My sweet spot would actually be games like Rimworld or Kittens. Something that you can find closure in about 20 hours of gameplay.
I feel like games have become so unwinnable, that there's a whole new market to pay people to win games.
My sweet spot would actually be games like Rimworld or Kittens. Something that you can find closure in about 20 hours of gameplay.
I feel like games have become so unwinnable, that there's a whole new market to pay people to win games.
But I feel you about longer games starting to feel like work. I really want to like the Witcher 3 for example, but there's just so much content in there. I've started my playthrough two years ago and still haven't gotten to the end of the game. Or, I thought I did, but turns out it wasn't yet. And then there's some DLC which also got great reviews and promises of a huge amount of content.
Currently I'm playing Mass Effect: Andromeda, which bombed because of reasons but it's a pretty good game with a ton of content, can't go wrong for €7. Its missions are episodic enough that you can play for an hour at a time if you're limited in time.
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.
You're probably right though, I suppose it also made the game much harder to "complete" compared to the early days.
I think is the big problem with many AAA games these days is that breadth (more unnecessary features) is a lot easier than adding depth.
Compare with Dwarf Fortress, where you can make a mermaid bone farming industry, reservoirs, magma powered river thawing system, waterfall dining rooms, or a magma powered waste disposal system.
On the other hand, I am often left questioning the value exploration and creativity in virtual worlds when there are so many alternatives. This is especially true since many of those alternatives can be equally engaging and relaxing.