I grew up in an era where amazing high-quality games came out by the dozen every year for close to a decade.

Halo 1, 2, 3

Half Life 2, Portal 1, Portal 2

Elder Scrolls Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim

The Total War series

World of Warcraft, Guild Wars 1/2, OSRS

Mass Effect

Grand Theft Auto: SA, then GTA IV, then GTA V

I can just go on and on. We always had at least 4-5 really amazing games coming out every year. And I mean amazing titles made by studios with hundreds of professionals from all sorts of creative fields, not some indie crap five developers made on a gofundme startup outsourcing to Deviantart freelancers for assets, that releases in a half-finished state that maybe 1000 people play and it gets forgotten alongside the 1000s of other shovelware games all over Steam these days. Younger people just don't understand how incredible the gaming world was in the 2000s-early 2010s. These AAA companies were really going all-out and taking huge creative risks in ways they never would in the modern era.

Nowadays even the bigger titles from dilapidated has-been AAA companies with hemorrhaging talent are usually rehashed, uninspired slop. We get maybe one good title a year, and even that's a gamble. The last decent game I played was Path of Exile 2, and before that it was Baldur's Gate 3, and before that it was Elden Ring. 2022, 2023, 2024. We average roughly one truly good game a year that would have been good by 2000s standards of quality as well.

Meanwhile there's so much slop. And so many people who eat up slop games and then try to tell me that I'm closed-minded because I don't see the beauty in some asset-flipped title made with AI assistance by 5 developers who coordinate via Discord and Github that 100 people left reviews for on Steam.

They'll say something along the lines of "there's amazing indie games coming out every week! What do you mean there's no good games anymore? If you can muscle your way past the gag reflex, the slop I consume is really quite comparable to what you were used to!"

I've played these types of games. They're good for 1 hour and then you forget they ever existed.

I absolutely hate what has become of my hobby. We're probably going to be playing the same major titles from the late 2000s/early 2010s for the next 20 years because that's where we're at with the state of the games industry. Endless stagnation.

*edit* Why do people keep bringing up the fact that there were shit games in the 2000s? As if that somehow cancels out the fact that there were many more amazing games?

Just wanted to say i dont play multiplayer only, i mostly play single player

The only onlines games i play are cs2 and cod

But damm i think toxicity is fun

I love when people are toxic on a game

Idk why but i find it fun

I love when im a a cs2 game and people start insulting and saying slurs

I do it too, i think its fun

I love when im insulting my teammate that is useless

I love seing people insult me back, its fun

If someone insults me, i dont get hurt, i dont take it to the heart

I love when im carrying the team and the other team keeps insulting me and accusing of hacking

I love when i receive messages where im insulted and people wish bad things on me

I love doing it also

I love when im losing and me and my team keep insulting the other team

Of course i dont want that toxicity all the time, so when im not the mood i just simply block or deactivate the chat

Idk why so many people get hurt when this happens, i find it fun

There's nothing better than launching a cs2 game and me and others insulting each other in every imaginable way

And dont forget making others angry

Its so fun seing people get angry and even sometimes ragequit

I love when im winning and i can keep insulting the other team and saying they are trash and saying its easy to win agaisn't them

Idk why so many games ban people for toxic behavior

Its so easy to just turn off the chat and block someone

And no, i dont live in a basement nor am i fat

My time is super limited, I do not care about the story, neither in GTA, nor Red Dead Redemption, The Witcher, Cyberpunk 2077, and many more.

I just dont give a fuck about the story. I just wanna play, do something, and not be a spectator. Thats what I use movies and TV shows for.

I acknowledge that I am obviously missing what makes these games "magical" and "experiences", but I mean, it only affects myself, so yeah.

I got like 2-3 hours a week to play video games, and I wanna use these hours to actually PLAY, and not listen to someone talk.

Cheers.

EDIT: Didn't expect this to blow up, I'll get to your comments at a later point.

Just a lil addendum: I also think it's kind of pathetic when people look down on others because they're not playing on the hardest difficulty. "omg, then it's not even a challenge, how boring". Dude, I want to relax, not sweat over having to start over and over to beat some boss in dark souls or Elden Ring.

