Support NeoGAF

[HL3.exe]

Your examples are pretty sparse and a bit of a stretch at best.

If you don't see the evolution from RDR1 to RDR2 and your biggest complaint is "persistence" than I don't think anyone could convince you otherwise. RDR2 is a great example of "evolution."

What the OP seems to be talking about is revolution. New, never before seen or done things in tech. Which, to a degree has stagnated a bit in certain areas. I've said for a long time that A.I. has been massively ignored these last 2 generations because people only pretend to want to be challenged, until they are and then chalk up their deficiencies to "lol, bad game design" and then move on.

We've had massive jumps in tech in the last 5 years that will evolve and become more common in the next few years. The fact that we have games with real-time global illumination is being massively ignore because it just doesn't give that initial fizz-bang-pop that people think they want.

You're right. Of course there are small evolutions on it's design that make it worthwhile. You'll not see me deny that. (In an earlier post you see me breakdown why I think things are stagnant with more nuanced points).

What i'm pointing out is specific stagnations in Red Dead 2's design that disappointed me personally. I could list a few more, like: that hard split between instanced mission design with failstates, and the openworld itself. It doesn't mesh or reacts with each other it makes the whole thing feel like a theater play. All these amazing mechanics and systems that barely seem to talk to each other, or have any meaningful player driven consequence, to create interesting emergent moments.

This doesn't mean I don't have sympathies for the development team or admire the work that went into it. I still very much love RDR2, but I can also be critical and see how such an ambitious games still has these same limitations 8 years from RDR1. (Mainly because of lowest common denominator logic when designing your ambitious title for 2012 level hardware, and pushing visuals instead of complex simulations presents/sells better).

The tech jumps you mention are more jump in render and fidelity, which you're absolutely right about. Local ray tracing on consumer hardware is a incredible feat. But personally, i'm kinda over incredible fidelity in games nowadays. I wanna see more granularity in interactivity/reactivity in gameworlds, instead of looking at an incredible world that feels/plays way more dated when I touch it.

 

[TheGecko]

The people defending todays games arguments are everything looks better.. they just don't get it. Its like talking to a brick wall.

 

[Bragr]

The people defending todays games arguments are everything looks better..

And the people defending older games think games are made up of destructible environments and cover mechanics.

 

[Filben]

There's so much going on here that needs addressing, like comparing a visual benchmark from 2007 to low effort visuals in Saint's Row from 2022. There's some validation here though and what strikes me the most is indeed the lack of physics and physically-based environment interaction.

Just look at FEAR and how the whole level is reactive and then you have a game like TLOU, part two, mind you, or Gears 5 or Resident Evil remakes and nothing happens when projectiles go off into the environment or other top of the line shooter gameplay.
(not my footage, but the quickest I'd find)


even things like this isn't possible in many modern games:


Then you have Control from a AA studio that does environmental reaction and destructions so good it's in a different league than some AAA shooters. Of course Control is a bit over the top, but then take Quantum Break, which does it a bit more grounded. Even games like Max Payne 3, or going even further back to Max Payne 2, has better reactive physics than some high-polished shooters these days. This is crazy and needs to be addressed by anyone who intends to make an immersive shooter.

 

[RoboFu]

Yeah sure. Gaming hasn't changed since 2007.

Twilight Princess -> BOTW
GTA 4 -> RDR2
God of War 2 -> God of War (2018)
Persona 3 FES -> Persona 5 Royal

We've not advanced at all.

The only one that’s an actual advancement there is BOTW.
Hell GOW 2018 is just the same Zelda OOT formula that ZELDA tp used. Rdr2 is just GTA with horses which is actually just top down GTA from the 90s at its core.

 

[Aion002]

Because most people don't care about that.


Most casual gamers wants to buy Fortnite skins, Fifa cards, FGO waifus, CoD season passes, GTA digital currency and stuff.

Then there's a large portion of "gamers" who wants higher resolution and textures, for their "cinematic experiences"...

 

[Guilty_AI]

I want to see something more detailed like the video i posted, i know it's heavy stuff but i want devs to at least try an approximation of that, even if the cpu is nothing to write at home about it's still a MAJOR upgrade over a jaguar (or a ps2 cpu)

The reason stuff like red faction G or mercenaries stopped being made as frequently is very simple. They suck, a game designed around big explosions crumbling down buildings gets old very quick. A common factor between a lot of the "old gems" that keep being brought up here is that they all were met with generally mixed responses at the time they released. Most devs realized this and stopped making them.

