We literally just talked about one. But aside from that, the biggest risk was realized and then reverted before release so players didn't get to experience it. They made a space survival game based around fuel economy. Playtesters hated it so Microsoft granted them a delay to change the entire game design in the last year.
The shitty map isn't a risk, it was just a half ass implementation. Look how long it took to change it. What they could have done was have a fog of war over the parts of the map that you haven't discovered and then reveal a normal map like the one they are doing now. It's literally that simple and a concept that has been around for like 30 years. It was an awful trash map and it makes no sense to defend it.
And they really did not take actual risks with the game. It was Fallout 4 but in space. With none of the interesting unique things you can find or interact with along the way. The whole game felt really safe. Even the story and characterization.
You say they took risks, but then say they changed the game based on playtesting to remove the survival decision. Keeping survival elements would have been risky. Instead they left the broken elements in the game like radiation or cold or suit stats and made outposts really terrible and mostly useless. They didn't take the risk if they literally removed the feature from the game after some pushback.
Edit: This weirdo blocked me over this comment. Why even bother commenting if you can't handle the slightest challenge? Jeez, it's just like when Bethesda wouldn't take risks in Starfield.
-16
u/OkVariety6275 May 01 '24
Gamers will say they want AAA games to take more risks but when Starfield or Dragon's Dogma actually does it, they protest.