so pivot. Rinse and repeat until cancellation or a stir fry of what’s about to expire in the fridge

Yeah. You use data to target the most common factors to make your audience as broad as possible, and you end up making the most bland slop that nobody actually cares about.

I’d rather kill

I will give you that the first iteration of a series, like Mario Kart, is innovative, but the 16 next iterations, not so much. While Nintendo doesn’t make Pokemon, they are the publishers, technical platform provider and co-owner of the Pokemon Company, they would have all the leverage necessary to push the Pokemon games to innovate if they were interested in innovation.

There can be originality within franchises. Dr. Mario vs. Luigi’s Mansion vs. Mario Kart vs. Super Mario Maker (etc, etc). No, it’s not always an industry busting idea, but you can’t say it’s all rote repetition. It’s the same universe, but that’s ok. Not everything has to be a whole cloth original idea.

I will give you Pokemon, though. Outside of Snap and (kind of) Legends, it’s pretty clearly lazy, by the number installations, which is a shame. The universe clearly appeals to and inspires so many people. They deserve better.

Stardew Valley? At a certain point of the game, you start to genuinely care about the characters. Not just as in-game characters, but as virtual people with their own backstories, goals, dreams. You relate to them.

I just like to make the cute farm go brrrrrrrr. Honestly, I’m annoyed that marriage (or “roomieship” with the monster) is required to 100% the game.

Certainly not the worst, I think they have good quality control. Quite similar to Disney, they are makers of good quality and safe products, able to satisfy the mass.

In addition to a number of products that push boundaries of what’s possible in the industry.

Even in your case, it’s still about feelings—although different ones: you’re expressing yourself through your farm, instead of focusing on the romance. “See, myself, this is what I built! Good job, me.” and the likes.

Neither is the “right” or “wrong” emotion, mind you. But a game needs to trigger at least some within you, to be a good game. And that’s what corporations don’t get: they’re chasing mensurable things. More graphics, presence/absence of a mechanic, even gameplay length can be measured; but you can’t really measure someone’s emotional experience.