[Kodiak]

I've been playing the freeware version of Spelunky lately, in anticipation of the XBLA release. I was thinking about this bit from Jon Blow from the Spelunky article on The Verge:

Jonathan Blow compares Spelunky to some of the games made by a long-dead developer, Looking Glass Studios. Games like Thief and System Shock. "[Those titles] had this idea of a game as a system, and when you went to program the game what you wanted to do was design objects that had the maximum amount of interactivity with each other. You wanted to program it to basically generate situations that the game designer would not have foreseen ... I feel like Spelunky, intentionally or not, was the first game in a while that came along and pushed that again. Where all sorts of crazy fun stuff would happen while you were playing that just came naturally from the interaction between different objects in the game."

So I started playing Thief via GOG tonight, and I was absolutely blown away by the detail in the mechanics. It feels so fresh and thoughtful, even though the game is over a decade old.

Another game that fits this bill recently is Receiver with the way it adds a lot of detail to the gun mechanics and enemy damage systems. However, Receiver feels more like the potential of a great game because it's more of a simple prototype.

What are some other games that fit this bill? This is rapidly becoming one of the main things I look for in games.

[MrOogieBoogie]

I was actually gonna mention both the System Shock and Thief series. Would you look at that, haha.

Throw Deus Ex in there too while you're at it.

[Neuromancer]

Skeeter from Interstate 76 was pretty detailed, for the time.

[Boss Doggie]

Any Team VP2 game (Star Ocean 3, Valkyrie Profile 2, Resonance of Fate).

[Sophia]

Emergent Gameplay is still one of the coolest concepts ever in a game. The roguelike nature of games like NetHack and Spelunky, the interactions of games like Thief, System Shock, and Deus Ex, and the crazy combos, sequence breaking, and secrets of games like Bayonetta and Super Metroid.

It's just so awesome when you as a player can do something totally crazy that the developer just didn't intend to do at all.

[abstract alien]

I still think Metal Gear 2 and 3 did a really good job of having some deep mechanics and intricacies that you could go the entire game without ever using. While not "deep", Viewtiful Joe always seemed to have a little more to it's mechanics than it's appearance would lead you to believe as well.

Also, dat Dark Souls.

[Tain]

When it comes to the whole "emergence" thing, any sufficiently complex game will include possibilities unforeseen by its developers, from Civilization to Street Fighter to Gradius. And when it comes to having "detailed mechanics", there are countless games that have them. A lot of posters could simply list their favorite games in here and you'd get plenty of fitting choices.

[Archon473]

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_eme...ther_miracles/

[Antiwhippy]

Any competent fighting game.

[abstract alien]

When it comes to the whole "emergence" thing, any sufficiently complex game will include possibilities unforeseen by its developers, from Civilization to Street Fighter to Gradius. And when it comes to having "detailed mechanics", there are countless games that have them. A lot of posters could simply list their favorite games in here and you'd get plenty of fitting choices.

The moment people started to realize that moves in fighting games were not just for attacking, but could also be used to cover space(such as doing a Hurricane Kick or Banishing Hand), I felt it changed into a completely different game almost instantly.

[Lancehead]

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_eme...ther_miracles/

Events that occur as systems interact is what's called "emergence" in games. I don't see much point in trying to apply some scientific definition verbatim.

This is Harvey Smith said about emergent gameplay:

Emergent Gameplay: You could define emergence as an event that occurs, but that could not have simply been inferred from a system’s rules. Emergent behavior occurs when a system acts in an organized fashion beyond the sum capabilities of its individual parts. Imagine a light-detecting sensor on a parking lot streetlamp. When it gets dark, according to the light sensor, the streetlamp comes on. When the streetlamp comes on, crickets are attracted to the surrounding area. Eventually, the bodies of the crickets block the light sensor, so that the streetlamp is on all the time. This is a system. There are simple one-to-one relationships between the individual parts of the system. (Like, the light sensor turns on the streetlamp. Or, crickets are attracted when the streetlamp is on.) But there are also indirect relationships between the individual parts of the system. (Like, the crickets and the streetlamp-the crickets simply were drawn to the light. Yet, at a more complex level that might not be inferred from the simple relationships between the individual parts of the system, the crickets directly affected the light sensor. In games based on flexible simulations, emergence becomes possible, enabling a much wider sum of events than the simple elements of the game would indicate individually.

