>>58338844>Do pokemon fans really like these games?Minecraft succesfully gaslit at least 3 generations of gamers into thinking it's a good thing when a game offloads the responsibility of entertaining the player to the player himself. It's not. Games are entertainment products, and as a non-pozzed, non-slophog gamer, if your game shows me an empty field and says "go, do whatever you want", my response is "I want you, the product I paid for, to put in the bare minimum effort into entertaining me".
But zoomers and other such pozzed minds have tacitly accepted the proverbial boiling of the frog (read: the open world slopification of gaming) and they do not see a failure of their entertainment product's design when it asks them to perform the function an entertainment product is supposed to perform, which is entertaining the consumer.
Can you imagine if you went to a movie theater, paid for a ticket, and when you walked in you found a bunch of sets, cameras, and dressing rooms and were asked to "make your own fun"? Can you imagine buying a book and when you open it it's completely blank and asks you to "make your own fun"? Can you imagine buying an album and when you play it it's just a lesson on music theory and an instrument and asks you to "make your own fun"?
It's a ridiculous notion that could only be accepted by the ridiculous human being that is the modern gamer.
