The older I get, the more narrow my personal genre of games I enjoy becomes.  I use to love all types of games, from platforms, racing, fighting, JRPG, etc...but now it's pretty much two categories, grand strategy and WRPG.  That's pretty much it for me now.  Or it was...until I started getting into indie point and click adventures and other indie titles, so if anything, I had already lost a lot of gaming desire, and indies brought some of it back.

No. The poor quality of mainstream titles dulled my interest in mainstream titles. 

This. And Skyrim is a large-budget, mainstream game.

Easy solution....single player....

Only online game I ever played was a driving/racing sim......was on a brilliant lap when some 'child' decided to go WD and took me out.

I really do NOT do 'online'.

[quote

[/quote]

Okay, smart guy.

The definition of the word emotion is, "A natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others."

Fun is derived from one's circumstances, mood, and/or their relationship with the others. Fun is something that is experienced. It is a more complex state of happiness, which is also an emotion.

Fun, when used as a noun, means, "Enjoyment, amusement, or lighthearted pleasure: "anyone who turns up can join in the fun"."

If anything, it's a complex, combination of emotions. Do your research next time before being snide. You represent Stardock, yes? Thinly-veiled rudeness is a poor thing indeed.

YES, I am definitely not able to experience the same satisfaction with mainstream titles anymore. I blame this on the fact that mainstream titles are becoming increasingly homogeneous. Old titles that were groundbreaking on release get re-made with minor tweaks, meanwhile everything is just "more of the same". And it's not just modern FPS shooters and MMOs completely failing, it's everywhere. FE, SINS are not exceptions.

Unfortunately it seems like the "remake everything" has bled over to the indie studios this year, when every second new kickstarter project is a remake of some old game. That is not to say I can't enjoy a good remake, but I certainly won't enjoy 10 good remakes in a row.

Indie games are the ones breaking new ground, if anyone.

Edit: In retrospect, it seems the title of this post puts the "blame" on indie/4x/complex games but it is really the other way around. Those if anything is keeping me playing.

I feel fun.

It's  just like Heavenfall said. Just think about the kind of games we were playing in 1990, and how much everything changed by the time we got to 2000, many of the games of that time period were great innovations, nothing like them had been seen before, I think that's why I look back on that time and have so many good gaming memories.. Meanwhile, on the pther hand, we've been playing the same types of game for around 15 years now, and it really is the same old thing. Indie developers have really been bringing something new to the table with digital distribution becoming so ubiquitous

You bring up a good point. Many of the mainstream games now have gameplay that is pretty much "dumbed down" to the point of absurd. Sure the graphics may be cutting edge, and the art, scenery, and pretty explosions may look awesome, but what good is all of that if the gameplay is a rinse, and repeat of previous games before it? For example World of Warcraft is simple walkity walkity walk.. Stabity stabity stab. An endless boring grind. Every MMO with the exception of Eve Online is a carbon copy of the WoW mechanic.

FPS's are pretty much the same deal. Endless Running, Point, and Shooting. Doom innovated FPS's (Doom 3 best FPS IMO). The problem is that every FPS since doom is all the same thing in a different package with prettier graphics.

People seem to think that a complex game like the X universe, or total war series will not be fun. It is like game developers are afraid to make a game that requires you to THINK, or to do more than aimlessly point, stab, and shoot. Which is probably why we switched to RTS, 4X, and RPG's. These games require that you have a brain, and use it before you play them. That is what made them fun.

Game developers are also afraid to take risk's. So they stick with old school game mechanics, and formulas that sold in the past. Most of the new "innovations" came from indie game companys from thier first games. (examples: Id, Relic, Bioware, CCP, Creative assembly, and Ironclad)

The only mindless mayhem game i like is Grand Theft Auto 4, because that is the whole point of the game. It is mindless mayhem. Which also can be fun, and a good change of pace.

Dawn of War 1 it can be said is a rip of Warcraft/Starcraft (Which is a rip of CnC). Right down to its UI. Which is strikingly similar to Starcrafts UI. Despite that, being a Warhammer fan i loved the DoW1 series. I also liked the DoW2 series. Mainly for their SP campaigns. Though you are correct. The CnC influence is quite obvious. It is also obvious in Company of Heroes as well.

Of course if an indie company makes an innovative first game. For example how Id software did with the Doom/Quake series, or Relic with Homeworld 1. Everyone is gonna jump on the bandwagon, and try to copycat it, re-package it, Maybe add one, or two "new features" to make it "look unique". Soldier of Fortune 2 is an example of the quake 3 engine repackaged with a few new features added to the same damn game mechanics. Don't get me started on Elite Force, or the "Homeworld clones" like O-R-B. Beside the point. For every one "Original Game", there are about 100 copycats waiting in line to cash in on the success of that Original Game. Worse. A big name publisher like EA will try to buy them out to control the IP themselves. Like how EA bought out Bioware.

Nine of Ten times sequels fail miserably. Examples Homeworld 2, Supreme Commander 2, KOTOR 2, Sword of the Stars 2, Any sequel made by EA. Sequels are made mainly to cash in on the success of the original game by name recognition alone. People buy them, because they think. "Hey, Sword of the Stars 1, or Homeworld 1 was a good game, Then SoTS 2, or HW2 should be an even better game!".. WRONG!! If a game is successful then the expectations are VERY high for any potential sequel. Which most of the time those expectations are never met. In some cases the features that made the original game fun in the first place are REMOVED in the sequel. There are some pleasant exceptions to this rule. Mass Effect 2 which is both a sequel, and it is affiliated with EA, is much better than the original. Mass Effect 3 would have equaled ME2 if it wasn't for the botched ending. There are a few others, but the majority of sequels usually fall short.

Warcraft/Starcraft definitely has the same interface as Company of Heroes or Dawn of War, but the actual games are very different.

Dawn of War introduced many new features - squads.  Weapon upgrades.  Capturing strategic points instead of harvesting resources with peasants.  Critical/Strategic point holding as a victory condition.  It's almost like they took a great interface, and just slapped a new game design on top of it, instead of slapping a new interface over the same gameplay.

What I don't understand is why the developers are selling out in this environment.  They probably stand to gain a lot more money should they make a great product and bring it to the market themselves.