The problem is the positive feedback loop. Even if you got Einstein piloting a late game one player will be so far ahead they can just force mathematical wins on the smarter player

Of course, everyone keeps a lot of territory and resources so its not a full back to 0, but its a good idea nonetheless. The community of course felt this was the worst change ever

The most recent Civilization game comes to mind as an example. The devs correctly noticed that the reason nobody ever finished games is because the positive feedback loop of strategy games kills the strategy after a certain point. Their solution was to have 3 map wide resets per game ("eras")

In 2026 any game you purchase is just an ARPG inside

Does not matter if you slice, shoot, or hit, red will beat blue but green will beat red

When you look at the premade Unreal systems 70% of the AAA space uses it starts to make sense why they can only try to make depth by stacking a million Simon says states on top of eachother

I too would give up if I had to make natural depth from this automated abomination

Modern action games develop their in-game upgrade economy more than their core gameplay

Crazy thing is, considering your credentials this probably passes as an excellent discussion of gameplay, so maybe I already know your reply

Instead I will kindly walk you out of the door and send you on your merry way, industry worm

I assume a person would reply witj some sort of purpose. Which you claim doesnt exist for you

Didn't say 8 guns, only just described the guns wow

So one aspect gets "ludonarrative dissonance" but the gameplay section gets how many weapons there are and abstractions like "stylish"

Okay

Then what was the point of your original reply? Why are you even here?

Have YOU read it? What about "you run around and shoot, and have 8 guns" is actually meaningful gameplay critique or analysis?

YOU came in my replies. Who invited you?

The same reviews that dont actually go indepth into gameplay? Like the Mouse PI one that talks about ludonarrative dissonance but says nothing about the gameplay past "its just a boomer shooter" as if that means anything without elaboration

Then why am I supposed to be nice or respect IGN?

So if that is your stance, what are you actually trying to convince me off? You made it plenty clear that IGN exist to reflect the taste of the mainstream, which means evaluating games based off polish and production

If IGNs job is to instead reflect the average gamer and just feed them the high production and polish they desire, while validating their aversion to anything off the beaten path

Then I dont really have a reason to respect the publication or like them, so we are back to square one

Some styles of game design are less compatible with gamers expectations and mainstream taste. IGN as a publication with large reader base have a duty to look into these game design styles to make sure these games are getting a fair shot in the narrative NOT just reflect the average gamer shallownes

Im sure this line enticed MANY people to go out and give Spikeout: Battle street a chance ofc

Might seem like a foreign concept now with how widespread the internet is, and the distrust over large publications

But IGN, and its sister publications being the primary purchasing guide for a lot of people through the 2000s Is not a myth

You cannot keep riding on Re6 to justify the fact that somehow all of these AAA games, that are either horrible or lacking in artistic value, get consistently high scores

It became a meme for a reason, no matter how many Gollums or RE6s happen to try to simulate integrity

IGN buried many games like that through the last 25 years, whether they be Arcade style games or experimental ones

Only SOME of them manage to climb back out with cult status, which in that point IGN come out with an apology 10 years later

Also, a lot of the indie getting high scores have heavy backing behind them, usually in the form of marketing consensus or big playerbases.

Rain World had neither, it was an experimental new game on the scene, so its score ofc turned out to be 6/10.

IGN are not "someone else", they are a massive publication holding influence over the medium wide narrative that shapes how games are made and what games sink.

The fact that the only seemingly meaningful metric the publication uses Is production value is concerning for the medium

You can almost consistently predict what score a game will get at that point

Is it high production? Yes

Does it baseline function? Yes

Then its 8-10 score

Smaller games dont have that luxury it seems

This new Mouse PI game, while probably shallow, was critiqued for its story and aesthetic, and only 3 lines were devoted to evaluating and critiquing gameplay

Surely because there isnt really any reason to give the benefit of the doubt if you cant get those industry connections

Well IGN just gave Re9 a 9/10 score despite the game being a complete mess and arguably worse than village (already low bar)

On the other hand Rain World got a 6.5/10, Godhand is cliche to bring up at this point too

IGN will grovel at the feet of Capcom with every release, but the moment they get a hold of a smaller game they release all that is pent up and pull out "ludonarrative dissonance"

This is a hard game

Told a 35y old guy on the streets that the Xbox 360 is by definition a retro console and he tried to hit me

"Style" play itself is what boghog is referring to. And it exists as a concept in Character Action games like DMC for a reason. The games lack actual formal structure to the gameplay, which leads to the player having to fill the blanks mentally, to simulate depth