This is a subject I've had on my mind a lot and it makes me wonder if perhaps I have tunnel vision, or maybe am becoming too old, too cynical, too nostalgic, or some other kind of issue that is plaguing my perception of the way gaming is today. I'd like to also state that I respect gaming as a medium and feel it's the most flexible and diverse one we have to experiment with, so I love seeing innovation and advancement, or new efforts even if they don't pan out. This is mostly an issue I have with a perception of the general direction things are going, and a wonder if i'm just allowing myself to become trapped in a jaded viewpoint without really trying to feel out what's out there. I'm also curious to hear other peoples viewpoints, if you agree or disagree, and why, perhaps with counter points and examples to further flesh your view out and help enlighten me to things I am missing out on. I feel as if I've basically given up on this generation sans Nintendo and a few stragglers.

To add to my own perception, I've always been on the more quirky side of gaming even as a younger player. I value the way a game plays and feels most of all, but I also admire quirky and fun settings (hence why i'm also a big Sega fan). I love arcade style titles, Nintendo games, older Sega games, but also consider Resident Evil 4 or Ninja Gaiden Black to be among the greatest games of all time.

Among all my favorite games, I love realistic graphics or cartoony, I really can enjoy almost any setting in a game, but beginning in the last generation I started noticing a pattern. Games began to focus more and more on creating more cinematic stories, settings, more realistic animation at the expensive of snappy mechanics, and in general just seemed to be gunning for something more of a cinematic experience rather than being the best game mechanics wise, almost to the point I feel I have to constantly state mechanics just to specify the problem, otherwise people will think I don't consider their favorite experiences a game. Examples i'd bring up would be Uncharted, The Last of Us, Assassins Creed, which also in many ways seeped into titles that prior were very mechanically sound, like Castlevania. I'd say my issue is rooted into games either aiming to be like that, or the other side being every game chasing the same COD like market making things feel very homogenized in general, but that's another topic.

Now, this isn't to say there is no fun in the mechanics of these titles, or that if you think they are fun that I look down on you. Just that I think the game mechanics design isn't as good as it could be and is no longer the focal point of game design. I feel like this aspect of game development is lost on many developers and unfortunately, many users. So let's do a run down of some games and their mechanic designs, and how they have changed today.

Dead Rising: I beat the crap out of this game, I got every achievement and broke my original 360 doing so. The people developing the new game seem to have taken all the wrong lessons. If you've never played the game or played it incorrectly, you probably think of this series as a game where you kill a bunch of zombies in funny settings, but for anyone who understands the game you'd know that's a surface level interpretation. Dead Rising is a game about survival, time management, stress, planning, and in the process of all that, yes you kill zombies in a mall. The way the story plots out in a semi serious way while placing you in a position to execute it in a non serious way is also brilliant but unrelated. Admittedly the game mechanics in this series aren't the best speaking from a raw control/combat standpoint, but the main appeal of the game design is still amazing. The people who complain about the save system, etc, instantly out themselves as people who do not understand the point, and while the sequel did soften things up it still retained most of the heart. 3 on the other hand butchered out most of what made the series what it was, focusing most on trying to be appealing to people who don't like the series.

Resident Evil 4: Like it or not, this game has deliberate gameplay design that is masterfully balanced. Every time I read a complaint about not being able to move and shoot or something it makes me shake my head. The encounter design is also astonishing, this is one of the best examples of a game that thrives because of addictive mechanics, and it does so while having a great presentation/style to boot. Seven while not out, i'm pretty sure is going to shy away from this entirely and end up being pretty mediocre as a game to actually play, but I can give this a pass considering the roots of the series at least.

Ninja Gaiden Black: Perfect controls, everything felt so right with every impact, every jump. The way enemies balanced against your combat options is still unbelievable to me. 2 while very messy was also a great continuation of the gameplay design, making it faster and more robust. Seeing what they tried to do to the series with 3 (and semi fixed in Razor) was heart breaking, stripping it entirely of the mechanics that made it loved while trying to shoe horn another epic cutscene focused game into the world.

As someone who has a fond respect for games and their designs, I find the design philosophy of games have shifted from prioritizing game mechanics first and coming up with creative ways to innovate on them or perfect them, and instead have shifted to focusing on the more story driven aspect of the medium. The few companies (like Nintendo) that seem to be focusing on this, are often labeled as behind the times and outdated, making this feeling grow stronger. This obviously works for a lot of people, but it does bum me out and makes me feel isolated.

Obviously, there is a lot of push in the small game development side with stuff like Yooka Laylee or Pac-Man series being potentially great games, but in terms of the 'AAA' retail space, the headliners, etc, it just seems like the mechanics part of games is becoming an obsolete focus to me, and the more I go back and play older games, the more this feeling grows. There has always been a lot of variance here, but I feel the ratio has shifted quite a bit in the last 6 or so years. I consider this generation of consoles to be the worst i've ever experienced by far as well because of it.

