Just replaying Metro Exodus and it's just so clear how much of the game's soul is missing compared to previous games because it sought out "broad appeal" and made creative decisions based on that rather than trying to just make a good Metro game.
It begs the question - we've seen so many games sacrificed at the altar of "broad appeal" but has a game ever been made better by stepping out of their niche to try get a better audience?
Believe me, I could ramble for hours about how much of a mess Metro Exodus was compared to 2033 and Last Light, but it in particular did stick out as a game which decided to jump out of its niche (and what made it great) to try be like every other game we've seen in the past 5 years.
Unfortunately judging by some chatter I see on the discord server, Exodus brought in a generation of kiddies who see buzzwords like "open-world" and "multiplayer" and jump at them without any regard for how good of a game they will be, which doesn't bode well for future releases.
I talk like I'm old but I literally only discovered the franchise last year and even I can tell that 2033 and LL were just that much better, and I know it's not nostalgia talking.
I also talk like I'm old most of the time. Starting to feel it too, have that "you young kids" mindset.
I tend to do the opposite of that. Open world in particular gets shoved into too many games where I don't think it belongs.
That's what I mean. For Metro, a clasutrophobic horror series set in the very interesting environment of the post-war Moscow Metro, literally noone asked for the next entry in the series to be "open-world" and set in a field in the middle of nowhere. It was fantastic as a linear game where the devs could intricately design all parts of it.
But now all the kiddies see "open world" and think that's how the game should be. They see "coop" and can't shut up about how cool a multiplayer mode will be. Forcing Metro away from where it's best and to be just like every other game released in the past decade.