• snooggums@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 day ago

    Wanting closure is a preference and does not apply to all games. Counter Strike 2 doesn’t have a story and there is zero closure for example.

    The industry trying to force games into a live service model when they shouldn’t be is a problem, sure. There are a few games where the model actually is a benefit though, like Helldivers 2. Other than wrapping up things somehow while winding down the game there isn’t an opportunity for closure while an endless war is going on. The setting itself is why closure isn’t on the table.

    So I agree with the overall idea as it applies to games in general, but it isn’t some universal truth.

    • ampersandrew@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      The closure the article speaks to is also just not turning the game into a perpetual expectation that more is coming. Multiplayer games have always been built around being “endless”, but there was never the expectation that this Halo would be the last Halo and just keep getting updates when you bought it 20 years ago. That expectation has led to sustainability problems we’ve all seen and that the article calls out.