Hopefully this isn't too long or garbled, I am more interested in hearing what others think and feel than my own thoughts on this subject to be honest, but I tried to make it comprehensible in order to trigger some kind of response. Things like over saturation of certain kinds of games, DLC whoring, micro transactions and in general dirty business add to the fatigue I feel, but in the end I feel this one subject is what has worn me out most.

TLDR:

Funny enough, I've actually found myself thinking something similar lately.

For example - I adore Metal Gear Solid and other story-heavy games. But it seems like as I grow older, I've seen all the ways a developer can take away control from me, and the "cinematic experience" is lost on me... mostly because, well, most game stories are total shit.

But, funny enough, some of the best stories I've played recently keep control in my hands a majority of the time. Further than that, they have sublime GAMEPLAY. Plain and simple.

Three *single player* games to grab my attention the hardest/most this year:

Bloodborne
Odin Sphere
Hotline Miami 2

It's this core gameplay with tight mechanics that I love. And yes, I think in many games - Call of Duty, for example is a big offender - all I'm doing is following a straight line, clicking the triggers the same exact time as everyone else. For all intents and purposes, it feels "on-rails" and light on the actual mastery of mechanics and systems.

The industry ? Maybe

But rare companies like Platinum and Nintendo and SPECIALY indies you can always count on focusing on putting some tight gameplay on the spotlight

No? Indies constantly make interesting and involving experiences and many AAA's do make mechanically involving experiences.

As someone who is a mechanics guy, not at all. Siege, Halo 5, Hyper Light Drifter are some recent releases with amazing mechanics.

Skel1ingt0n said:

Funny enough, I've actually found myself thinking something similar lately.

For example - I adore Metal Gear Solid and other story-heavy games. But it seems like as I grow older, I've seen all the ways a developer can take away control from me, and the "cinematic experience" is lost on me... mostly because, well, most game stories are total shit.

But, funny enough, some of the best stories I've played recently keep control in my hands a majority of the time. Further than that, they have sublime GAMEPLAY. Plain and simple.

Three *single player* games to grab my attention the hardest/most this year:

Bloodborne
Odin Sphere
Hotline Miami 2

It's this core gameplay with tight mechanics that I love. And yes, I think in many games - Call of Duty, for example is a big offender - all I'm doing is following a straight line, clicking the triggers the same exact time as everyone else. For all intents and purposes, it feels "on-rails" and light on the actual mastery of mechanics and systems.

Click to expand...

I can definitely relate to this, Bioshock is a game that blew my mind back when I first played it, but upon replaying it I felt the game was pretty average to play, and the story execution was largely badly done. Mostly because you keep going into a room where another character is hidden behind glass or something to make it 'interactive', though the setting is still wonderful at least. I feel whenever games do something new and neat, it captures me, but in the end only gameplay ages perfectly. Mario 64 is still one of the most fun games to play today to me.

Neoleo2143 said:

No? Indies constantly make interesting and involving experiences and many AAA's do make mechanically involving experiences.

Click to expand...

A lot of people say this, but it's difficult to really swim through this stuff especially when demos have become a rarity in comparison to before. A lot of the Indie stuff you see seems to focus so much on being artsy and emotional that it kind of makes it difficult to see the stuff that is more gameplay oriented.

Yeah i'm excited to play the new Pac-Man game but the exposure for games like it is tricky. when it's not a big name, but i'm mostly regarding this to the big boys in the industry and not the 3 or 4 guys making the amazing looking Sonic Mania

I find the design philosophy of games have shifted from prioritizing game mechanics first and coming up with creative ways to innovate on them or perfect them, and instead have shifted to focusing on the more story driven aspect of the medium. The few companies (like Nintendo) that seem to be focusing on this, are often labeled as behind the times and outdated, making this feeling grow stronger. This obviously works for a lot of people, but it does bum me out and makes me feel isolated.

Click to expand...

Agree 100%.

It's been a real shame to see many of my favorite franchises stray away from the mechanical perfection they once were in favor of presentation and story. Or seeing the opposite happen, where a game with extremely deep mechanics is deemed horrible because of its lacking story/presentation (Twisted Metal PS3).

Which reminds me, I feel like you'd enjoy this talk by David Jaffe about the topic. He goes into detail about why games are wasting their time trying to chase movies/books when they can excel in something that no other medium can: gameplay. One of the greatest talks I've heard.

David Jaffe's 2012 Talk: Why Games Should Stop Telling Stories

Yeah I get it. Here's the thing though: I think the mainstream audience is also more interested in mechanics-driven games. They may not openly express this or consciously realize it, but most of the very top selling games ever are more mechanics-driven than cinematic.

