Do you think the world is in need of more AAA video games that do not focus on combat as the central gameplay?

[deliriousness]

I think about this a lot ever since I watched this video 

I really like that video. It’s long I know but very entertaining. 

[Hizu]

I'll save it to watch it later, I just want to say that I loved Detroit: Become Human, and I want more games like that in my life. I bought Death Stranding and a guy told me he didn't like it because it didn't have enough action and was too conceptual, but I usually like that type of game, so Idk about the world, but personally the answer is yes. 

[lauren_xox]

Spoiler

 

long sorry:

To answer the OP's question: yes. But I'd prefer if the alternative of said games focused on in-game physics over narrative or how "realistic" the animation is.

Like Jake said in the video (is that his name, Jake? lol), that rope that Ellie had could've been used for so much more. What surprises me in games is being able to go places I would've assumed I'd have no access to or doing things I would've assumed I wouldn't be able to do because the precedent isn't there. Not many games allow you to interact with their worlds in a way that feels limitless (within the limits of a game), or kind of tricks you into thinking it's as immersive as our real one. Ability to do what seems to feel like "almost anything" and great in-game physics is what immerses me more into a world - more than narrative or animation can ever do.

It's why I was so upset at Cyberpunk. Yes, I won't lie, I really liked the design of the cityscape and I don't mind looking at "eye-candy" just for the sake of appreciating it; it's why I love looking at digital art, but that's not sh** when it comes to replay-ability for me. The upsetting thing was that it seemed they focused more on the failure of a main quest (it was extremely boring), with cut-scenes spoonfeeding you every development in the story at any pivotal point of the already-boring narrative (as usual) at the expense of bettering the in-game physics and openness/immersion of the game. The fact that I couldn't enter many shops just for the sake of it, the fact that the game felt more limited in what you could do in 2020 than open world games from 2013 (!!), the fact that the game physics was abysmal is what stopped me from playing it again.

If a game looks like trash, has a subpar or (even better) nonexistent narrative line, but has an immersive experience like non-other and excellent game physics then, imo, it's a good game. I don't even care about whether it has combat or not. If it meets those criteria, and it's multiplayer,  then it almost mimics real life. And in real life, as I learned entertaining myself growing up as an only child, you can often find ways to amuse yourself. Even better, as I said, if it's multiplayer.

A really good narrative is so hard to get right. It's why AAA games like TLOU don't come around often. You can't just throw money at the problem and get it right (assuming large game companies even prioritize their story department). You CAN get game physics right easily as it's less subjective than a good story, so I think they should focus on that for now.

 

The gold standard of a game for me would be something like: open world, immersive with plenty of possibilities, great in-game physics and quests being created seasonally and perhaps added to the map via updates to avoid traditional game launch crunch for developers and anyone involved in story-writing (similar like Fortnite's events that they put on but less hectic so that devs get more time to work on things). An even gold-er standard would be user-created quests or narratives. That way, devs and story-writers avoid any potential crunch altogether. Sorry if this was long lmao.