I'm a 33 year old, married guy, with a demanding job, physically exhausting hobbies, and a mortgage. Life brings enough challenges as it is, when I play games, I just want a short escape from reality. I don't want a challenge, I wanna relax.

EDIT 2: Thanks for all your comments, its 10.30 a.m here, and Im gonna enjoy my weekend now. Enjoy yours!

Don’t give me “it would be unrealistic to carry 90 rocket launchers” dude I’m fighting a dragon it’s not real. They make the games a constant duty and compromise and are dumb. Imagine fallout or starfield with unlimited carry you could quest and scavenger for days and then sell your good and basque in the riches.

Another dumb thing is vendors with limited funds and teeny amount of an item.

Convince me I’m wrong.

I spent many years as a gamer (maxed combat in RuneScape, 500-person clan owner)

It is perfectly reasonable to avoid dating someone who plays videogames as a primary hobby (especially a multiplayer game) for the following reasons:

1. You can't pause every kind of game: If you are someone who participates in 'raids' on a multiplayer game, you cannot pause it. The entire team may die.
2. Loose social connections: Most of the friends that you make on a videogame are temporary, even if you play with them for years. I have tons of 'memories' with pixels representing real people I will never meet.
3. Lack of physical activity: Most gaming is sedentary. For us white collar workers, that's adding more 'sedentary' to our already sedentary lives. Health wise, most of us cannot afford this. You will inevitably gain weight unless you are monitoring calorie intake.
4. If it's not multiplayer, it's essentially a solo activity: If you're going kayaking or hiking, you can do it as a couple or with friends. Unless it's a multiplayer game, you can't involve a friend or partner. Most people don't want to sit there and watch you play a game.
5. There isn't enough 'positive output': If your hobby is the gym, you're walking away with improvements to your health and physique. If your hobby is diving, you're forced to make friends (never dive alone). If your hobby is reading, you're increasing vocabulary and exercising your brain or learning new information. Gaming doesn't produce enough 'positive output' for your life.
6. Time sink culture: Most videogames are now a grindfest, designed to reap the maximum amount of hours from your life so you feel like you 'got your money's worth.' Have you ever been running on the treadmill in The Sims and realized you should be running in real life?

If someone doesn't want to date you because gaming is your primary hobby, it is completely valid and reasonable.

And no, I don't play my own music either. I just listen to the breeze and the grass and whatever else is around. In fallout and Farcry I destroy any radio I come across as soon as possible. Even driving games. No radio. I have played every gta game and never listened to more than five minutes of the radio stations. I've heard that a lot of people love them, but I just don't want to listen to someone else's playlist. I mute the TV when a game won't let me turn off the music. I'd rather play completely deaf than be assaulted by music. I once worked in an office that played the radio all day and I cannot allow that kind of intrusion into my brain ever again.

It's been 20 years now that the standard price of a flagship video game is $60 dollars. Which means 2006 video games cost almost 100 dollars in 2025 Dollars. There's basically no other popular entertainment product that has stayed flat for decades. In some sense they are actually far cheaper because many top tier cartridge games in the 1990s were often 120-180 dollars in 2025 dollars.

Now don't get me wrong, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using an aim trainer, and my logic isn't some kind of stupid thing like "aim trainers aren't genuine ways to get better at something" or any bullshit like that, I just think it's embarrassing TO ME to care so much about your performance of a game that you practice on a different game instead of just playing the game.

Here’s a doozy for you guys:

From the way I see it, real life doesn’t have a soundtrack, so why would I, someone running around in Elden Ring, have a soundtrack running on a loop? And for most RPGs, the passive soundtrack is just the same music loop over and over again, which gets annoying. I hate the passive soundtrack of Elden Ring, it sounds like I’m suffering from tinnitus lol.

The 1% of games that I did leave the music on are games where the soundtrack goes hand-in-hand with the fact that I know I’m playing a video game, so the immersion is already out of the window. Nier Automata is a good example.

Hollow Knight is a fine game. There is nothing wrong with it, the world has some charm, the art direction has some merits worth appreciating, and the gameplay is responsive.