Look at games like Mario, Grand Theft Auto, Gran Turismo, Minecraft, all the popular mobile games, MOBAs, and so-on. They tend to be mechanics-oriented rather than try to tell cinematic stories. Even with GTA most people probably spend most of their time dicking around in the open world. Cinematic games can be really popular, but I think they tend to have a sales cap considerably lower than mechanics-driven games.

The issue is that the suits at the big publishers have convinced themselves that what the mainstream audience wants is a big cinematic story... at least in singleplayer games. I think what the OP really misses is mechanics-driven singleplayer games. I think that mainstream drive towards mechanics over cinema is one of the forces behind the push for multiplayer over singleplayer recently. You've got Rockstar emphasizing GTA Online over the main GTA V game, people spending more time with Call of Duty multiplayer and Zombies over the campaign. Games like Overwatch, Titanfall, and Rainbow Six Siege. There's how Cliff Bleszinski said campaigns take an outsized portion of a game's budget compared to how much they get played.

Devlopers even have things that look very gamey in singleplayer games like XP systems. The problem with these and multiplayer in a lot of games is that publishers don't seem to be putting them in as carefully balanced, fulfilling gameplay, but more as padding to inflate perceived value and activate base dopamine responses in the brain for people who like to see bars fill and numbers go up.

I think game makers need to start finding a singleplayer alternative to the story campaign, perhaps something more arcade-oriented. If the OP hasn't played new-DOOM, it is pretty much a perfect antidote to the stated problem. It's an FPS that cares more about being a fun game than telling a story, and it's getting an arcade mode sometime soon. I really like horde and survival modes in shooters, and I wish more devs would make versions of those modes more balanced for singleplayer.

I'm fine with story-oriented games. They definitely have a place in the market and I'm fine with games that are purely interactive fiction. The big publishers though seem like they want to have their cake and eat it too.

Mechanics matter to me now more than story and it's mainly due to the amount of time I have to game. I want my time to be respected and it feels as if a great deal of "bigger" games on the market do not have an interesting game play loop and can't hold my attention. Couple that with yearly releases and I've gone from buying tons of games on launch day to barely any 6 months after the fact. My backlog is huge and I'm content with chipping away at that.

TLDR; I'm tired of bloat and good mechanics trump bloat.

Nah. There aren't many "character action" games specifically anymore, but mechanics-focused games do come out. Fighting games, and even the Souls games to an extent (why I like Bloodborne the most). First person shooters as well.

I can't make a really in-depth post so I'll just focus on one specific area. As a big fan of fast-paced melee combat mechanics and systems, things feel pretty dismal in that area at the moment. DMC4SE and Bayo 2 did some cool things, but things feels like it's been in a rut since 2013.

Bloodborne and Dark Souls III help a little bit with some of their excellent enemy and boss designs. I have high hopes for Nioh and NieR Automata to have some interesting ideas. At this point I won't hope for a solid execution. I'll just settle for good ideas.

I think only the character action genre is missing and I don't really think that the industry is passing me by otherwise.

We got MGSV last year, which is one the best games mechanically.

It's basically singleplayer games that don't focus much on game mechanics...multiplayer on the other hand do.

Basically look at RedSwirl's post as it explains a lot.

I couldn't be less interested about story in video games, and I'm not a fan of cinematic "experiences" at all, so unfortunately a large amount of current gaming is of absolutely no interest to me.

Luckily I love retro gaming and going back to games I have and haven't played in the past, and there's still lots of "new" things from then that I haven't played yet.

You could only be speaking of the AAA space because the indie and boutique studios have been pumping out amazing, mechanically-driven games.

I found that when I stopped looking to AAA and banner titles to define my gaming diet that I was much more sustained and satisfied.

Think of it like music. You can't rely soley on the radio to discover music. Sure, there's occasionally a great pop song, but almost all of it is mass-marketed, safe, derivitive junk food for the lowest common denominator, and its proliferation is driven by gobs of money.

Yet, there is tons of great music being made every year if you are willing to look for it, read about it, broaden your horizons and give an ear to those who don't have the money and reach to be on the radio.

OP: I think you have the answer in your post without realizing it: Japanese games still focus on tight and interesting mechanics, It's just that AAA has shifted to western-made games now and not many of them have the same focus on gameplay. Indie devs have picked up the slack, though.

I absolutely do. If you like well-designed and executed mechanics, AAA miss the point entirely, and indie games rarely deliver. All I feel like I can rely on at this point is Nintendo. Japanese development shit the bed a decade ago, and that was basically the sole provider of decent gameplay mechanics all the way through the PS2 era.

I also think openness and light RPG that is afraid to make choice actually felt or give defined roles is a form of erasing mechanics and replacing them with a mindless grind and appearance of depth.

