pre-computer "games" are activities/computations that are incredibly tight and small in terms of mechanics (must be able to be executed within the human brain) but are interesting in some form or fashion (primarily largeness of the state space). POKER, CHESS/CHECKERS, BACKGAMMON, MAHJONG.
early computer games are much the same: there are immense restrictions on what can be computed/stored so you get stuff that is very tight in terms of mechanics. large amounts of replayability due to A) emphasis on scoring B) inherently interesting mechanics, gameplay loops, whatever.
TETRIS, SOKOBAN, NETHACK,
the current state is different because IO/RAM has gotten cheap, now you can just produce on-rails movies, things that are completely reliant on "story" and "narrative", there is less and less resemblance to a "game" -> you would be better off just reading the bible.
It's quite funny - even during "Early computer game" era, you had stuff that is equivalent to Dark souls and other "narrative" games (dark souls is the farthest from a narrative game), so he is just cherry picking for his shaky argument.
The problem is that only one of those is a clear advantage to the people funding the games development. And that there is perceived risk from them in doing something new, even if it makes sense.
I think if fully fledged & technically innovative games were as cheap to develop as they used to be, this wouldn't be as much of a problem
That's what it comes down to everybody!
Donald Trump would've saved the future of game development from the globohomo! But Sleepy Joe and Crooked Hillary stole it from him.
Press a button and remove all the sodomites in America: massive food shortages, continuous rolling blackouts, complete civilization collapse in a mere few months.
Repeat for other inherently valuable minority groups: black women, trannies, gay men.
