Oh god the title in itself.

Anyway besides the weird comparisons this blogpost lacks some understanding that not everyone has to like the same things. It starts out with why the author doesn't like certain things but then goes on that every-single-game ever should change to his personal needs?

I don't say you can only use objective measures as I believe a game experience will always be something innately subjective. However the lack of even attempting different viewpoints or at least positives next to negatives is a bit baffling. (Ordinarily you would state some positives and then dismantle them to build your opinion.)

For example, I recall that especially woman can value character customization in games, not only spending easily twice as much time in them as male players but also ending up with higher self reported satisfaction. Personally I dislike the cobbled together mini-game missions in Saints Row a bit but others thrive on it, for some people it is a bit like Wario Ware meets GTA and they enjoy the fuck out of all those varied game modes that still do stuff for their main (wacky) character.

That a lot of these different games are thrown at you and block story progression however is not always the best in Saints Row so I'll give em that. I prefer it when there are multiple paths to advance stories in open world or sandbox type games. However the author also complains about that as not being forced to use the casinos in New Vegas instantly makes that wasted development time >.> I think that choosing a Vegas setting in a role playing game has a lot of people to expect new gambling mini games. It is a good thing it is optional as it will not annoy people who come here for just more of the 'old' Fallout experience but adds a lot more depth for those willing to immerse themselves into the New Vegas setting. Also don't tell this guy about all the games where you can flush toilets or run sinks for no useful reason at all.

At this point I have to wonder if the author is vaguely aware of the many different disciplines and phases involved in game development, especially at large studios. When the core game shifts into the next production phase the team that worked on the first either gets sacked, can work on secondary features or on DLCs. The last two options seem more desirable as this also gives more chance for teams to stick together for a next project or a sequel. As an added bonus there is more >stuff< in your game, be it cosmetics, mini-games or other simple additions. While I get that the author desires the most amazing conversation system in its RPG this is one of the first things that needs to be 'done' to a certain point for even most of the game design of an RPG like Fallout. Either it's specs are finalized on paper or it is actually implemented to a certain point. You can only expect iterative improvements in such core aspects of the game since the production timing is very tight. Adding mindblowingly new features to your conversation system is pointless when over half of the conversations have already been scripted for the current system. This makes me sad but I also don't have a neat and complete paradigm shift in mind for large game development that would solve it so at least I don't blame developers for it.

Now comparing the lack of character customisation in a sandbox open-world type game to a puzzle-platformer open-world type game is hard to do without shooting yourself on the foot. The author is discussing things I normally consider to be part of RPG or sandbox type games, but not assume to be part of open-world type games. Also suddenly an RPG taking place in a realm of magic and folklore is accused of trying to be realistic but then not being realistic enough in the same paragraph as discussing VVVVVV, which is also an awesome game world but is abstract as fuck in its presentation. Where is this even going? Interestingly enough the author is unaware of friendly folk who still play things such as Magic The Gathering IRL with people they don't necessarily know that well just because they all like these games. It can be a great way to meet people or find grounding with someone you'd otherwise not even speak to. For those reasons it actually seems pretty neat to have such interactions with an NPCs in an RPG. Now I could cram the last subject of uncanny valley into this same paragraph as well to continue as a little troll but I'm tired of discussing that, much like the author apparently who just name-drops it without actually supporting it in his post.

While for XCOM powergamers/min-maxers character customisation is pretty derp since it is all about the stats, minimizing RNG etc. So death of a unit is mainly a tactical disadvantage that they experience as a loss. For a lot of other people it is about the experience or building not only a neat squad, but what you experience along the way of levelling you rookies. Customizing the characters can mean a lot to the emotional aspects of commanding your soldiers. It allows for some role playing, of which I can understand not all XCOM fans are interested in but is still a valuable addition to the game for me while playing (or watching others play). It can make the decision to sacrifice a unit for the sake of the squad quite different. (I think that especially how game streams are getting more common these little features can be vary valuable for streaming personalities to interact with their crowd.) For me it is a very neat trick to add some more emotional investment on top of the fixed story arc of an XCOM campaign.

I do agree with the author that it is terrible when the core gameplay has no focus in itself, or is not properly executed because of distractions in the development process. However that does not mean that there should be a ban on anything optional or extra. Also what is 'extra' for some people provides depth for others. Generally I believe depth and focus go well together so I personally don't mind these features being there as long as the core game satisfies me, even when I never use them.