As a personal rule, I really try to avoid the "lazy" route. Even the classic "worst games," like Ride to Hell Retribution, are almost always the victim of underfunding and short timelines.Magical_Isopod wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2019, 3:17 pmBig, dead open world, glass weapons, no dungeons, copy/pasted textures overused to the point it feels like an Itch.io Unity game, no story, boring minimalist score, stupid game design choices like not being able to climb in the rain, just... So many bad, lazy game design choices that people excuse just because it's Nintendo.
I was expecting a game that would feel like hiking and adventuring in a fantasy world, but instead I got this open world thing full of outdated tropes western open world games got tired of a decade ago with limitations defenders call "realism" that are nowhere near realistic. Like... You CAN climb a mountain in the rain IRL. You CAN smack something with a sword more than three times before it shatters. It's just an abysmal experience all around, and the single most disappointing game I've ever wasted money on.
It makes Start Fox Zero look like a masterpiece.
It's totally fine to not get on with a game, even/especially a critically acclaimed one. I found very little to like about 2018's God of War. But I know how much time was spent on it, and I knowhow considered every design choice was. Brushing off decisions as lazy isn't only unkind towards the real humans behind the game, it's a fundamentally reductive view of games as a whole.
I want developers to be able to make choices. I want them to take risks. And while it certainly won't always equal a game that personally resonates with me (e.g. God of War), I still want those aberrations in the formula to take place.