On the other hand, its not like you can just add features like being able to implode buildings in a game like GTA. It breaks continuity, as well as the design they're going for.

The original red faction? One of the biggests criticism it had was that the scenario destruction was basically useless and didn't improve the game in any way, and having played through it myself i can confirm thats the case. Ironically a lot of levels even had indestructible walls because if they didn't you could break the game.

However we still do get the "minor" destruction we saw in the likes of Crysis and Half Life 2 in games like Control, since the purpose is purely for eye candy and doesn't really affect the game design all that much. Military shooters like ARMA and Battlefield also still include scenario destruction since it adds to the formula.

If you wanna see scenario destruction thats actually well made and adds to the game, you can find that in those "game that look like turds" mentioned earlier.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Multiplayer has very clearly shifted from a sports paradigm to a narrative paradigm over the last 5 or so years.

10 years ago, it felt like every big multiplayer game (obviously there are exceptions) just pitted two teams against eachother and said "Have at it. We'll stop the round in 10 minutes and tally up your points."

Call of Duty, Gears of War, Halo, Titanfall, Fifa, Battlefield, Overwatch etc...the list would be nearly endless.

After your 10 minute round, everything resets and players would queue up for the next match which largely plays the same.

The monumental design advancement we've witnessed is multiplayer mirroring the traditional hero's journey we see in narrative games. Players start weak, and build up power over a significantly longer gameplay arc than the old sports model. The odds of victory are significantly more difficult and thereby much more tense and rewarding. You can no longer sit idly by and collect wins because your team carries you.

Rust servers last for weeks.
PUBG matches are 45 minutes long.
Lost Ark takes months to fully level up your character.

It's no longer a sport. It's a story.

I don't want to entertain your first objective because I feel it's unnecessary when examining multiplayer and its growth. Why limit ourselves when studying a topic? The designers creating the next multiplayer phenomenon don't limit themselves in that way. Why should we?

I don't want to entertain your second objective because it seems arbitrary to me. The dinosaurs didn't all go extinct overnight. Mammals didn't all sprout up the next day. However, make no mistake..the era of the dinosaur is over. The era of the mammal is here. This narrative concept in multiplayer is just getting started. The next 5 years is going to be insane with monster hits that improve on the first generation narrative multiplayer.

We are witness to the most important design advancement gaming has seen since 2D to 3D. It really can not be overstated.

Congratulations, you described every online rpg/mmo ever. Those have been around for almost as long as gaming itself. Heck, Lost Ark? The game is essentially Diablo.
They weren't exceptions to the rule either, there were tons of them and they are/were super popular.

Go read on games like Ultima Online or EVE online, the stuff they came up with 20 years ago still whoop the ass of almost every modern MP title.

 

[darrylgorn]

So, I guess Ray Tracing is nothing?

Was looking for this. Quake 2 RTX is a massive improvement over the original and stuff like Cyberpunk 2077 or Metro Exodus are examples of generational leaps imo

 

[Mowcno]

The only one that’s an actual advancement there is BOTW.
Hell GOW 2018 is just the same Zelda OOT formula that ZELDA tp used. Rdr2 is just GTA with horses which is actually just top down GTA from the 90s at its core.

They are better in writing, voice acting, graphics, fluidity, scope of content, Intuitive controls. Anyone that goes back and plays a ps3 game and thinks "this feels the same as modern games except the graphics" has no idea what they are talking about. Game Design HAS changed.

 

[Y0ssarian]

I would say 2009 because that was when Assassin's Creed II & Demon's Souls came out, and now every AAA dev is aping open world games and Dark Souls. Boring

 

[sncvsrtoip]

In terms of core gameplay I think games didnt evelove much since Mafia 1 from 2002, in terms of graphics improved massivly (comparison in op post horizon 1 vs h2 is laughable, diff between games is massive) and we soon will see another jump with end of crossgen era and probably new pro versions of currentgen consoles.

 

[jufonuk]

VR is notably absent here. Unfortunately, not quite as mainstream yet, but it feels like the kind of leap we used to get generation to generation, and Half-Life Alyx might be the best game I’ve played in years…

Yeah it may be, but valve can’t count higher than three.

