If you’ve been playing games in the past 20 or 30 years you may have noticed games feel a bit different. Today every game has a bigger budget, graphics are breathtaking, worlds are larger than ever, voice acting has become cinematic, and technology has advanced in almost every measurable way.
Yet somehow, gamers feel like the industry has lost something.
What’s the point of a giant open world if you’re just going to be repeating the same tasks 500 times? This isn’t an article about blaming a political party, one ideology or one generation of developers. Its also not about pretending every modern game is bad. We’ve had incredible releases in the past few years such as Elden Ring, Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, Black Myth Wukong, Kingdom Come Deliverance II, Baldur’s Gate, Palworld, etc.
Many of these are from smaller development teams or indie developers. So, it begs the question, why do so many expensive AAA games fail to connect with the very audience they’re supposed to entertain?
Games & Passion
Gaming used to be driven primarily by developers trying to build the most fun game possible. They had a high ceiling of success and often felt like if the game didn’t draw them in within the first 5 minutes that it was a bad game. Today, many of the biggest studios are owned by massive corporations responsible to shareholders and quarterly earnings. That changes priority. Instead of asking “What is the most fun game we could make?” it has turned into:
- Player Engagement Metrics
- Live Service Monetization
- Battle Passes
- Cosmetic Stores
- Long Term Recurring Revenue
- Brand Management
None of those things are inherently bad, but they can pull attention away from what players care about most. Making a great game.
Bigger ≠ Better
Ironically some of the most memorable games today come from relatively small studios. For example, Balatro, Vampire Survivors, Hades, Megabonk, R.E.P.O., Schedule I, etc. These were massive success and they came like storms due to the fact that they focused on gameplay first. Meanwhile AAA games have gotten so expensive that taking creative risks is extremely discouraged. When a game costs hundreds of millions of dollars, publishers get cautious. Caution often breeds safety rather than memorable.
Hollywood’s Influence
Another noticeable change is how modern games feel more cinematic rather than something that you play. A perfect example is a recent game known as Mixtape which received 10/10 ratings from critics, but was heavily criticized by gamers receiving low ratings usually below 4/10. Why did this happen? Well studios increasingly recruit writers, directors, and producers from television and film. This makes gaming more visually spectacular, but it prioritizes watching over playing. Examples of this issue include:
- Long Cutscenes
- Constant Dialogue
- Scripted Sequences
- Minimal Player Freedom
There’s nothing technically wrong with cinematic storytelling when it serves the gameplay. Examples of this include Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 and Pragmata. These were great narrative driven storytelling games, but they actually had gameplay to back up the story. It wasn’t just someone’s ideology shoved down your throat while you were trying to “play” something. The problem here occurs when gameplay starts feeling like an “interruption” rather than the motive.
Gamergate?
Now we’re going to talk about something a bit more controversial. Some consider it as a movement about journalistic ethics, a harassment campaign, or some combination of both. One thing that’s not controversial is that it was considered a turning point. Trust between gamers and gaming journalists as well as parts of the industry completely deteriorated.
Many gamers felt that gaming outlets were reviewing these games though a broader cultural lens alongside gameplay, while players themselves continued judging the products primarily on one simple question. “Is it fun?” That disconnect helped create one of the biggest divides in modern gaming. Today, its common to see games receive near perfect scores while player reaction are far more mixed.
This doesn’t automatically mean critics or players are wrong. However, it does show that critics and the audiences value different things.
Hiring Debate
One of the most controversial debates surrounding games and gaming development is hiring practices. Critics argue that certain studios have placed greater emphasis on diversity initiatives or broader cultural goals alongside traditional measures such as technical expertise and deep familiarity with games.
Supporters argue that diverse teams bring fresh ideas and better reflect a global audience.
Both perspectives deserve to be heard. The real question isn’t whether diversity is good or bad. The question is whether the people building games genuinely understand and enjoy the genres they are creating. The best developers, regardless of background, tend to share one thing in common: They LOVE games.
Developers and Players
Perhaps the biggest issue isn’t hiring, diversity, or politics. It’s the growing relationship between developers and their audience. Over the last decade we’ve seen several high profile situations where critisicsm from players was met with response that many interpreted as dismissive. For example: Battlefield’s “don’t buy it” controversy. Additionally, discussions surrounding games like Concord, Veilguard, and Highguard reignited debates about whether some studios were too quick to blame toxic communities, online discourse, or content creators instead of asking whether the game itself delivered what players wanted.
To be fair online harassment is real, review bombing exists, outrage content drives clicks, and astroturfing is real as well. One thing to note is social media comments, posts, or YouTubers can’t change gameplay. You can’t just blame an audience if the game itself is bad and not enjoyable. A boring game can’t become exciting just because critics gave it a 9 out of 10. Eventually, players will decide with their wallets.
Failed Games
The wall of shame has grown bigger and bigger ever since Gamergate. The industry has seen several expensive disappointments in these recent years.
- Concord – Launched after years of development only to disappear within weeks.
- Suicide Squad – Abandoned single-player formula that made Rocksteady famous in favor of a live service model many fans never wanted.
- Dragon Age: The Veilguard – Divided longtime fans who felt the series had lost much of the identity that originally made it special.
These are only a small three compared to the dozens of failed ones including Forspoken, Assassins Creed: Shadows, Star Wars Outlaws, Highguard, Dustborn, Avowed, Redfall, Life is Strange, etc. The list goes on and on. Three main issues are brought up by critics including pandering over quality, alienating the core audience, and bad execution. These games suffered from bland gameplay, bugs, or generic design.
Each failure had different causes, some suffered from weak gameplay, others entered overcrowded markets, and others changed beloved franchises too dramatically. In essence these games didn’t have a common thread that was one political issue. Many players simply didn’t find the games compelling enough to justify their time and money.
Is Gaming Dying
Despite all of this, I’m actually optimistic. Every time someone claims gaming is dead, another studio releases something incredible. The success of the good games reminds us that players will still reward developers who prioritize great gameplay, memorable worlds, and respect for their audience. The formula hasn’t changed, it never changed.
- Build Something Fun
- Respect the Players
Let the game speak for itself. Everything else comes second. Maybe that’s the lesson the AAA industry needs to remember.