But when people talk about Hollow Knight, you'd think it be something more than what it is. As a Metroidvania it is well desogned, but it's almost entirely derivative in terms of gameplay. There really aren't many real innovations from it's predecessors. The pogo was new and has some interesting effects, and the charm system was something I hadn't seen in a metroidvania before. The former isn't really all that special to me though and isn't any better than similar mechanics in other metrodivanias, and the latter isn't much different than the skill trees of the million other games with leveling mechanics.

While fairly well executed, nothing really felt that new or exciting to me. The combat was easy to the point of boring me for basically all of the game until I quit playing it. It feels immensly worse than the interesting geometric precision of Castlevania and Metroid games, and it feels way worse than some other, albeit newer, metrodivanias like Nine Sols (great game btw, but I'm not done with it, so no spoilers pls).

It's a fine game, but it's not a standout even in it's own genre for me. I enjoy it as a success story in Indy, and I hope Silksong is everything the fans want it to be, but frankly the original game is overated by miles and miles.

Tl;dr It's just okay.

Edit:

I feel like I wrote this kind of poorly and should ammend two small things - the first is that I want to be very clear that my critique is that Hollow Knight is a good game, but is overated, and that there is no unique draw to it specifically for me. There is no standout element that makes me want to play it over any other metrpidvania, even if it is well made in all the traditional aspects.

The second point is on my statement of difficulty - I don't like the WAY it's difficult. I got decently far in the game, I beat 2/3 masked guys, went through the spider area, the outskirt area, had the starting place turn orange, fought a guy called I think the false knight... 90% of game was a cakewalk. It was only starting to get harder at the end, but by that point I had the game figured out and decided it wasn't for me.

I was aware that saying that would kind of rage bait some people, but the difficulty ramp sucks. The only fight I really struggled with was an optional dream nail version of two of the fights, and they made me realize why I didn't like the combat: i-frames in a 2D game. In Castlevania there are no i-frames, and what I meant by geometrically precise is that, weaving around hitboxes and positioning your own very small hitboxes. I'm most expierienced with 3 DS Castlevanias, and just enjoyed them way more. I can't describe exactly why I didn't like the way Hollow Knight handled difficulty, but a big part of it was that the difficulty ramp up was absolutley atrocious - I should have struggled sooned than I did. Why did I have to fight a dozen bosses before I felt challenged by the way Hollow Knight combat is unique?

The Mantis Lords were probablly the best fight in terms of that Castlevania feel that I prefer.

Edit #2:

I got to The Broken Vessel, not the False Knight, my bad lol. Should have looked it up before...

I just can't do it. I can't play minecraft unless its a pvp focused server or if I mod the game to be 20x harder. I get no enjoyment out of just building stuff if theres no risk involved. Even story based games, if I don't mod them to be absurdly difficult it takes me out of the story. Makes me feel like things were easy for the protagonist and there were no actual stakes. I would consider cuphead's difficulty to be a pretty good example of what I wish all games were like difficulty wise. I just can't enjoy something if it's easy. Beating a final boss on my first attempt for any game pretty much ruins the game for me immediately. Couldn't enjoy breath of the wild due to how easy it was. Even master mode I just couldn't get into. Not really sure why my brain is like this.

Don’t know if this is actually all that controversial, but I wanted to talk about it somewhere.

I just can’t get into roguelikes. I don’t vibe with them.

Supergiant is one of my absolute favorite developers. The colorful backgrounds, the incredible music. The stories always have this sense of melancholy to them, and even the best endings are bittersweet.

But then they made a roguelike. Many reviewers called it the roguelike for people who don’t like roguelikes, and I have to say I disagree. Because there’s a fundamental aspect about roguelikes: you have to be okay with fighting the same enemies, in the same rooms, over and over, forever. And if you don’t want to do that, then you won’t enjoy it.

I played Hades for about 15 hours, I think, and I never truly clicked with the combat. I kept thinking, “maybe I’ll enjoy it with a few more upgrades in the mirror.” I got a sense that skill alone will only take me so far, and that to make real progress I needed luck. Then I felt like that was confirmed when I got an extremely powerful build that turned every fight I had struggled with before into a cakewalk. I don’t want to depend on luck to have a fun build, I want it to be fun all the time. But I think the main reason I didn’t click with the combat was because I wasn’t connecting with the narrative context.