There is such a move to convenience and not displeasing the customer even when you give them choices they perhaps don't understand. This means choices are more meaningless.

As a whole yeah I do feel the industry has passed me by save for a few like Platinum, Nintendo, Blizzard, and probably a few others I can't think of right now but I've made my peace with it, more or less. People keep saying indies are where its at but I've played maybe three indie titles that I consider truly great. The rest are either pale imitations of games released yesteryear or just don't have the budget to execute their grand visions. AAA games are either too busy forcing me to explore an empty ass overworld while forcing crafting + half assed RPG systems down my throat or taking away control every five minutes to make me watch their uninteresting cutscenes. God of War going down this path just adds insult to injury. Like, I get that AAA games have to follow the money, but whats the point in spending all of that money when creativity is so shackled?

There is definitely some stuff I'm looking forward to though. Stuff like The Last Guardian, Gravity Rush 2, Nier: Automata, Persona 5, Halo Wars 2, Nioh, and others look fantastic. I've also started buying less and less which is a good thing for my wallet. Plus with mobile inching closer and closer to total dominance, there's not much point in getting worked up about the state of the traditional space when it'll probably look a lot like the Japanese console industry in ten years.

No? I guess it depends on the games you play. But let me see here.

Yakuza keeps introducing more gameplay in their games by ramping up the fighting system every iteration. Isshin itself introduced style switching and far better tracking, and 0 is supposedly even deeper than that.

Sengoku Basara is a character action game - lite which is designed around getting you to beat up dudes (from the level objectives and enemy types).

Musou games in general are far better than their PS3 and PS2 counterparts, with Hyrule Warriors and Samurai Warriors 4 being the most standout ones in terms of being able to combo your shit off of things besides normal charge attacks and adding real variation between each character.

Then you have Dragon Quest Builders, which is even more focused than Minecraft by having quests, but uses the gameplay elements and building mechanics as a weapon while still having fun fights.

Blah blah blah I could go on. Maybe it's because I'm entrenched in Japanese games but lately I've felt there's still a huge focus on gameplay first and everything else second. Even MGSV, from a series of cutscenes outweighing gameplay by a wide margin, had some of the best elements in game design in the past decade. It's still there, maybe it depends on what you play to be honest.

And for those ragging on the God Of War game lacking action, the developers have stated it's still going to be just as much as it was before. The camera change isn't going to remove the fighting.

A lot of people mention indie titles and that is as usual a valid point, however, that still results in getting a lower grade overall experience. Indie games can not match the experience you get from say, Halo 1 or RE4, it simply is not plausible. If you want a mechanics focused indie game you have to sacrifice in other departments, it's the loss of AAA productions being placed into mechanics driven titles that is lost to me. It's like only getting fries when you were used to the fries, burger and drink. It's a bonus at best in MOST cases. Now, I consider stuff like Geometry Wars 2 among the best games, so i'm sure some indie games can match that, but I don't know of them.

Cinematic and artistic games are a dead genre.... Mechanics based games are 100 times more popular

No, there are a million games out there that appeal to all sorts of preferences.

No, I feel exactly the opposite way. The indie boom has allowed more kinds of games aimed at more kinds of people to flourish than ever before.

Nah. Bayonetta 2 exists. Bloodborne exists. Rocket League exists. Splatoon exists. Dark Souls III exists. DOOM exists. Dishonored 2 exists. Nioh exists. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild exists. (ok, those last three aren't out yet, but I have high hopes).

I will admit that the AAA space has almost completely passed me by, but as someone who loves a game with great mechanics, I'm doing just fine, honestly.

Hate to be "that girl" but I can't help but notice you haven't mentioned From Software yet? Have you just never played their games, because they sound like what you're looking for. No cinematic BS, just rock-solid gameplay with tight mechanics, good level design and encounter and boss design etc.

You did mention Nioh though, so I might be being redundant.

As mostly a PC gamer not really. I don't play many big budget hype machines though.

Playing lots of Elite Dangerous.. game is amazing as it dosnt hold your hand at all.

OrbitalBeard said:

Nah. Bayonetta 2 exists. Bloodborne exists. Rocket League exists. Splatoon exists. Dark Souls III exists. DOOM exists. Dishonored 2 exists. Nioh exists. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild exists. (ok, those last three aren't out yet, but I have high hopes).

I will admit that the AAA space has almost completely passed me by, but as someone who loves a game with great mechanics, I'm doing just fine, honestly.

Click to expand...

I feel mentioning Bayonetta 2 is kind of a painful subject, considering that game barely made it through its development cycle because of Nintendo. If anything, it more so proves the state of the industry there. Bloodborne is a good example but even then, I don't think these games sell extremely high figures, they just sell well and are produced in a way that they can be sustained, which is great, but rare. There's a reason people latch onto those games so much I feel.

