Games are designed like this because too many gamers still subscribe to the extremely flawed "dollars per hour = value" assessment. XP systems and bloated open worlds cater exactly to this fallacy, because more is always better...right?

Games like the Tony Hawk 1+2 remaster for example did not need an XP system shoehorned in (not to mention an "achievement" for reaching level 100). Games can have inherent value that isn't tied to how many hours you have to interact with them.

I posted a comment on Reddit talking about how disappointed I am hearing that the AC set in Japan is going to be made by the Valhalla people and I got destroyed for it. Like I wanted Japan since brotherhood and now I get this? I don't like the newer games because they just don't respect your time and that's a bummer for me.

I agree. I'm also a bit of a completionist by nature so it's doubly as painful since I can't just do the main story...

I have gotten a bit better about it in the last few years to be fair. Though sometimes I relapse and realize I've wasted 80% of my free time that day doing mediocre side content.

I personally do enjoy long and open games. But Valhalla managed to go way too far even for me. It very noticeably came at the cost of quality, with many dull side quests. The map was actually too big. It needed to drop a region or two, because there was just soooo many regions.

Odyssey had the same issue. In fact, I found it worse there, because I recall I completed even less of that game.

The DLCs for all the AC games have at least been much tighter and a better example of a reasonable size.

You know this is a really good point and it’s why I really don’t care for open world single player games. I’ve tried to pick up RDR2 multiple times and I always just end up stopping after a day or two cause it’s not enough dopamine