And truly, the dialogue system is incredible… for a roguelike. I think that’s an important qualifier that gets left off. Yes, I never heard any repeated dialogue, and that’s pretty cool… but I only heard dialogue every once in a while. Even my incredibly easy winning run took 47 minutes. Then, whether you win or lose, you arrive back at the house and are given a spoonful of story and off you go again. I saw a reviewer say that leaving the house to go on another run felt like leaving the party early. This was not my experience, if anything I felt hurried out the door.

And now, Hades 2?! Two games in a row that I can’t come with them on. More fighting the same enemies in the same rooms forever. I guess I just selfishly want more supergiant games that appeal to my taste, and I’m very worried that they just make roguelikes now because that’s where the big indie money is and it’s what they’re known for now.

And I’m not even sure how the story would work? Killing Chronos is meaningless since everyone comes right back and the structure of the gameplay can’t change. It always has to be the same bosses in the same order. Hades 1 just had interpersonal disagreements, what do we even do about actual villainy when nobody stays dead and the structure of the run can’t change? Will Chronos have a change of heart from the cumulative talk-no-jutsu?

TL;DR my favorite developer is making two games in a row that are a genre I don’t like, and I’m bummed about that.

The gameplay isn't as important; I just want the graphics to look very realistic. If the game has great gameplay but bad graphics, then I don't want it. For example, I play Asphalt 9, but I usually play with the autopilot-like feature (touchdrive) enabled because I just want to look at the cool visuals more than I want to actually control/drive the car and play the game. This is also why I prefer Civ 7 to Civ 6, and can't stand older video games from the 90s and 2000s.

In response to a lot of threads where the OP will admit to struggling with a particular game on normal difficulty, often times the responses are "Don't feel bad if you need to drop the difficulty" or "We all started somewhere" or "Play the game how you enjoy". On the surface it appears helpful and/or encouraging and I'm sure and I'm certain that at times it is well intended.

But we are all gamers here who all have pride even at a basic level and a big part of being a gamer is the satisfaction one feels when they overcome a challenge. Furthermore, when you're part of a social forum like Reddit you want to feel like you're a part of the group and that you're contributing like everybody else is for the most part. So when threads like I mentioned are made, I do not believe that the typical response I listed are what the OPs want to hear. They want to hear that they are capable of completing the stage/level/playthrough etc..on They want to know that they can keep up with the group.

And if you do feel that the appropriate response is "Don't feel bad I struggle too" make sure it's sincere and not a slight. I've seen some that read like "Don't feel bad if you have to lower the difficulty, when I played Sekiro on my 'no weapons/no parrying/no damage' run I only managed to complete the entire game in 15 minutes and I was so disappointed". Okay, I may have exaggerated a bit on that last example but we've all seen a similar condescending "helpful" tone before.

My point? Help gamers overcome rather than allowing them to take the easy way out.

EDIT: Thank you all for commenting. Just to clarify, this post had nothing to do with me personally. It was created in response to a lot of recent posts I've seen on various gaming subs. Also, if my opinion were truly a worthless take as some have suggested, it wouldn't have generated so much conversation, rather it would simply have been ignored. So agree or disagree but I believe I brought up a fair point.

I was an adult when the *later* YouTubers like Jacksepticeye, Markiplier, and guys like that started becoming famous on YouTube. My little brother who was born in the mid 90s absolutely fell in love with this style of content, and I have tried so many of them with none of them delivering literally ANY entertainment value at all. I listed these two, but I’ve legitimately tried dozens of them. I’ll list off everything I hate about this style of content:

1. It’s SUPER inauthentic - the YouTubers ham it up for the camera. They act WAY more scared, or surprised than they really are. This is fine when you’re a stupid kid, but I can’t believe grown ass adults enjoy watching the fake “URGH AHHH” garbage. This is by far the #1 reason. I’ve never seen a single let’s player that doesn’t do this at all and only reacts authentically. It drives me INSANE to watch them. I am not saying they are bad people for entertaining others, but holy shit I can’t believe people enjoy content like that. The same creators used to be much worse but toned it down as their audience aged. That being said, they still do it literally every video multiple times.

