I know my prejudices. I recognize that a lot of people think OO is just dandy, and I'm on the lookout for a good argument in its favor. I'm open to the possibility that the reason I think OO doesn't work is that I don't understand it well enough. Maybe somebody out there will explain encapsulation in a way that doesn't make hidden mutable state seem like a nightmare. Maybe somebody's got a blog post that explains why inheritance only looks like it makes spaghetti code, but actually I can safely ignore the dragons lurking three levels up the hierarchy. Maybe there's some piece of OO code out there that embodies a beautiful solution to a problem I've been struggling with. If those things are out there, they're going to get posted to HN eventually.

Here's an explanation from Casey Muratori: https://youtu.be/GKYCA3UsmrU?t=4m50s

See also Mike Acton (Engine Director @ Insomniac Games): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX0ItVEVjHc

You aren't going to get a lot of support for OO in places where it isn't really necessary like games, and especially games with single developers. At that point the management of data is on the developer. Essentially one is saying that if they fuck up the data, that's on them.

OO is handy in enterprise software where there are lots of developers who may not understand why things are the way they are, they just need to do something. In big, complex systems where a lot of things are going on, if you give someone a noose, they will hang themselves. OO can protect data from some (of course not all) unintended consequences.