My knowledge of English language tells me "emergence" is perfectly fine word to use there.

[Riposte]

Not to sound like a dick, but I'm not sure what Blow is really talking about here and it comes off as needlessly exclusionary in order to make a non-existence point for a fellow indie. Isn't he just talking about complicated games? Given that, I don't have a clue what the connection between Spelunky and Thief or System Shock is. Spelunky doesn't seem particularly complicated.

[Sophia]

Not to sound like a dick, but I'm not sure what Blow is really talking about here and it comes off as needlessly exclusionary in order to make a non-existence point for a fellow indie. Isn't he just talking about complicated games? Given that, I don't have a clue what the connection between Spelunky and Thief or System Shock is. Spelunky doesn't seem particularly complicated.

You haven't played it enough if you think that. :p

[Zampano]

Skeeter from Interstate 76 was pretty detailed, for the time.

Ok I laughed

[thomaser]

Rocket: Robot on Wheels on the N64 had a very cool physics-based gameplay where you could interact with many different objects in a "realistic" way.

The Scribblenauts games are also very impressive when it comes to how objects interact. Not perfect in any way, but still impressive. And it gets better with every game in the series.

[Instro]

Knights in the Nightmare?

[Sophia]

Rocket: Robot on Wheels on the N64 had a very cool physics-based gameplay where you could interact with many different objects in a "realistic" way. The Scribblenauts games are also very impressive when it comes to how objects interact. Not perfect in any way, but still impressive. And it gets better with every game in the series.

Scribblenauts is a fantastic (and non-traditional) example of what Blow seems to be talking about, I think.

[deviljho]

Between armor skills and multiple weapon types, Monster Hunter ranks up there.

Dragon Age I and II on nightmare, also.

[dragonlife]

Knights in the Nightmare?

Oh, man. A nightmare indeed. The [optional] tutorial was so damn long. You'd be screwed without it, too; and by the time you finish reading it, you'll probably have already forgotten the earlier entries.

Nice music and art, though. But the gameplay... goddamn. So complex--and not in a good way.

[Riposte]

Knights in the Nightmare is one of the few games which intimidated me right into giving up.

[Dragonzord]

Hitman is probably the closest thing to Thief games these days with all that stuff going on under the hood.

[Instro]

Knights in the Nightmare is one of the few games which intimidated me right into giving up.

I probably would have stuck with it if the narrative hadn't been so dull. I want to go back to it at some point, but it seems so daunting to have to relearn everything.

[-BLITZ-]

Prince of Persia: The Warrior Within - those combo swords.

[dragonlife]

I probably would have stuck with it if the narrative hadn't been so dull. I want to go back to it at some point, but it seems so daunting to have to relearn everything.

Yup. I always tell myself I'll go back to it eventually, but I dread relearning everything as well.

[satriales]

Dishonoured looks to be another game that fits this description.

[abstract alien]

Knights in the Nightmare is one of the few games which intimidated me right into giving up.

THAT is the game I was trying to think of. Good lord, that shit beat me into the ground.

[Punchpudding]

Lots of good examples, emergent gameplay is definitely one of the trickiest things to implement. Just Cause 2 did a pretty good job letting you experiment with different things (if you ignore the mediocre story missions). It has a sort of metagame where each village can be completed by destroying all government buildings and finding all secrets within that location. How you complete each village is up to you.

