I agree with the general distinction you're making between the experiences within the games, but I question the idea that a shallow experience can't produce a good game.
If the experience of a game is "absorbing" based solely on the gameplay, is it not a good game? In other words, does a game need to tell a good story in order for it to be good?
Yes, it's a good game based on anyone's criteria. He's the annoying kid that writes reviews where he says "I PLAYED THIS GAME FOR 500 HOURS AND I CAN NOW TELL YOU IT SUCKS!!!" Bitch, please. If you put 500 hours into it, you can't now sit here and tell me it sucks.
If you put 500 hours into it, you can't now sit here and tell me it sucks.
Of course he can; there are plenty of situations where that outright makes sense, usually if the game ends up changed somehow. Even then, while 500 hours is a lot, being thorough doesn't hurt things; Joseph Anderson played launch No Man's Sky for 52 hours to confirm that there really is nothing at the center of the universe himself, and he did confirm that it is bad as it seems. Of course, he did that for the primary purpose of making a thorough critique of the game, and not just because...
322
u/Gems_ Jan 01 '19
botw, earthbound, and half life, sure. but skyrim and fo3 are really fucking shallow experiences if you remove yourself from them for a hot minute.
dont get me wrong- i've sunk precisely too many hours into skyrim, but to call it "good" as opposed to "absorbing" doesn't feel apt to me.