Star Citizen is in this picture. They added hunger and dehydration to a space exploration, cargo, and fighting game.

Games got bigger to their own detriment. Halo and Gears of War are open world games now, and they're worse off for it. Assassin's Creed games used to be under 20 hours, and now they're over 45. Not every game is worse for being longer, as two of my favorite games in the past couple of years are over 100 hours long, clocking in at three times the length of their predecessors, but it's much easier to keep a game fun for 8-15 hours than it is for some multiple of that, and it makes the game more expensive to make, raising the threshold for success.

And development teams are too big. No game should realistically be having 500+ people working on it. That's too many people, too big a ship to steer fast enough for the changes that happen in game development. Even the biggest games have done very well with teams of 250 or less, including all staff that work on the game, how about development studios pay attention to that?

"Of course it was cost-intensive to program an engine that will render every single eyelash at a resolution that will require the player to buy an additional graphics card for each eyelash concurrently on-screen, but now we only need twelve and a half billion people to buy, no, what am I saying, to pre-order and pre-pay the Ultra-Super-Deluxe-Collector's Edition and we'll start to turn a profit."

• current AAA gaming

Single player games with a good story and fun replayability are what I'm after. Or co-op. Occasionally, a fun multiplayer with a risky, innovative design like Lethal Company.

If a game requires me to collect 100 goddamn feathers, or press X 20 times to "survive" a heavily scripted encounter, you are doing your game wrong. Look at Black Mesa, look at Subnatica. Look at the games that took risks like Lethal Company or Elite Dangerous. You don't have to appeal to everyone. You have to tell a story well, and the gameplay should be unique and interesting. Larian understood that with Divinity 2, and made improvements to both story and gameplay in BG3.

Pretty much what I've been saying for almost a decade, mostly in response to "game development is expensive, that's why AAA games need *insert extra revenue streams*". My response has always been that games are bloated with feature creep and if there was an actual issue with development costs the first thing you can cut are features that don't really add to the game. Not only do you cut development costs but you arguably make a better product.

Nice to get some validation because it's been a rather controversial opinion. People have argued nobody would buy AAA if it's not an open world with XP, skills and crafting. Or a competitive hero based online shooter with XP, unlockables, season pass and 5 different game modes. I guess now people don't buy those even if they are all those things

I think it’s cause of envy. Every once in a while, a game comes that just seems to do a lot of things and become very very successful (like red dead and gta).

Then these other studios get FOMO and turn to a go big or go home attitude.

So what you end up with is this inflation of features when only a few devs can land a big game like that.

Space marine 2 seems like a good example of this.

Single player campaign: mediocre

CoOp missions: mediocre

Competitive multiplayer: poor

Seems like dropping one of those might have allowed the remaining two to earn a "pretty good"