 

[Shtof]

Cherry picking has not evolved since 2007, either.

 

[Uiki]

Multiplayer has very clearly shifted from a sports paradigm to a narrative paradigm over the last 5 or so years.

It is absolutly the opposite. MMORPGs died, esports are thriving.

 

[TheBROgamer]

Diminishing returns are inevitable.

But what exactly bugs you about today's graphics?

I mean for me, nothing really bugs me. The lack of progress in NPC world realism bugs me more.

But if visuals of today cause you to not like gaming, you could always read a book.
This one is good.

What bugs me about today's graphics is that given the advances in hardware, games should have advanced more than they have .

The advancements made in game design from Doom to Crysis were HUGE, can we really say the same in regards to Crysis - present?

No

 

[yurqqa]

Tetris - destructible environment.
Saint's Row - no destructible environments.

 

[TheBROgamer]

While you are right in that there exists destructible environments in games since 2007/2015, it is a small minority relative to games that don't have it. It's not anywhere near standardized or widely adopted, and the destruction is often severely limited. I enjoy the chaos in Just Cause but even there it's not really ideal. Even in the video you posted you can see only fuel tanks and certain structures can be destroyed, while the majority of buildings remain indestructible. You can, for example, launch the biggest bomb into the middle of the city and the majority of stuff will be sadly unaffected at all. It is frankly a disappointment 4 games into a series about destruction. Crackdown 3 promised so much and delivered so little. Most other games these days... just don't care. You have the occasional indie envelope pusher like Teardown, BeamNG or Mud/Snow runner, but stuff like that rarely ever makes it into the big games, which is what everyone wants but no game does because it requires games to be designed differently.

As to OP's topic, there's a bit of bad faith in there, but they also have a point. Progress has frankly been pretty slow overall. Physics are primitive in most games, lighting is still mostly static, and everything is canned. It's weird to look back at GTA IV's heavy physics simulation and realize most of it still hasn't made it into most open world games. And AI, let's just say I hope that Google conversational AI stuff makes it into games soon.

It's due to devs getting lazy and the focus on profits over passion.

Basically, let's do the minimum amount of work for maximum profits.

That is what gaming is about today, it's no longer about the passion.

I know someone will bring up, what about "indies!"

Indies are fine and all but typically don't have the budget to produce groundbreaking work, on a technical level.

 

[SF Kosmo]

Forget Moore's law, even if Moore's law remains predictive, we see diminishing terms in perceived quality.

For example: The difference between 240p and 480p is VAST, between 480p and 720p is considerable, but each successive leap feels smaller, and the difference between 4K and 8K is negligible for most users, despite requiring a similar power leap.

Similarly, the difference between a model with 50 and 100 polygons is vast, but between a million and two million is slight. As fidelity increases, the perceptual gains diminish.

That said, AI uspcaling is going to effectively end the resolution race. There are disruptive technologies that change things rather than just improving on what's there.

We've definitely seen evolution in games though. Not all of it is technology driven either. Or it's back end stuff, like improved tools. We see bigger, denser open world games than we ever had in the past for example. I don't think you could have done a game like Spider-Man or Cyberpunk in 2007.

 

[TheBROgamer]

These are nice examples but many old games do similar things.







And these are 2 ps2 games and a 2009 game.


wreckfest is nice but it is not exactly a new game, i bought the game in early access like almost 10 years ago when it had a different name.

I want to see something more detailed like the video i posted, i know it's heavy stuff but i want devs to at least try an approximation of that, even if the cpu is nothing to write at home about it's still a MAJOR upgrade over a jaguar (or a ps2 cpu)

 

[Thaedolus]

What bugs me about today's graphics is that given the advances in hardware, games should have advanced more than they have .

The advancements made in game design from Doom to Crysis were HUGE, can we really say the same in regards to Crysis - present?

No

Yes going from faux 3D to a game that could barely run on contemporary dedicated 3D hardware well is going to be a jump… The difference between rendering 1440p and 4K is fairly negligible to my eyes but it is about double the compute cost. Now that games look leaps and bounds better than pre rendered cutscenes from even ten years ago, they’re not going to blow you away generation to generation. Just enjoy the fact you can play what look like real time CG movies these days.

