I’m only making business card sized games now

With dwarf fortress coming in at 381,764 I feel like it delivers a much higher amount of value/line.

For an MMO, you're engaged socially (presumably in a guild, rather than soloing). In a mobile grind game, you spend hours constantly checking on progress for that endorphine hit.

Return of the Obra Dinn is a pretty short game, I put 13 hours into it by playing quite slowly (and there's a not inconsiderable amount of AFK time in there as well), I doubt I'll touch it again any time soon (because the structure gives it zero replayability value), and I would count it as one of the absolute best games I've ever played. Portal 1 is a 4 or 5 hour game and, again, one of the best ever.

On the other end of the spectrum, games like Minecraft, Oxygen Not Included or Factorio are enormous, all-absorbing time sinks that will consume your every waking hour for months or years on end if you let them.

How do I compare ONI and Obra Dinn and say that either is, in any objective sense, better than the other?

More time spent videogaming means less time spent leetcoding, raising VC, and crushing it as a 10x engineer! /s

I am "anti" any game that uses psychological tricks to get me to keep playing. And for stuff like Celeste, Gris, and Hellblade and Portal that keep me engaged by providing an inherently fulfilling experience.

I talked to a developer of a popular free-to-play game, and he told me of many of the psychological hooks they use in their game.

Exploitation of hoarding behavior, community fame for specific players, random occurrences that are carefully scripted, etc.

Nowadays it's hard to find games free of ulterior motives.

Yes, addictive games and personalities have always existed, but now there's money mixed in.

Games are often treated as, and judged as, timesinks. A good game is simply a good timesink. A good timesink makes use of addictive/gambling mechanics. And most games rely heavily on them (sometimes unintentionally; this is likely less true the closer you get to today).

But in my opinion games can be a lot more interesting than that, and “enjoyable” is a crass description of it. For example, I probably put over 2000 hours into league of legends when I was younger, but those hours were mostly a waste. Back then, I described it as enjoyable. Now I realize I never cared about LoL, I just had my social life there. The game was never actually good, and what little I actually think of it is only about the human components (and a little about how not to design a competitive game). The 15 hours I put into star control 2 were far more valuable (if only because it informed me how little, if not backwards, we progressed from it to mass effect, in terms of game design).

I have a negative opinion on games, but its because I like them. Most games are shit, and the industry has mostly been getting worse over time.

Also out of your three, I know you were referring to “complex games with storylines” as the “good” type, but taking a random lottery, multiplayer games are the only ones with any reasonable hope of actually being interesting, mostly by accident. Most “complex games” are completely superficial; multiplayer games naturally bring depth by “cheating” — the humans bring 90% of it.

But I like games. Theoretically. Sometimes, in practice.

I wasted a large chunk of my life on Counterstrike, Arma 3, DayZ Mod, PUBG, and countless console games. _Thousands_ of hours in total. For me, games were more than an escape or simply a way to unwind. For me, they were a well-hidden addiction. They were an obstacle to reaching my potential. I can't see myself going back to games again and still being as happy as I am now.

I miss games sometimes -- I still occasionally watch them on Twitch or YouTube -- but quitting cold turkey over a year ago has been one of the best decisions I ever made. That I didn't give them up 10 years earlier is a source of great regret.

I'm probably not going to ban my children from playing games they buy with their own money, but I'll definitely have plenty of long talks with them about the dangers of gaming.

Offline games can be played when I want (mostly in the evening for an hour or so) and there's no pressure to improve like in Dota 2 and WoW.

One of my favourite purchases recently was a PSP Vita, I can emulate most GB, GBC, GBA, PS, PSP, PS Vita, and many others and I'm having a whole lot of fun going back to play many games that I'd missed in the past.

HN has many grown-ups, which might skew it a little from the "games all the time are great / custom game rig" demographic.

>Also, is it directed at complex games with storylines, online multiplayer, or mobile games meant to pull as much value as possible? Cause one is unlike the others.

In the end, their value is time wasted translated into money. It's not like even the more evolved ones make some big artistic statement with deep meaning. Even the best are at the level of a Hollywood movie (and usually closer to Michael Bay than Kubrick).

Even when I still played and did not yet seen addiction in practice up close yet, I realized that complex game with storylines and online multiplayer games are build for people who have the kind of free time that is incompatible with full time job, family and additional learning.

After all, I could double the length of Game X by adding twice as many handmade maps, well written and acted cut scenes, and carefully designed encounters - or I could double the length by adding extra grind.

The former would be something to be celebrated; the latter wouldn't.

Gamers are getting older. As in, the median age of people who identify as "gamers" is higher now than ever before. Part of this is because people who grew up with video games as children are now adults. People have always played games (chess is a great example) it's just what role gaming has played in the culture changes.

Since you now have a larger demographic of older gamers, you're going to start hearing more voices echoing this. When I was in college, I could spend 20+ hours a week playing video games until 3 AM. Now that I'm older and married I'm lucky if I get 5 hours a week for non-mobile games. I'm going to have a different evaluation of a title. The last thing I want is to buy a shiny new FPS just to get pwnd repeatedly by some 14 year old who keeps tbagging me and screaming racist taunts. Loot crates and pay-to-win feels gross because I don't want to dump money that I could be using for home repairs on add-ons for my toys.

I'm not anti-games. I love games. But I can hate tons of aspects of the games (like I mentioned above) or call out the toxicity of gamer culture and still be a part of it. This is a stark contrast to 15 years ago when we all needed to band together to explain that games can be art and that FPSs to lead to school shootings.

If they can't keep work-life creep, they don't understand their own value.

Good to know about ME:A; I was a huge fan of the original ME trilogy, but didn't pick up Andromeda because reviews made it feel like not worth the time and emotional investment. Maybe I'll reconsider.

If they have great/addicting gameplay, they don't have to be flashy and good-looking.

I still remember some of the games we played on cheap Russian handheld consoles back in the mid 90s. Tetris and snake, but also a racing game that had the same mechanics like Tiny Ski, except upside down and with the logical game board three blocks wide. I had a lot of fun with that racer; I can picture it in my mind more vividly than most of my adult memories.

The three games I mention definitely cross the "affecting life" threshold, in the sense of becoming a small part of the culture - I could ask Polish people my age about these games, and many would remember them. But they didn't become part of the culture because of their mechanics being good in the absolute sense. They did because of availability, context of play, and their mechanics being good compared to other games available at the time.

Were Tetris to come out today, people would look at it, think "what a boring, shallow game" and go back to Candy Crush or whatever is currently the hottest casual.

That was his point.

So in hindsight, two more joyous aspects of constraint in game development (whether inherent or self-imposed):

1. Bugs, testing, quality. When you know your binary will be burned into a cartridge with no hope of a patch or update, one tends to code and test carefully! You fill your allocated ROM banks with as much "fun" as you can (code and content) but you know it must be well tested for both play balance and bugs because you can't release a version 1.1. :-)

2. Scope creep. This is much easier to avoid when you're given (e.g.) four 16KB banks of ROM for all your code and assets. So you burn midnight oil for mere months, not years, before you find out if your game is a hit or a stinker. Short feedback loops. More variety per year. Refreshing.