Why did video games stop trying to be fun and instead tried to

>>380539430
>realistic cinematic shit everywhere
>except webswinging, you don't need physics for that

Because game devs are actually stupid people

>>380539615
What's this no physics meme you keep repeating?

>>380539791
No Spider-Man game since the ps2 has had proper swinging. The latest Spider-Man has you throw a web to the right and pull a left 90 degree turn. There is no momentum or planning involved. It's iron man flying with webs as an aesthetic thing only essentially

File: GOOD game.jpg (2MB, 2100x1532px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2100x1532px

>>380539430
Newer and more advanced technology leads to better graphics. Better graphics lead to the public liking it because SHINY. As the public likes it, the focus creeps on graphics. Graphics make presentation look better, which also leads to other gaming companies to step their game up. Game developers realize they've made so much money off of the general publics stupidity they stop caring about the game and more about the presentation [graphics].

TL;DR Money.

File: maxresdefault[1].jpg (102KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1920x1080px

>>380539430
There are other avenues worth exploring in videogames. Fun isn't the be all and end all. Fun is certainly an important part of video games and in most cases the easiest goal to shoot for. But if you can make a game that isn't fun but instead evokes a wide range of emotions while still being good then you're on to something special. I'm not saying that "all games should not be fun", all I'm saying is that it's worthwhile to try to make video games that are things other than fun.