/lit/ - Literature

>>23040067
I get what you're saying. I actually went back and played DS again yesterday. I was going up and down, up and down, traversing the terrain, and the whole time I kept thinking what a waste it all was. It wasn't fun, it wasn't relaxing, it was just a chore. But I figured, screw it, the story's weird enough to keep my attention. And then I got to Refn talking to Reedus about making bombs out of his feces and urine so that he'd throw them to the oil ghost whales, all the while a ghost baby with an expiration date was in a vase. I could've been learning a language, reading one of my books, working out, doing anything constructive, but no, I was playing a retarded and intentionally frustrating game, so that I could learn the grand message of
>peepo should... be together, gaijin; that'll be 60 dorra and 50 hours
Maybe it'll work as a movie, but it's just so goddamn retarded as a concept, and awfully executed, that there's just no point to it. With a game you have, on paper, virtually unlimited time to get your point across, but ultimately there never is a point. It's how most arthouse flicks take 3 long hours of slowness to say something rudimentary. But with games you have the extra bloat which falls on you and cannot be skipped or sped up. You're actively taking on extra chores for little payoff.

Sometimes I think a game can click enough and give you the time of your life. But if it doesn't click, then there's just no point to try and make it so. That's the conclusion I've more or less come to. They can be fun, but after a certain age, they need to appeal to your specific tastes for you to see it as a worthy investment of your free time.