...that what if developers never actually wanted there to be Gamers, and found it inconvenient? Looking at some mobile slop that I find to be absolutely boring to look at, especially western ones with their "Pixar" looking mascots, I notice how they always want the figures to look like "You", but not a gamer. They want them to look fashionably modern, like people like you or me, because they want to make "anyone" play the game. In fact, if we look at lots of SNES and PS1 game covers, the same is true. They marketed themselves to the "ordinary" person, before there were "gamers". And in fact, we only ever got to be gamers by playing the "ordinary man's" game in the first place. Some of those games a really good. Like think early Mega-man, the US ICO boxart or Metal Gear Solid. The subtitles "Tactical Espionage Action" or "Combat Evolved" were meant to be description enough for people who are filtered by the words "Metal Gear" or "Halo", because games are meant to serve a function of "fun". They have to be self-explanatory about what you can expect to see when you play it. But then people became gamers and have an obsession with franchises and genres.Maybe it isn't supposed to be like that? Maybe you're not meant to always play vidyas, the same way that you're not expected to collect 500 DVDs just because you love movies.>Picrel is just a character from Xenoblade.Thanks for listening
>>738875178ideal female form desu
>>738875178sir this is a Wendy's
>>738875178>...that what if developers never actually wanted there to be Gamers, and found it inconvenient?Good, because I never actually wanted to buy games.
>>738875178reatrded pseud post with a coomerbait image attach to attract attention
>>738875178Made for BWC
tldr and sexalso great job, op, you ran your long ass text via a chatgpt model to check for grammar errors like a true esl jeet warrior that you are