The straight forward route, you could load up on ammo and jump (grappling hook) from roof-top to roof-top picking everything off. You could bring in a few rebel fighters as allies (or diversions). You could roll up in a tank and blast everything. You had jets and helicopters to attack from the air. Sometimes I would 'take over' airbases in order to plan for my attacks on nearby villages. The mechanics weren't as polished as a Bioshock or Deus Ex but damn that game was fun.

[Neuromancer]

OK my serious answer is Abe's Oddysee which was a 2D platformer in which you encountered these other alien creatures all with their own very different AI. For example paramites were these little dog like things; if there was just one on the screen it would run away; but two or more on the screen would be emboldened and attack. Scraps were the opposite, they were big towering crab like things and were fiercely territorial: just one on the screen was very dangerous but if you had two they would fight it out giving you time to slip by. Much of the game revolved around you exploiting these characteristics to avoid trouble or manipulate the AI into attacking each other or other enemies.

[Gbraga]

Mega Man

[Gen X]

I'm not sure if I am doing this right, but what about Psi-Ops? The whole physics thing and analogue buttons worked really well and was relatively new at the time giving the user physics to actually play with. I know this might be on a different level than the mechanics mentioned in the OP, but it's the first game that came to mind.

[kvn]

Lots of good examples, emergent gameplay is definitely one of the trickiest things to implement. Just Cause 2 did a pretty good job letting you experiment with different things (if you ignore the mediocre story missions). It has a sort of metagame where each village can be completed by destroying all government buildings and finding all secrets within that location. How you complete each village is up to you. The straight forward route, you could load up on ammo and jump (grappling hook) from roof-top to roof-top picking everything off. You could bring in a few rebel fighters as allies (or diversions). You could roll up in a tank and blast everything. You had jets and helicopters to attack from the air. Sometimes I would 'take over' airbases in order to plan for my attacks on nearby villages. The mechanics weren't as polished as a Bioshock or Deus Ex but damn that game was fun.

That is just sandbox gameplay you are describing. Not really 'detailed mechanics' like Receiver for example.

[KevinCow]

Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts

I've seen people make the craziest vehicles and complete challenges in the most ridiculous ways. It's basically Break Our Game: The Game.

[Shaffield]

Every time I see a video of someone playing Bayonetta or Vanquish well, I see them doing actions and combos I've never even considered.

Although, that might just be because I'm an idiot that sucks at action games

[Pennybags]

Steel Battalion: Heavy Armor

[revolverjgw]

I'm not sure if I am doing this right, but what about Psi-Ops? The whole physics thing and analogue buttons worked really well and was relatively new at the time giving the user physics to actually play with. I know this might be on a different level than the mechanics mentioned in the OP, but it's the first game that came to mind.

My favorite way to kill anybody in any game is to take over control of their bodies and make a beeline for the nearest cliff/pit/vat of nuclear coolant.

[Curufinwe]

Pro Evolution Soccer has mechanics that took months to learn and years to master.

[CPS2]

This would probably be easier to understand with some video examples. About the worst thing you can do is just name a game. Oh megaman, right, i see how the developers never intended the game to be played like that because you said "megaman."

[Seanspeed]

Minecraft is a game where learning the interactivity between all the elements of the game is pretty much what its all about. The game could definitely be called 'sandbox', but most sandbox games basically give you a pretty good idea of what you're supposed be doing, but Minecraft allows you to discover and sometimes even invent new ways to allow elements of the game to be 'interactive'.

And on top of that all, there's still a lot of room for more depth.

[Drazgul]

And on top of that all, there's still a lot of room for more depth.

Plus mods really breathe life into it. New realms, NPC-driven villages (proper ones that grow, not the crappy ones in Minecraft), ruins to explore, magic & high tech stuff... the list goes on forever.

[CarbonatedFalcon]

EVE Online. Some systems are simpler than others, but there's so much breadth that it'd be almost impossible to fully understand everything between commerce, combat, exploration, etc.