Keep in mind, I also exempted Nintendo, they are the only company i've been routinely buying games for from the 3DS and U, and are likely the sole reason I have enjoyed my time in gaming this generation.

goldenpp72 said:

I feel mentioning Bayonetta 2 is kind of a painful subject, considering that game barely made it through its development cycle because of Nintendo. If anything, it more so proves the state of the industry there. Bloodborne is a good example but even then, I don't think these games sell extremely high figures, they just sell well and are produced in a way that they can be sustained, which is great, but rare. There's a reason people latch onto those games so much I feel.

Keep in mind, I also exempted Nintendo, they are the only company i've been routinely buying games for from the 3DS and U, and are likely the sole reason I have enjoyed my time in gaming this generation.

Click to expand...

From Software's games sell in the millions these days. They're pretty big hits.

Uh, MGSV sold millions and it has less story and cutscenes than any MGS before it.

Edit: Sales aren't really reflective of the lack of games that have good mechanics. I mean, if you solely focus on the AAA scene, you might be at a loss, but there are tons of mid-tier and indie games that contain a focus on gameplay first.

At this point, hopefully you notice that there's some goalpost moving going on.

I don't necessarily think the mechanics are bad in games, I just think there not being any consequences to dying for example makes the gameplay not as engaging. The reason the souls games are so popular is because of how punishing they are and how that makes you more engaged in the mechanics of the game.

Yup, and that's why I have a Wii U instead of a PS4 or Xbox One.

Yeah, I favour games with incredible mechanics that allow you to get better like you would in real life, rather than buying upgrades etc.

Trials
Rocket League
Skate
Mirrors Edge
Smash Bros

Games kind of like that.

Destiny has the best shooting mechanics of any modern AAA FPS and GAF dumped on it for the story, or lack of.

So no, I don't feel like the industry is passing me by.

Your questions aren't unwarranted. Just remember it isn't about mechanics vs story though.

Story and mechanics are often the same thing, and should be talked about in conjunction with one another as inseparable to the quality of the experience.

Perhaps what you are simply seeing is just a badly compromised mesh between the two components.

I don't think it's about story being bad thing in videogames. Moreso that it isnt implemented congruently as well in the AAA space where games tell you where to go, dying doesn't mean anything (Bioshock) they hold your hand and are too easy in general. Also sometimes player control is taken away from you in say a COD game. This is so they can focus on pacing (which is actually simultaneously a gameplay and narrative reason for this).

So what you are seeing is a sacrifice of compelling gameplay options. Choice in moment to moment gameplay is what makes something compelling. The AAA space is lacking this.


Uncharted and TLOU do an alright job I think. But even those games sacrifice interesting mechanics for pacing (Uncharted automatic platforming for instance) and TLOU is too predictable once you know where the enemies are (because they are trying to pace the game very deliberately) which is why on replay it isn't nearly as engaging moment to moment gameplay compared to RE4.
There is perhaps one game that does it well but it more blurs the line between indie and AAA and that is Journey which I'm sure very very few people would call inferior to anything 'pure' that precedes it...still you could argue even that could have a few more interactive options. Heck imagine potentially dying in that game. The consequence of that would be not seeing your friend again as you may be set back a checkpoint back and to not make them wait for you, the devs simply spawn you in another version of Journey. Forever losing your friend and creating better moment to moment tension.

Lastly I want to add that whilst videogames are a mechanics first medium (a videogame can work without a story but a videogame can't work without mechanics) the AAA industry is in no way obligated to serve pure mechanics driven experiences to you.

Sword Of Doom said:

I don't necessarily think the mechanics are bad in games, I just think there not being any consequences to dying for example makes the gameplay not as engaging. The reason the souls games are so popular is because of how punishing they are and how that makes you more engaged in the mechanics of the game.

Click to expand...

See, that's not always the case. Some games work better by not having some ridiculous death state, some games do. Devil May Cry puts you back at the checkpoint, but the mechanics still engage you because of the score system and the hook of getting more items for doing better. So the game actively drives you to improve and switch up your moves, because you want to keep that counter going up further and further. Hell, even if that wasn't there, the game's depth is so readily apparent that you pretty much want to explore all the cool things you can do in the game.

And funny you should mention Dark Souls, because it's far more forgiving than most games. You get your progress back, and all you have to do is sprint to the spot that you died at. Otherwise, what do you lose? Your souls? A currency that isn't that hard to obtain once you get rolling?

No, I don't feel left behind. I play what I like and whenever I feel like playing something, there are enough games to choose from.

I also value mechanics more than anything else.

TheSpoiler said:

Uh, MGSV sold millions and it has less story and cutscenes than any MGS before it.

