Thanks for the reply.

I don’t agree that all old games did this though, some absolutely did, but there were a lot of mediocre games too that didn’t try to push any boundaries and just copied something else that was successful. You see that a lot now with modern AAA games (certainly from many of the big publishers), but not all are like this.

A lot of indie games, modern style or old style, have a lot of this because they need to take risks and try unconventional things in order to differentiate. But even some mainstream games try interesting things sometimes. I personally don’t really play multiplayer games, so won’t comment on that.

> It’s also wasted development time if few players will ever get to take advantage of it.

Maybe. That’s the easy answer, but if you have an otherwise great game, then adding things not everyone will experience helps build a loyal following. For example, the Dark Souls series has entire areas with bosses, which are hidden in often really obscure ways (such that most people would never find them without looking up guides). This is a big draw for some people as it helps with world building, a sense of discovery and longevity. Or how The Witcher 3 has countless hand-crafted and well written side quests (often with stories just as good as the main story, just shorter) — so many that its pretty much guaranteed that very few people will experience them all. The same goes for something like Red Dead Redemption 2. Obviously many developers shy away from doing this, since its seen as wasting money, but not all.

I play a lot of indie games, for the reasons that are discussed here, but there are mainstream games which I personally felt meet the criteria just as well. I’ll mention a few of them here:

The Dark Souls series — they gambled on making challenging games with deep but hidden lore and lots of secrets to discover. Its one of the few game series’ where I really feel a sense of accomplishment both with the combat and with simply exploring the world or discovering snippets of lore.

Bloodborne — same as above.

The Witcher 3 — (the entire series really, but the third one is the biggest, most polished and most mainstream one) the writing, quest design and world are all excellent. I spent months exploring the world and it was a lot of fun. The combat was also quite interesting when you play on hard and are forced to make use of all the different mechanics.

Red Dead Redemption 2 — similar to The Witcher 3, just great all round design and attention to detail, but it has a lot more interaction with your gang members that I found really nice (eg just having a mundane conversation with your buddy)

Detroit: Become Human — they gambled on heavily branching storylines.

Horizon: Zero Dawn — great and interesting world, interesting story, interesting combat mechanics (at least if you play on hard so that you can’t just spam shoot)

The Last Guardian — the entire game was a gamble, based around your interactions with the AI-controlled creature. Maybe a bit less “mainstream”, but still a recent(ish) AAA game that tried something new and in my personal opinion, succeeded.

Kingdom Come: Deliverance — they gambled hard on a realistic world (and everything that includes, such as a lot of dificult mechanics that alienated a ton of people) but in doing this they created an incredibly immersive game.

Basically, my point is that there are mainstream AAA games that really push the boundaries and take risks with new things. Some more than others, sure, but they’re out there. Just steer clear of the big studios like EA, Activision and Ubisoft. Beyond that, there are a lot of amazingly creative and innovative indie games out there.