 

[TheBROgamer]

There's so much going on here that needs addressing, like comparing a visual benchmark from 2007 to low effort visuals in Saint's Row from 2022. There's some validation here though and what strikes me the most is indeed the lack of physics and physically-based environment interaction.

Just look at FEAR and how the whole level is reactive and then you have a game like TLOU, part two, mind you, or Gears 5 or Resident Evil remakes and nothing happens when projectiles go off into the environment or other top of the line shooter gameplay.
(not my footage, but the quickest I'd find)


even things like this isn't possible in many modern games:


Then you have Control from a AA studio that does environmental reaction and destructions so good it's in a different league than some AAA shooters. Of course Control is a bit over the top, but then take Quantum Break, which does it a bit more grounded. Even games like Max Payne 3, or going even further back to Max Payne 2, has better reactive physics than some high-polished shooters these days. This is crazy and needs to be addressed by anyone who intends to make an immersive shooter.

The original FEAR to this day still has some of the most advanced gunplay/AI of any FPS, and it came out in 2005.

Literally, CoD is a gen or two behind what FEAR was doing in 2005.

 

[TheBROgamer]

The reason stuff like red faction G or mercenaries stopped being made as frequently is very simple. They suck, a game designed around big explosions crumbling down buildings gets old very quick. A common factor between a lot of the "old gems" that keep being brought up here is that they all were met with generally mixed responses at the time they released. Most devs realized this and stopped making them.

On the other hand, its not like you can just add features like being able to implode buildings in a game like GTA. It breaks continuity, as well as the design they're going for.

The original red faction? One of the biggests criticism it had was that the scenario destruction was basically useless and didn't improve the game in any way, and having played through it myself i can confirm thats the case. Ironically a lot of levels even had indestructible walls because if they didn't you could break the game.

However we still do get the "minor" destruction we saw in the likes of Crysis and Half Life 2 in games like Control, since the purpose is purely for eye candy and doesn't really affect the game design all that much. Military shooters like ARMA and Battlefield also still include scenario destruction since it adds to the formula.

If you wanna see scenario destruction thats actually well made and adds to the game, you can find that in those "game that look like turds" mentioned earlier.

Incorrect, keep drinking that corporate kool-aid LOL.

The reason why devs don't focus on advanced physics is due to ballooning gaming budgets, and visuals being the easier sell.

Consumers care about graphics, and nothing else.

Which is why literal copy & paste games sell millions annually.

Advanced physics + high level graphics is a costly complex endeavor and is avoid for that reason.

How could a game where everything is static, be better than a game that gives the play the ability to interact with the environment?

We aren't even talking full on destructibility here.



Mafia 2 came out in 2010, and is light years beyond most "modern" games.

 

[Raven77]

So, I guess Ray Tracing is nothing?

So far, to me, yeah. Does barely anything (so far) that pre baked reflection maps don't.

I'm sure some people who worship their PCS every night before going to bed will post some crazy screenshots of the one or two games that actually use ray tracing to great effect, but again, so far, ray tracing isn't doing much for the average game and in those games you can barely tell a difference when Ray tracing is enabled.

Prove me wrong!

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Congratulations, you described every online rpg/mmo ever. Those have been around for almost as long as gaming itself. Heck, Lost Ark? The game is essentially Diablo.
They weren't exceptions to the rule either, there were tons of them and they are/were super popular.

Go read on games like Ultima Online or EVE online, the stuff they came up with 20 years ago still whoop the ass of almost every modern MP title.

Nah. There's something very different about Battle Royale and Survival compared to MMORPGS.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

It is absolutly the opposite. MMORPGs died, esports are thriving.

Not according to Steamcharts or XBox Lives Most Played Games. Narrative multiplayer has taken over.

 

[TheBROgamer]

So far, to me, yeah. Does barely anything (so far) that pre baked reflection maps don't.

I'm sure some people who worship their PCS every night before going to bed will post some crazy screenshots of the one or two games that actually use ray tracing to great effect, but again, so far, ray tracing isn't doing much for the average game and in those games you can barely tell a difference when Ray tracing is enabled.

Prove me wrong!

Ray tracing is mainly just reflections at the moment, and does not warrant the 50% performance hit.

 

[Raven77]

Ray tracing is mainly just reflections at the moment, and does not warrant the 50% performance hit.

The difference there is stunning.

I stand erected.