Edit: Sales aren't really reflective of the lack of games that have good mechanics. I mean, if you solely focus on the AAA scene, you might be at a loss, but there are tons of mid-tier and indie games that contain a focus on gameplay first.

At this point, hopefully you notice that there's some goalpost moving going on.

Click to expand...

Not at all, sales exist to just prove the viability of something, so when you make something like TLOU and it sells 8 million, and Bloodborne sells 2, many companies would simply say welp just do that instead. Problem is, games like BB are extremely difficult for most people, a game can be extremely fun and not be prohibitive (i'd class something like Dead Rising 1 as something like BB, and that only sold a couple million too)

Basically, why can't the developers who push to make the 5, 10, 20 million sellers also be focusing on mechanics first, is there some reason why a company feels they can't sell in the AAA space despite some evidence to the contrary (see minecraft, Mario, etc)

Personally, if you put out NG4, a proper DR4, Halo, etc, and they all bomb but keep getting sequels I don't care. Sales just signify the health and interest level, and the amount of effort that will go that way is all. I play tons of games that don't sell much, i'm just thinking mostly of the AAA focused market and how it's changed in my mind.

Morrigan Stark said:

Hate to be "that girl" but I can't help but notice you haven't mentioned From Software yet? Have you just never played their games, because they sound like what you're looking for. No cinematic BS, just rock-solid gameplay with tight mechanics, good level design and encounter and boss design etc.

You did mention Nioh though, so I might be being redundant.

Click to expand...

This stuff is important to me and why stuff like open world, toothless light RPG, etc. gets to me so much these days. Used to be able to play TES style loosey goosey sandbox so easily. Takes effort now and I need to get into that RPG head space. Not going to do that for too many games.

That said, I also get bored with straight action RPG after a while. Finally got around to DS this past summer and got bored after I got the Lordvessel. I like lighter on action, heavier on platforming, environment manipulation, puzzles etc. (basically Nintendo-style adventure games, that is Zelda and Metroid) but a well built action game is still a fine thing that I'm trying to dip my toes in more these days. In any case, I'll have to get back to DS sometime; was kind of aimlessly wondering around some ice golems when I stopped though so I guess I was bored and lost .

But my wider point is I feel that this tight design is a lot of what 'big' gaming lacks these days. The buzz words are all open design words, open world, choice, customization, freedom, etc.

TheSpoiler said:

No? I guess it depends on the games you play. But let me see here.

Yakuza keeps introducing more gameplay in their games by ramping up the fighting system every iteration. Isshin itself introduced style switching and far better tracking, and 0 is supposedly even deeper than that.

Sengoku Basara is a character action game - lite which is designed around getting you to beat up dudes (from the level objectives and enemy types).

Musou games in general are far better than their PS3 and PS2 counterparts, with Hyrule Warriors and Samurai Warriors 4 being the most standout ones in terms of being able to combo your shit off of things besides normal charge attacks and adding real variation between each character.

Then you have Dragon Quest Builders, which is even more focused than Minecraft by having quests, but uses the gameplay elements and building mechanics as a weapon while still having fun fights.

Blah blah blah I could go on. Maybe it's because I'm entrenched in Japanese games but lately I've felt there's still a huge focus on gameplay first and everything else second. Even MGSV, from a series of cutscenes outweighing gameplay by a wide margin, had some of the best elements in game design in the past decade. It's still there, maybe it depends on what you play to be honest.

And for those ragging on the God Of War game lacking action, the developers have stated it's still going to be just as much as it was before. The camera change isn't going to remove the fighting.

Click to expand...

Yeah, this.

I'll add that Nioh is looking to be a game I'm going to spend a lot of time with, as it looks to be very amazing. It also gives me hope that the action game squad within Team Ninja is in a good place for whenever they want to get back to Ninja Gaiden and give Ninja Ryu the sequel he deserves.

And P* is trucking along, standing to give us three different types of action rpgs within the next 2-3 years. Somewhere between Nier: Automata, Kamiya's Scalebound and Saito's Granblue game, there's likely going to be at least ONE winner that'll please me, and I wouldn't be surprised if all three end up being amazing in their own right.


So, in short...I'm still good. Even if I do clearly miss stuff like Viewtiful Joe, Devil May Cry and Ninja Gaiden Black, we are getting quite a bit of good stuff to play, as well.

goldenpp72 said:

Not at all, sales exist to just prove the viability of something, so when you make something like TLOU and it sells 8 million, and Bloodborne sells 2, many companies would simply say welp just do that instead. Problem is, games like BB are extremely difficult for most people, a game can be extremely fun and not be prohibitive (i'd class something like Dead Rising 1 as something like BB, and that only sold a couple million too)

Basically, why can't the developers who push to make the 5, 10, 20 million sellers also be focusing on mechanics first, is there some reason why a company feels they can't sell in the AAA space despite some evidence to the contrary (see minecraft, Mario, etc)

Personally, if you put out NG4, a proper DR4, Halo, etc, and they all bomb but keep getting sequels I don't care. Sales just signify the health and interest level, and the amount of effort that will go that way is all. I play tons of games that don't sell much, i'm just thinking mostly of the AAA focused market and how it's changed in my mind.

