Honestly, this is a really well made article. They’ve got a damn good point.

It would be cool if some of the large level designs in some of these games were made more widely available to other developers. They could sell it, doesn’t have to be free. Seems like it could be a decent business model.

I don’t know why people are saying this is a well written article - the author seems to be bewildered that a game that looks good is bad.

It’s really not that complicated. At the end of the day it’s a game and gameplay is the single most important feature.

Just look at Breath of the Wild: it doesn’t look particularly amazing, and it runs like shit on the only hardware it’s available on.
But it’s the great gameplay that keeps people coming back for more.

It’s got that AAAA quality

I thought we were calling AAA games ‘Corporate Games’ now. Is that trend over already?

Had no idea they’d reskinned the Ubisoft game for Star Wars.

To an extent that level of beauty in the scenery creates the lackluster gameplay. If you’ve finished one of these jaw dropping environments, only to realize late in the day it’s mediocre gameplay-wise, you simply can’t redo it. It would take months.

This is oversimplifying a bit, but not by much honestly.

I had no intention of playing it, but I have been known to love a crappy masterpiece.

The author of this article has a little website where he reviews indie games, its been a good read, and just reeks of a passionate writer. https://buried-treasure.org/

It’s a crapsterpiece that execs wanted all along.