 

[lovetalkgames]

For me, it’s the Ridge Racer V intro on PS2.

 

[Astral Dog]

Like, i agree with diminishing returns in principle yet this is just dumb, of course gamming has evolved since 2007,both visual and gameplay wise.

Visual quality there's a lot they can do today that they couldn't in 2007,Kingdom Hearts 3 is an example of improving tech showing different artsyles, the overall graphics, shading, higher polygon count and cutscene quality help to represent the respective Disney movies, FROM games with their surreal, dark fantasy art look more detailed today thanks to tech advancements, not everything is about showing realism

I can see gameplay design being stagnant a little without any jump in CPU power last generation, as well as slow hard drives, but even then there has been gameplay innovation, heck Breath of the Wild showed impressive physic based puzzles on a Wii U, and while im not fond of most open world games they been improved beyond the seventh generation.

New consoles have barely showed their potential

 

[crazy monkey]

I 1000% agree.

I want gaming to be cheaper not expensive. I would be fine with ps3 or xbox one grade graphics for another 10 to 15 years if it means 100 dollar consoles and 40 dollar games.

Game development uses to be easy. We used to get so many options.


Now it is all about graphics and we get 1 or 2 great games a year.

 

[Boy bawang]

11 years later, Skyrim is still relevant and still doesn't really have competition. This for me is the poster child of diminishing returns. During the 90s or the 2000s, there wouldn't have been a single game with such longevity. We will see how far Starfield goes... But even then, it would have taken Bethesda 12 years to beat their own benchmark.

 

[Uiki]

Not according to Steamcharts or XBox Lives Most Played Games. Narrative multiplayer has taken over.

I don't know what you are on about. You need to add up the third most played game on steam + 9 games under that to reach the same amout of players of cs+dota (team vs team, like the gold old days). And without even leaving out the ones that clearly are not the "hero's journey". The only one in the top 20 you described (loosely) is destiny.
The other one missing and with 10 times the player count of cs... is league of legends.

 

[GymWolf]

The reason stuff like red faction G or mercenaries stopped being made as frequently is very simple. They suck, a game designed around big explosions crumbling down buildings gets old very quick. A common factor between a lot of the "old gems" that keep being brought up here is that they all were met with generally mixed responses at the time they released. Most devs realized this and stopped making them.

On the other hand, its not like you can just add features like being able to implode buildings in a game like GTA. It breaks continuity, as well as the design they're going for.

The original red faction? One of the biggests criticism it had was that the scenario destruction was basically useless and didn't improve the game in any way, and having played through it myself i can confirm thats the case. Ironically a lot of levels even had indestructible walls because if they didn't you could break the game.

However we still do get the "minor" destruction we saw in the likes of Crysis and Half Life 2 in games like Control, since the purpose is purely for eye candy and doesn't really affect the game design all that much. Military shooters like ARMA and Battlefield also still include scenario destruction since it adds to the formula.

If you wanna see scenario destruction thats actually well made and adds to the game, you can find that in those "game that look like turds" mentioned earlier.

Yeah dude but we passed from total distruction to no distruction at all in open world games with buildings and shit.

In infamous 3 you were a freaking super hero and you cant destroy shit, i don't ask to destroy a building but if i throw a granade or a laser ray i expect some destruction...

Destroying some furniture or some piece of wall is not impressive anymore.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I don't know what you are on about.
The other one missing and with a giant player count... is league of legends.

So 7 narrative multiplayer vs 3 sports multiplayer. You really got me there.

Now take a picture of what's popular on console (XBox Live Most Played) and I wonder what we'll see.

 

[Uiki]

So 7 narrative multiplayer vs 3 sports multiplayer. You really got me there.

Now take a picture of what's popular on console (XBox Live Most Played) and I wonder what we'll see.

The first 2 games have more players then the next 9 COMBINED. And this is proving your point... how?

You can give them the definition you want. Doesn't make them "narrative multiplayer", whatever the fuck does that mean.

And even that... means shit all, because lol is pulling the top 100 on steam and more (cs is doing 21mil monthly unique players, lol is doing 150mil...)

I don't know where to check stuff on psn and xbox. Last time I did there was no player count... but it was years ago. Maybe you can post it from that high horse.

edit: L O L

 

[Guilty_AI]

Nah. There's something very different about Battle Royale and Survival compared to MMORPGS.

