Gaming isnt dead, Game development just took a wrong turn .... they all jumped on a "milk the consumer" and "Paint by numbers" approach to creating games, When outside the box amazing games have already changed the face of gaming. Games like warframe Mass effect(the first one) TF2 / Overwatch League of Legends // Dota Dark souls Have fundamentally raised the bar for making a successful game in their genres. Game developers have not adapted to the fact that game players are becoming more savvy to what makes a good game and wont just buy the next vomit that rolls off the presses. They tried to cater to casual gamers, and ANYONE on this forum is likely not what the actual definition of casual gamer is we are talking about people that play candy crush, and words with friends for their primary gaming time. and in the process of trying to charm those ADD // ADHD short attention span fans they removed all the depth from their games and all the replay ability, and basically everything that makes a game fun for an actual gamer .... they cared too much to tap a new untapped market and they lost their core market along the way. they also found out the hard way that fickle fans are not a demographic you want to target with your games because they will peace out at the drop of a hat. Look at the difference in just the elder scrolls franchise .... compare morrowind to skyrim .... they removed piles and piles of crunchy and complexity .... look at Mass effect a good part of why mass effect is dead ans sputtered before its death is the increasing intent to "normalize" the game for people who wouldn't even be its target audience. it trended form a system with loot drops that had different and varying stats to a system that you just buy blanket "all better" upgrades to everything on your weapon/armor .... Recent game development has completely lost sight of meaningful choices, and depth of gameplay. The only successful titles left are the ones that didn't get lost along the way entirely or haven't completely devolved into vomit throwing zombies. Or industry giants that can at least temporarily bludgeon thier problems with wads of cash that blot out the sun (but even they are dying to 1000 pinprick wounds) as they flail to try and figure out where they went wrong(EA would be the poster child for this). As en example of the opposite look at games like Tyranny, or Pillars of eternity, or Divnity original sin 1+2. That is an OLD gaming formula .... but it has meaningful choices, it has impact, and replayability ..... break out successes for their development sizes and genres. I wish with all my heart i could get the dev staff and some of the core important players on this forum to listen to me the game is still entirely save able with a different stress on meaningful choices, and better developed TPS metagame that keeps the players engaged and constantly having to learn/relearn. League of legends isnt a success because MOBA's are so much cooler than every other game type, League is a success because they have the right amount of approach ability but also a very high amount of game depth, sure DOTA is more deep but is that depth approachable for a new player ? NO, thats why league is the bigger success .... because it didnt lose sight of meaninful choices in its development cycle, but it still made its game "Approachable" without being "Simple". https://dotesports.com/league-of-legends/news/league-of-legends-number-of-players-14488 in our Genre we share a lot of common concepts with MOBA's we should seek to emulate that balance. Sure what you have to do in a TPS is drastically different, but the idea that different members of the team have different specializations and excel at different things is quite similar. we have some game mechanics like that at a fundamental and rudimentary level ... but not enough to amp up that replay ability. Sure you need a tac class to cap, and you need a support to heal but take them outside thier most singular role .... how do they perform elsewise ? that apoth is basically a tac with healing that cant cap ... he isnt fundamentally different in playstyle ... he basically plays exactly like a tac unless someone needs healing or you have killed everyone and someone needs to cap .... look at GA classes without shields and JPA ....they play identical but one of them CAN FLY !!! and "some" of the other can cap ..... outside that they arent very strongly differentiated .... there arent a lot of game mechanics based around or special to those classes outside that .... both classes have to effectively flank or get deleted almost instantly ....the GA doesnt really feel like a GA at all unless he uses a shield ... at which point does he really have an offhand choice if thats the case ? i would argue to say no he really doesn't and as such that choice is no longer meaningful. Compare our game conceptually to league of legends for a second .... take a look at Sona she is a support that heals. her gameplay is sort of centered around a small aoe circle around her which is sort of her "Sphere of influence" if you approach too close to sona as an enemy she will hit you with undodgable attacks that spawn from her heal circle ....and if she hits enough of these she gets a powerful regular attack that does bonus damage. Compare her to Soraka who is also a healer support. Soraka has a long range artillery harrass that if it lands she heals herself and has less delay the closer to her you are and a zone that locks out your spellcasts and if you stay in it too long snares you in place .... In Sona's case she can be ranged, and harrassed from afar. Soraka cannot really effectively be harrased from afar unless you are dodging her artillery fire. Both of them are healers so they affect your ability to harass thier lane partner out of the lane. Just these two characters when placed together in a puzzle in bottom lane completely change the way all 4 players will play. the player on sorakas team knows they can poke safely from afar, the players on sonas team know if they can leverage getting up close they have the advantage. if you take either of them and put them against someone different it could COMPLETELY change the strategies necessary to win the lane. for instance soraka vs Xerath or Vel Koz .... suddenly sorakas strong suit is not so safe and not so advantageous but she does have the sustain and the short range silence to leverage so suddenly that "long range" artillery champion is outside their comfort zone and has to adapt to their situation. This is the part we lack ... any meta choice we make in this game tends to not be impacted by anyone else meta choices. or very minimal at best.