It's all relative. Mediocre is still better than garbage, but not necessarily interesting or innovative. It's just "fine" because the whole point of the gameplay in these games is to progress the narrative forward. Mastery is rarely, if ever, required and gameplay depth is of no interest to players or developers.

You ignore all of that and start comparing their catalog to Ubisoft pumping out generic trash for years (NGL that Prince of Persia game is sick though) and you get a much brighter picture that doesn't necessarily take all factors into account.

Personally, I play games for the hyper engagement they offer, which I expect from hobbies and cannot get from film or literature. Stories, on the other hand, I can find elsewhere, so I don't necessarily care for them that much in games.

Again, it's all relative.

[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If narrative driven games aren't your cup of tea there's nothing wrong saying that, but writing off the extensive gameplay provided in naughty dog games is silly. I think your take would be better directed at something like Metal Gear Solid, that actually locks you in for hour long non-interactive cut scenes.

[–] mohab@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago

You may wanna re-read my comment—I did not bring up cut scenes, or claim Naughty Dog games don't have enough gameplay sections.

My point was Naughty Dog's gameplay sections are uninspired, non innovative, and passable at best because they're more interested in telling a story than innovative gameplay.

Whether I like narrative-driven games or not is of no relevance.