@matt said in Hardcore gamer knows best:
Something I've been annoyed with modern games is the importance of game length.
Yes. Two recent examples come to mind. Recore and Hyper Light Drifter. Hyper Light Drifter was a very tight package that didn't have a complex about the experience it was going for. It wasn't a huge game by any means, but it was a quality experience as a result. No glut, no worthless time sinks, no annoying content padding. Perfect.
Recore on the other hand could have been a similar experience however design choices seem to indicate the game wasn't happy with presenting a tighter package and suffered for it. It had this AAA complex even though it tried to distance itself from the $60 model.
In fact the $60 model is something I would like to see change. If publishers could value their products as they saw fit, and then demonstrate that value to the customer I think we would see better quality and fewer sacrifices. Delays, cut content, compromises all result from a resource crunch that is dictated by release schedules and the known price point. There are already some creative ways around this, but the $60 shackle needs to break at some point, especially when there are so many ways to make games interesting these days. I would have paid $110 dollars for A MGSV with no micro-transactions and a completed chapter 3 for example. Who knows if Konami was invested in making that product though.
In regards to the original post, a subsection of impassioned fans (for which there are groups for almost every pastime out there) will take things too seriously. However, it's impossible to be right or wrong on opinions on the state of gaming today. We are all fans, we all choose to dedicate time to an activity we enjoy, and we all participate in the market that makes up this picture. Some games are too easy, some games hit the right notes, there is progress in areas, and there are practices that crop up that are unpopular. There are also people like us, who spend a lot of time playing, discussing and interacting with games outside of our monitor time. The important thing is to ensure we vote with our money and our time in the things we do enjoy and hope that a market remains for those things to be created. I would argue that the hardcore audience is better informed by investment alone. Does that invalidate the opinion of someone who's only gaming knowledge comes from playing mobile games for 5 minutes a week? No, but it sure will make it different.
Being a hardcore gamer doesn't mean it's impossible to have a good perspective on the market and what people want. Not being able to look past our own preferences and tastes and acknowledge that people are diverse in what they like, that is what makes a good perspective impossible.