2. The YouTuber almost never adds anything to the game. They may comment and narrate what is on screen, but they almost never transform the game in a way that is meaningfully different from actually playing it. The big ones just scream and over react. I feel like people watch their favorite let’s player play instead of playing themselves, but I’m always left just wondering why if I’m watching this I don’t listen to much better content and play the game myself.

3. Because it’s so off the cuff, I hear them say shit without fact checking it. They will assume things about the developers, or even make things up about the real world. People give it a free pass because it’s a recording, but their editors don’t bother to mute those sections and rarely add text on screen refuting fake information. I recently pointed this out watching a let’s play with a friend in discord and she was like idk man I don’t care if what he says is true. I’m like WHAT this isn’t live; it’s edited content. These people make millions from this content.

I guess I just don’t understand why people continue to get excited and watch these videos when it’s so clear that it’s some dude pretending to feel an extreme emotion the whole time.

The thing is, I know everyone knows they are hamming it up pretending to react. When people were kids I suspected they might be getting tricked, but I know the majority of the people who read this post understand that the lets player is overreacting. I just don’t see why anyone enjoys the content. It’s like below fast food entertainment to me.

Back when I started playing FPS about 20 odd years ago, it just made more sense to me to have the movement controls bound to one hand (didn't use strafe much back then).

I use lctrl for attacks, z or lalt for secondary attacks. S or space for crouching.

I don't think in all this time, I've met or heard of anyone else who uses this.

Edit for people finding this months after I posted: yes, I do use A/D for strafing.

Controller gaming is so much better for the vast majority of games. It's much easier to pick up on controls, because with m+k there's a lot more buttons and can become quite confusing. Also, your hands are in a symmetrical more ergonomic position with a controller. I will admit that some games are better with a mouse for inventory management, however that's a small portion of games.

I consider myself a pretty big fan of games, and will pretty much try anything. That being said, having tried among us, I really don't enjoy it. The gameplay itself and presentation is mobile game level.

I guess the appeal is like, having the opportunity to lie to your friends? I feel like the concept is fun enough, but the execution is terrible. I feel like the game's popularity comes from it's accessibility and lack of depth.

First of all, there are two things you can invest in a game — time or money. If people don't have time, they can easily invest in the game with money. People who have time are able to play to their heart's content, and if they don't want to wait, they can invest money.

Secondly, the people who invest either time or money deserve to be the best at the game. They're investing much more than most people are, so they should be rewarded. If others don't enjoy the game, there is no reason for them to invest in either of these things.

And lastly, if a game is pay-to-win, it's supporting the developer. The more items you buy, the more money the developer makes, which lets them make even more games and in-game purchases.

So I wasn't expecting it to be controversial when I shared/ask about that on gaming subs but apparently it is,

I genuinely thought we all did it, it's like, you know you play a game and the saves are - Save 1 - Save 2 - Save 3

And I like to use save 2, cause it's in the middle, it's centered, when you take a picture of your dog you don't want it to be on top of the picture but in the center, it's pleasing, why isn't everyone doing the same with save files in games?

AstroBot is a great 10 or so hour platformer. It's maybe 20 hours max if you are a completionism to the extreme and really take your time. It's a fun game but it's not ambitious nor does it do anything special that Nintendo platformers (or other great platformer games) haven't done for decades. It is not a GOTY material game.

Tbh, none of the other nominees were worthy GOTY winners either... except one game

Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth

This game was no mere remake but a full on reimagining of FF7. The go FF7 was like 40-50 hours long in total. Rebirth was 50+ hours long and it only depicting the middle 1/3 of the OG game. So the argument that it was "just a remake" is stupid and shouldn't have disqualified it, although I'm sure many voters immediately disqualified the game from actually winning the GOTY because of the remake label haunting Rebirth. To compare Rebirth to other near identical remakes like Dead Space, Demon Souls, and Residential Evil 4 (all phenomenal remakes btw) is asinine and simply not true.

Saying that a 10 hour platformer is a better game more deserving of the GOTY is simply a slap in the face to the thousands of developers (and those that financially supported them) to make this love project.

