75
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
75 points (95.2% liked)
PC Gaming
8568 readers
342 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I want to push back on the survival bias, games today are a lot more homogeneous and similar than ever before.
In terms of innovation, big studios rarely try actually new things, and so games are far more similar now than ever.
Open world games are a clearly established genre with the same mechanics (side quests, big compass up top, rescue the villagers/destroyer enemy camps to free an area). Shooters are an established genre with virtually the same mechanics. XYZ Simulator. Sports franchises. Driving games. Top down rogue likes. They're all very similar within their own genre.
The games that have been hits lately either rewrite a genre (like Souls games did) or execute it very well (like Bauldur's Gate 3), or they're nostalgia bombs like Animal crossing or Hogwarts legacy that are able to pull in a broader audience.
It's hard to pitch that EA spend millions/billions on a cool new untested idea when they know they'll make the same money releasing Call of Duty or FIFA with a fresh coat of paint, risk free.