OSail

Games that fail to integrate the gameplay into the story, methods of characters etc and such are generally not good video game stories when taken as an entire piece. The Last Of Us having Batman vision? Immediately irritating (and it's already a deeply conservative game as plot goes, but that's for another thread).

It's why walking simulators are one of the few former-insult genre names that can do decent stories, because their involvement is like interactive theatre: you move around, maybe click a few things, and find stuff out.

Even games that mean the world to me like Final Fantasy VII, for the story and characters and impact on thoughts at a young age, are probably not good video game stories in that regard. Immersive art forms need to deal with more than one area of understanding.

Nudge Bros.

Two Point Hospital being a superb version of the classic Theme Hospital is the obvious answer for me. It's probably one of the best Euro style management game on consoles, as well as a very fun management game on PC.

I love Dishonored and Dishonored: Death Of The Outsider because they are essentially the best takes on the old Thief games ever made. Dishonored 2 is a much better game than both of those if I judge it at distance and watch a good player, but the level design being bigger and more intricate was a bit much for my brain to take in as a fan of always playing stealth.

I know it's not directly related to the topic, but this is for another artform. The latest versions of Hitman (Absolution onwards) being Hitchcock-via-Brian DePalma inspired in such a knowledgeable and grand way brings the world to life better than any other game series, ever as it's tying in sly references with underlying ties to the themes of Hitman. For example, the New Zealand tutorial level of Hitman 2 seems almost directly from The Apartment (2010) which is mind boggling when you see how much love/knowledgeable references hinting at specific conspiracies and war economies come into that game's universe. Taking other artform's indirect references to actual conspiracies and political nightmarishness in the real world makes the game live in a way not many others could ever manage. The story is not the real story, it's the world that it exists in that drives things. It's very cool in the same way many 70s espionage and political thrillers are, often for the same reasons cast/crew/directors of those films made them.

Giant Bomb: The Hosteseses With The Mosteseses

Plenty of times! Many out of sheer frustration when I have spare time, but most out of lacking time for games which have a steep onboarding difficulty or strange controls (said in a non-critical way, some games control differently than other styles we may be more familiar with, but adjustments can be difficult).

The main game I gave up on after a lot of attempts to get into it with multiple friends as an adult is Tabletop Simulator. A great resource for online board game play and wonderful mods, but the UI, controls, and everything related to those failed to stick with me after 20 something hours of play and practice time. Beyond frustrating as it's clearly the best non-browser based board game service out there for variety of games, automation mods, and the skilled board game community player base on there.

I'd argue the most interesting changes in sports games (see 10 years or so ago when physical defending in football/soccer games improved defensive play and positioning an incredible amount) are lost on most people after a while. Who cares about physics in sports games apart from people massively into the sports or franchise already? Sites may review the games, naturally, but the biggest franchises will sell based on name and license value so any discourse related to them won't matter too much to anyone already in a bubble with them.

Not to say there haven't been efforts to appeal to people outside of those folk already (original character story modes with role playing game elements as mentioned by someone else) but if I'm telling you about how improved it is when a left back with decent pace but lesser physical presence tries to shield a football from an aggressive right winger with much more stamina, if you didn't already have a clue about football and how football games represent physical possession, would it matter? Probably not, but those are the changes that matter when you're playing.

Even then, I'm a huge sports fan, and I buy one soft simulation NBA2k, FIFA, PES, NFL, NHL etc game every 5 or so years. They last for an age if you are of a generation of video game players who can happily play a season mode for donkeys years, and the differences do stand out a lot more if you aren't buying the games year in, year out.

I do think it's slightly dismissive to suggest there's only ever roster changes in most of these series, but the mild changes and important adjustments made might not matter to most people, even huge fans of the sports. Why? Because valuable changes in how acceleration works, removal of near-guaranteed scoring spots, how control sticks work against the direction the camera is facing all sorta feel right once they are improved. It's only if you go back to older games in the same series that you notice how different they may feel if you aren't studying the games. Other posters are correct though, the lack of budget assigned to the development of many sports games, alongside the quick turnaround required for yearly releases, do mean it's tough to see more interesting and large scale changes.

And then of course you have to look at the sinister evolution of Panini collector card hobbyism in online modes like Ultimate Team, or the lighter annoying NBA2k $$$ upgrade drinks. Sometimes sports games are spoken of by sites in non-review terms, but not for the changes to the gameplay, more the meta and fiscally grotesque choices linked to online services, and possible legal ramifications as you can see the last few years. It's hard to truly frame improvements/mild changes as worthwhile when the marketing pushes for the games may promote the gross capitalist side of things ahead of the gameplay itself.

I don't think so. In a media landscape where new things are pushed and promoted, it may feel like you are the odd one out for not always being on a new oft promoted/playlisted thing (same with films, music, fashion, whatever else) but the hazy realities of spare time, energy, and the fiscal cost to buy into these experiences means a lot of people will be playing older stuff for a prolonged period.