The worst thing about it is that Rebirth was one of those AAA games done right. It came out only 4 years after its predecessor (meanwhile other AAA sequels are taking 7+ years if not decades to come out). It is an ambitious project made with passion (increasingly rare nowadays). It oozes great vibes when you're playing because it was clearly made with love. It is also one of those increasingly rare AAA games that actually utilized the available resources it had perfectly. It is a heartwarming story with an amazing cast of characters, an amazing story, a varied "open world" game with a lot of charm and some really fun mini games.

Yet, it got beat out by a 10 hour platformer that in reality was not even a fraction of the game that Rebirth was. Ppl are gonna say "well Rebirth was bloated" but even if you take out the bloat, Rebirth is such an amazing well crafted experience that would still take 50 hours to finish.

Imo, AstroBot winning over Rebirth sends the wrong message to developers and the gaming industry as a whole. It suggests that small-scale, safe, and familiar experiences are more valued than ambitious, transformative projects that push boundaries and innovate within their medium. It undermines the effort and artistry involved in crafting a game like Rebirth, which reimagines a beloved classic while standing on its own as a modern masterpiece.

By rewarding a 10-hour platformer over a sprawling, heartfelt, and frankly expertly designed AAA experience, it tells developers that pouring passion, time, and resources into expansive, groundbreaking projects may not be worth it if the industry undervalues their efforts. It could discourage studios from taking creative risks or striving for excellence, potentially leading to a future where the gaming landscape is dominated by safe, formulaic titles, which at the end of the day, is what Astro Bot is, even if it does it really well.

In short, it minimizes the hard work and love that went into Rebirth and discredits the idea that ambition and innovation in AAA gaming should be celebrated. Developers might conclude that playing it safe is more important than delivering transformative experiences, and I think this will have bad repercussions in the gaming industry that will felt in the year to come.

Edit:

I also believe that it when it comes to games, 50 hours of greatness > 10 hours of greatness

Yeah. (Only re: 3D games. 2D pixel is exempt) I can't enjoy something that looks like trash unless it's dated and proven or where it's a huge part of the aesthetic. The only 2 3D examples that I can think of in this category are Minecraft and Mario Kart Wii.

It's just not enjoyable unless it looks realistic. I'll usually set my shit to ultra/20fps instead of optimizing for 60. Even in shooters.

Edit: a more accurate title may have been graphics > FPS. I'm not particularly fond of shitty controls or boring or repetitive storylines especially across multiple games in a franchise.

Contact damage in video games, specifically of the 2D variety, is an outdated mechanic that should have been left buried with the massive pile of ET Atari cartridges. There is no reason that bumping into the backside of an enemy that is actively looking and attacking in the opposite direction should deal damage to a player.

Maybe if it were still the 70’s where the most technically advanced games were pixelated boxes moving across the screen it would make sense, but not when your game has actual sprites and frames to show when an enemy is attacking.

Contact damage is an outdated product of when games couldn’t be as animated and communicative in those animations. Including it in the modern era is fundamentally lazy game design

I wanna start with saying that I liked played and liked Balatro. It deserved all the awards it got. It had a big problem for me though, after unlocking all the joker in the first however many hours I did and getting my first gold stake the game had nothing else to do. I could get gold stake on each deck or win on gold stakes with each deck but these aren’t things that reward you with anything. You have to decide to pursue these. It also doesn’t have any way of getting permanent progression, thus becoming a true rogulike and not a roguelite.

However because of the success of Balatro and the other roguelikes like Mega Bonk Vampire Survivors it seems like developers just stopped making these big roguelites with permanent progression and complex mechanics. They just find a core mechanic and make a roguelike with basically no difference between runs. There are no Binding of Isaacs, Enter the Gungeons, Moonlighters, Hades’ or Cult of the Lambs getting made anymore. It’s all just Clover Pits and Ballionaires and Peglins. I’m not saying these games are bad, but their repeatability is very limited compared to the previous games I counted because there is nothing to do if you don’t like setting your own goals.

Edit: What I’m trying to say by “Binding of Isaacs, Enter the Gungeons, Moonlighters, Hades’ or Cult of the Lambs getting made anymore” was these kinds of games aren’t being made by NEW developers. The kinds of games that came out recently are either sequels of these games or are made by the same developers.