Click to expand...

What you are asking contains too many variables to place. For one thing, budgets and sales goals exists to scale. Games don't always have to make 8 million to be profitable or "worth it". Some games sell more because of their genre, the AAA market, if they are in more regions or not, etc.

And what games are you talking about that don't have mechanics first? UC4 arguably has less gameplay to cutscenes ratio than the previous games, but what else? MGS sold millions. That had a huge focus on gameplay. The Order failed and it didn't focus on gameplay. I don't think it's so zero sum as you believe it to be.

TreIII said:

Yeah, this.

I'll add that Nioh is looking to be a game I'm going to spend a lot of time with, as it looks to be very amazing. It also gives me hope that the action game squad within Team Ninja is in a good place for whenever they want to get back to Ninja Gaiden and give Ninja Ryu the sequel he deserves.

And P* is trucking along, standing to give us three different types of action rpgs within the next 2-3 years. Somewhere between Nier: Automata, Kamiya's Scalebound and Saito's Granblue game, there's likely going to be at least ONE winner that'll please me, and I wouldn't be surprised if all three end up being amazing in their own right.


So, in short...I'm still good. Even if I do clearly miss stuff like Viewtiful Joe, Devil May Cry and Ninja Gaiden Black, we are getting quite a bit of good stuff to play, as well.

Click to expand...

Platinum is another example of one of my favorite developers currently, so there is some hope out there. Bayonetta and Vanquish are among the best titles last gen. I'm excited to see how Nier and Scalebound turn out (though the latter looks a bit sloppy to me)

I do respect the souls series but I do wish From would go back to making other kinds of titles as well, like AC or Otogi, but i'm glad they found something to sell finally.

i can't complain about lack of mechanics driven games, even with AAA games.

Plenty of them have decent multi, which is entirely mechanics driven, sports titles, overwatch, battlefield, cod etc.

We'll have gotten deus ex and dishonored 2 this year, which along with hitman is a veritable downpur of system driven stealth games.

doom, also a game praised mostly for gameplay.

The biggest RPG's might lack a bit in terms of combat gameplay, but we've had so many exellent mid sized western and japanes RPG's it's one of the best times ever to play the genre.

Racing games that have come out recently focus almost entirely on gameplay.

Civ 6, Xcom2, Total War

I'm missing many more.



High budget story focused SP games are rare nowadays. We have like 5 of those per year.

The industry is not passing you by for lack of gameplay focused titles. It's your genre preferences not getting the biggest advertising budget.

TheSpoiler said:

What you are asking contains too many variables to place. For one thing, budgets and sales goals exists to scale. Games don't always have to make 8 million to be profitable or "worth it". Some games sell more because of their genre, the AAA market, if they are in more regions or not, etc.

And what games are you talking about that don't have mechanics first? UC4 arguably has less gameplay to cutscenes ratio than the previous games, but what else? MGS sold millions. That had a huge focus on gameplay. The Order failed and it didn't focus on gameplay. I don't think it's so zero sum as you believe it to be.

Click to expand...

Assassins Creed is an example of a series that (until just recently) sold obscene amounts despite the mechanics being extremely cumbersome and outright boring at times. The majority of the appeal of that series seems to be in the setting and presentation, it certainly has no chance of stacking up against stuff like RE4 mechanics wise, and it never tried to, which is kind of the point i'm trying to make. The games chasing the big dollars (and often succeeding) seem to be ignoring what makes a game, a game. I don't consider the UC series to be anywhere near great as games either, if you stripped them of their setting and story elements, they would not be well received at all in my mind.

Put it this way, most would admit Ninja gaiden black has a bad story, cheesy, tacky, at best pointless and sometimes even embarrassing. The setting itself is cool I guess, but what sells it is the game design and that's why people buy it. When 3 ignored this, it flopped horribly which is a testament to the taste of character action fans at least, but the design change was done to try and hit that bigger, broader God of war like market rather than what it already had, if that makes sense.

Uncharted 4 is the only game of that nature I've played in a long time.

I'm a mechanics driven player and while I wish more games would value mechanics first, I don't think the past few years were bad in that regard, AAA wise. Bayonetta 2, Tropical Freeze, Mario 3D World, Splatoon, Wonderful 101, Bloodborne, The Phantom Pain, Street Fighter 5, Dark Souls 3, Rainbow Six Siege, Ratchet and Clank, Hitman, Doom, Overwatch and the recent Alphas and Betas for Nioh and For Honor being prime examples.

