I quit gaming because there’s the idea that time spent = successful game design.
I don’t have hundreds or even dozens of hours to play around. Sometimes I have maybe 15 minutes once or twice a week.
It’s too late for me now, but I would’ve liked a game that’s a quick blast of fun. It can even be a long game, as long as I can make one step of progress in 15 minutes, it would work.
You're not alone, and there are many genres that focus on that play style. They're mostly indie or small-studio titles, though, as AAA studios can't practically scale down their operations to suit that kind of thing.
By convention, they often adopt the "roguelite" tag in some way or another, to represent a that there's a divide between play session and some kind of long-term metaprogression that accumulates as you keep playing sessions.
Developers keep crossing that "roguelite" design model with every other type of genre you can imagine: dungeon crawlers, platformers, deck-builders, city builders, rpgs, pachinko, solitaire, tower defense, 4X strategy, poker, etc
This is one of the things that absolutely kills my interest in playing games. I have time to play a game right now. I may only have a half hour of uninterrupted time. If I have to spend any amount of time waiting on an update I've already lost momentum. If I then need to sit through long load times or unskippable cutscenes my interest and available time are gone.
> This has been challenging to sit around the PS5 to update the system, then the firmware of the controller (!), and then the game itself. Annoying.
if you properly configure your PS5 setup; the system auto updates when you're not using it, the games are updated automatically. The only thing is the controller firmware update which happens maybe twice a year if at all.
I've bought a PS5 and got myself the PS+ subscriptions, and have been having a blast with pickup and play games, all different genres, and the instant resume from sleep also lends to quick gaming sessions.
May I recommend a Steam Deck? It's terrific for gaming in short, interrupted bursts. Gotta go? Hit the power button, it immediately suspends the game. Hit the power button again later, it immediately resumes right where you left off. Plug it in between bouts. It's great at helping you opportunistically squeeze more gaming into short, randomly found moments in life.
This is me. I prefer turn-based games where a single game will take me 4-6 months to complete. But I'm hardly spending every waking moment playing them.
I've been on a Master of Orion game for a few months now. I'm also a big fan of Stardew Valley. It's not turn-based, but close enough. Same with Surviving Mars, which has become one of my favorite games.
Honestly you don't even have to be old. There are so many high quality activities nowadays competing for my attention that the idea of spending 60 hours on a game to have mediocre fun just doesn't fly with me.
Too many games that call themselves "roguelike" these days are nothing at all like Rogue, though. I'm not exactly sure what the term really means anymore.
Yes, it doesn't have much to do with the rogue anymore (except a few games). These days, the meaning is along the lines of "the game consists of many repeating runs, each one being reasonably short like 0.5-1h, failure is normal, you will progress in many different ways both within each run and globally even if you fail, there will be a predominant effect of randomness, there may be some exploration effect".
Right?! Cataclysm DDA is the first thing I think of when I think roguelike. And then someone says Slay the Spire is roguelike because, I dunno, you progress in ability. I suppose I'm just too old.
I was genuinely surprised! As an older gamer, I found that report to be largely reflective of my own attitudes and preferences about games.
I am very happy to spend time and money on games (and I do) -- but there are very few (no?) AAA or otherwise games that I have any interest whatsoever in. Most of them:
- are action games, which I am not interested in even though I was when I was younger
- require a server, which means that the game will stop working at some point and I won't be able to play it again in 10 or 20 years.
- are online multiplayer, which I've never had much tolerance for.
Games that appeal to me are being made, and I do buy them, of course. I'm not complaining. But none of the big studios are making them as far as I'm aware.
As a member of that group, I resent (mildly) that unneeded capitalization. Computer games basically have been around as long as there have been computers.
I find the distinction between AAA games and indie games irrelevant. I'm not interested in the vast majority of video games, regardless of the budget or the size of the publisher. I only play a limited number of titles, and I'm more likely to try new games from teams or individuals who made games I have have enjoyed in the past.
In that respect, video games are no different from books, movies, or TV shows. I choose entertainment based on the content, not on the form.
> I find the distinction between AAA games and indie games irrelevant.
I view the difference as being like the difference between movies made by major studios and movies made by indie studios.
The AAA games are aimed at a broad demographic, and that determines what sort of gameplay they present. Indie games address smaller demographics and so are willing to be more experimental and creative.
I don't think one is better or worse than the other, but I do think that there is enough of a difference between the two that knowing what sort of studio made it gives you an idea of what to expect.
I'm not sure. Older gamers tend to have more perspective to see through AAA BS. I'd rather have better, smaller games than a AAA content slog. More focused complete experiences with fun gameplay would be welcome, but I'm not sure AAA publishers are equipped to supply them.
Season pass - No thank you (unless it's permanent like Helldivers 2). "Seasons" in general are a huge annoyance if you have limited time/opportunity to play.
Daily/weekly/monthly quests - No thank you. These often make the game feel like a second job with tasks you have to complete under time pressure.
Free to play - Probably no because it will have one or more of the above.
FWIW, I distinguish between "season pass" and "battle pass". So far, the games I pay attention to seem to distinguish between those terms consistently, but I don't know how widespread that is or how long it will last.
But so far, I see a "season pass" as a discount on buying a bundle of DLC items. This comes up in games where they have a bunch of new content scheduled, like adding characters to a fighting game. I generally see these as fine, as long as the price is acceptable. Which... well, some of them are getting pretty ridiculous now. Maybe wait until they go on a big discount. Season passes tend to go on discounts eventually, long after the initial sales surge falls off.
In contrast, a "battle pass" is a pure FOMO play. Do these timed things and get rewards, or else. I ignore these just on principle. Once they're gone, they're gone. You can't buy them at a discount later. They're pure manipulation, and I've decided to opt out.
Yes, you're right. I'm referring to the FOMO "battle passes" that often go along with "seasons". The "season pass" bundles are ok and often stick around forever.
I'm sure the research findings were once interesting, but in the linked post it's hard to determine where the research starts and where the SEO stuffing ends.
I don’t have hundreds or even dozens of hours to play around. Sometimes I have maybe 15 minutes once or twice a week.
It’s too late for me now, but I would’ve liked a game that’s a quick blast of fun. It can even be a long game, as long as I can make one step of progress in 15 minutes, it would work.