And that's great, because playing something closer to release -regardless of it's quality- will inherently give you less information to contextualize the piece as a whole in a variety of ways (eg: NDAs and non-promotion statements from people working on the game, marketing and hype playing on people's thoughts less prominently, the world vs the creation at the time etc). That can give you a clearer view of what something is/may be/was. The idea that the current new thing is always better, more interesting, or more likely to innovate is often ahistorical water-cooler talk. And time trails on and the current new becomes old fairly soon, all things considered.

Case by case basis fits how I approach most games.

In general if I can't enjoy a game due to terrible outdated accessibility, I will put it down and not recommend it. If screen shake/head-bob can't be turned off, or if there's no double/triple coding to make up for poor colour blindness options etc I will get nothing from the game apart from frustration, or worse, pain and nausea.

Accessibility options aside, if a game needs more than a handful of hours to become familiar or interesting, then I likely won't bother. I'm an adult with multiple hobbies, roles in life, relationships, and more, so there's simply not enough time in the day to engage with things which may be long winded (it's also one of the reasons I avoid TV shows, especially nowadays). I do miss good games that way. I will never play another Monster Hunter game, a series which I loved in my teens, because I feel off that series in the early 2010s and have forgotten most elements of the gameplay cycles. There are many other games which offer more for less focus and commitment, but it is still a little melancholy to miss out on such things.

On the other hand, it was only a year ago where I tried Bloodborne for the first time and my rusty Dark Souls skills helped me get into that super fast with very little frustration. Not an easy game, but understanding the design philosophy (despite it's frankly awful accessibility approach and shite camera, which is not the same as difficulty) made it a joy to go through, complete, and revisit in New Game+ mode. I probably put a few dozen hours into it in total but never struggled outside of some areas where the camera made it irritating. Something none of the From games ever fixed going forward, either, unfortunately.

It's where I find the idea of rental games important. Nowadays rentals don't exist (at least where I live), but I still have a fondness for things which can be played quickly and offer something without needing to occupy my life for a long period. Sure, I may never pick it up again, but that weekend where I played Uncharted/Saw/Knack/Hidden Agenda games were fun enough. Will any rental game truly surpass Jackie Chan Stuntmaster on the Playstation (/humour)? Probably not, but still, there's distinct value in linear and approachable titles.

The only other titles I will likely hang up on are games which try too hard to be cinematic and drawn out for what they are. The game lengths could be 12 hours or 100, but they don't quite have a grasp on what they are.

Y'know, the cinematic which can not decipher the difference in art mediums, how games are more like (but still distinctly different from) plays in most blocking regards, rather than film or TV shows. It's why Uncharted 4 feels so crap compared to the prior games in the series. Why? It's not just the ill fitting gameplay additions and extra levels of awkward dialogue with a poorly written in brother character. It's because novels, films, music, poetry, and other artforms have a grasp on what/who they are and can achieve or experiment with in their restrictions, whereas games can mistake their basis as a young interactive medium to be more than they are. I'm not expecting Czech new wave levels of interesting, influential, and valuable, that's much too demanding, but I expect more than the ego driven immaturity/first uncertain thoughts mistaken for something truly deep and developed, see: the fun shooty bang bang but absolutely void otherwise of Bioshock 1 and Infinite, games so directly inspired by the visual elements of German expressionism without a percent of the genre's messages, value of themes, or understanding of itself. On that point, Bioshock is a weird series where the 2nd game was actually very good, but seen as less than the other much lesser games, despite being a much better game in every single regard. It fit the medium while putting across so much more in terms of theme and it's inspirations. It did something great, but that's the fun of opinions and art, innit?

At the risk of this not existing: if there is at all a right to working electronic goods for a set period within Austria, find out if there is a consumer rights ombudsman or similar you can contact for small claims. Forward them your communication with Sony, with notes and dates, and see if they can help get you a refund for the console and game lost to the console.

I apologize if that isn't possible, but a cursory search for Austrian consumer rights in English (my German is very rusty hence why I presume it was an incomplete search) wasn't bringing anything up. But as always, individuals can be ignored, formal bodies are less likely to be passed off or ignored.

I hope you find a resolution as it's frankly unacceptable from Sony.

Only as dead a genre as it was in the valley of the 00s, and even then there was a tournament scene and a bunch of much appreciated games came out across consoles then.

The business side of games is a lot more confusing than suggested n'all. Good Games[TM] don't necessarily correlate to a good amount of sales or anything, and predicting a market/the development of trends/a way to manipulate things to try to create a window for a product if you're a rarer massive budget game is a pain, because making games takes a long time and quick turnovers really aren't a reality for major studios, nor most smaller or independent ones.

It's similar to why point and click is seen as a genre that died in the same flood grounds of the 00s, but they always had a place and became more successful on a business level in the 2010s. Even if things drop off dollar wise, the committed hobbyist fans will keep the games/tournaments/scenes alive where they can unless they're legally threatened ala Smash & Nintendo...and even then a lot of fans find a way.