Add indies on top like Ori and the Blind Forest, Hyper Light Drifter and the more recent RIVE and I don't feel I'm left out in the cold.

Witcher 3 is overrated though, as is GTA V and it IS a shame what they did to the Dead Rising series. But the future looks pretty bright. From system driven immersive sims like Dishonored 2 to the gameplay sandbox of Breath of the Wild to the action of Nier Automata and Nioh, the MP of For Honor and indies like Yooka Laylee, Katana Zero and Cuphead.

Magic Mushroom said:

I'm a mechanics driven player and while I wish more games would value mechanics first, I don't think the past few years were bad in that regard, AAA wise. Bayonetta 2, Tropical Freeze, 3D World, Splatoon, Wonderful 101, Bloodborne, The Phantom Pain, Street Fighter 5, Dark Souls 3, Rainbow Six Siege, Ratchet and Clank, Hitman, Doom, Overwatch and the recent Alphas en Betas for Nioh and For Honor being prime examples.

Add indies on top like Ori and the Blind Forest, Hyper Light Drifter and the more recent RIVE and I don't feel I'm left out in the cold.

Click to expand...

It would seem I really need to get to playing MGSV, I own it but didn't want to invest in a big convoluted story game since I didn't play through 4 either. Of course, with the company that made that game also basically giving a finger to the industry, it's also not a beacon I can confidently latch to regardless, but that's not entirely relevant in the moment

goldenpp72 said:

Assassins Creed is an example of a series that (until just recently) sold obscene amounts despite the mechanics being extremely cumbersome and outright boring at times. The majority of the appeal of that series seems to be in the setting and presentation, it certainly has no chance of stacking up against stuff like RE4 mechanics wise, and it never tried to, which is kind of the point i'm trying to make. The games chasing the big dollars (and often succeeding) seem to be ignoring what makes a game, a game. I don't consider the UC series to be anywhere near great as games either, if you stripped them of their setting and story elements, they would not be well received at all in my mind.

Put it this way, most would admit Ninja gaiden black has a bad story, cheesy, tacky, at best pointless and sometimes even embarrassing. The setting itself is cool I guess, but what sells it is the game design and that's why people buy it. When 3 ignored this, it flopped horribly which is a testament to the taste of character action fans at least, but the design change was done to try and hit that bigger, broader God of war like market rather than what it already had, if that makes sense.

Click to expand...

Here's what sold top of the charts recently.

Madden NFL 17
No Man's Sky (digital sales not included)
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided
Grand Theft Auto V
Overwatch (no Battle.net PC sales included)
Rainbow Six Siege
Call of Duty: Black Ops III
Lego Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Minecraft (digital sales not included)
Destiny: The Taken King

Let's take away all the other things and just leave the game portion. Now, when I say "leave the game portion", I'm not talking about what you or I enjoy, I'm strictly talking about what makes a game a game.

No Man's Sky (digital sales not included)
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided
Grand Theft Auto V
Overwatch (no Battle.net PC sales included)
Rainbow Six Siege
Minecraft (digital sales not included)
Destiny: The Taken King

Pretty sure sports fans play Madden for the gameplay, and would keep doing so if the teams were switched. But I don't know enough about those types of games, so for your benefit I'll remove it.

No Man's Sky's gameplay loop is the only thing it really has, and it's as pure as it gets, for better or for worse. So it stays.

DE would still fun to dick around in without the trimmings. It stays. Same thing with Overwatch, as the game's design is what keeps people playing. Siege's constant updates and focus on tacticool action keeps people playing, so that stays again. GTAV would definitely still be fun because it's so darn cool to dick around in even if reht rest didn't exists.

COD can leave. I don't know enough about those games but they have pretty heavy walking sections, right? Minecraft is pure as it gets too in the case of gameplay, and rarely do I hear people trumping Destiny's story elements over the gunplay.

Honestly, I think your issue games with design elements you don't like lead you to believe that the focal point isn't there. It's possible, and stay with me on this, you just don't like what those games offer. That's fine. It doesn't make them less of a game, especially when using the barometer you yourself set.

goldenpp72 said:

It would seem I really need to get to playing MGSV, I own it but didn't want to invest in a big convoluted story game since I didn't play through 4 either. Of course, with the company that made that game also basically giving a finger to the industry, it's also not a beacon I can confidently latch to regardless, but that's not entirely relevant in the moment

Click to expand...

Well, apart from the lengthy scripted intro it's not too intrusive. I don't really care about the story either, which is why I think it's the best MGS instead of the worst. Controls, mechanics and player freedom are top of the bill.