Well, you described a RPG, even mentioned one.

The monumental design advancement we've witnessed is multiplayer mirroring the traditional hero's journey we see in narrative games. Players start weak, and build up power over a significantly longer gameplay arc than the old sports model. The odds of victory are significantly more difficult and thereby much more tense and rewarding. You can no longer sit idly by and collect wins because your team carries you.

You can even include the later part if the game has PvP.

Survival -> Can be traced back all the way to the early 2000s to sandbox MMOs. Look up Wurm Online, which was in fact where minecraft took inspiration from.

Battle royale -> Last man standing with more waiting and walking, can hardly be called an improvement -> This is actually an interesting story in fact. Technically the first Battle Royales were Minecraft servers inspired in hunger games, all the way back into 2012. In that context it made sense, it mixed minecraft survival mechanics, buildable and destructible enviroments and archaic weaponry in the context of Hunger games.
Then newer 'official' BR games started appearing, and they started simplifying the formula to its lowest common denominator, guns and big maps, becoming a Last Man Standing that liked wasting your time more. BR ironically is a genre that regressed from its original form in terms of design.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Yeah dude but we passed from total distruction to no distruction at all in open world games with buildings and shit.

In infamous 3 you were a freaking super hero and you cant destroy shit, i don't ask to destroy a building but if i throw a granade or a laser ray i expect some destruction...

And as i said, we still have that destruction. Sure you can handpick examples of games with extremely static scenarios, just like i also can pick RAGE from 2013 and compare it with Half Life Alyx to show how much we've progressed in terms of enviromental interaction.

Also, lets not pretend every game from that era was like Mercenaries or Just Cause. Those are very specific examples, not to mention they were generally treated like turds, much like you treat stuff like Teardown, Earth Defense Force and Deep Rock Galactic like turds now.

 

[Roberts]

Late to the party, but…Sea of Thieves. The way waves are handled server-side and influence your strategy while chasing/avoiding other players shouldnt have been possible mere 10 years ago.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Well, you described a RPG, even mentioned one.

You can even include the later part if the game has PvP.

Survival -> Can be traced back all the way to the early 2000s to sandbox MMOs. Look up Wurm Online, which was in fact where minecraft took inspiration from.

Battle royale -> Last man standing with more waiting and walking, can hardly be called an improvement -> This is actually an interesting story in fact. Technically the first Battle Royales were Minecraft servers inspired in hunger games, all the way back into 2012. In that context it made sense, it mixed minecraft survival mechanics, buildable and destructible enviroments and archaic weaponry in the context of Hunger games.
Then newer 'official' BR games started appearing, and they started simplifying the formula to its lowest common denominator, guns and big maps, becoming a Last Man Standing that liked wasting your time more. BR ironically is a genre that regressed from its original form.

VR can be traced all the way back to the 1960s. Then there's Quest, PSVR, Oculus and the tidal wave that's approaching.

3D gaming can be traced back to the early 1980s. Then there's Mario 64, Crash Bandicoot and the tidal wave that came after.

The analogue stick can be traced back to early Atari consoles. Then the N64 controller, the dual shock, and the anologue tidal wave came soon after.

Again, I point you to dinosaur/mammal ages. There was a time when dinosaurs dominated and a few mammals scattered about. Then there was a time when mammals dominated and dinosaurs diminished. Make no mistake, the Jurassic period is over. A new era has arrived.

Just listing off less impactful examples from the past feels like an attempt to obfuscate that multiplayer has seen an incredible and overwhelming change over the last 5 years.

You honestly think PlayStation maintains its single player approach if Overwatch (sports game) is still top Dog? Of course not. The industry witnessed a brilliant revolution in game design and is hurriedly repositioning to take advantage.

 

[Tarin02543]

I hope there will be a video game renaissance still in my lifetime.

 

[Guilty_AI]

VR can be traced all the way back to the 1960s. Then there's Quest, PSVR, Oculus and the tidal wave that's approaching.

3D gaming can be traced back to the early 1980s. Then there's Mario 64, Crash Bandicoot and the tidal wave that came after.

The analogue stick can be traced back to early Atari consoles. Then the N64 controller, the dual shock, and the anologue tidal wave came soon after.

And all those things saw many improvements over time, which goes back to the original point of:

Just listing off less impactful examples from the past feels like an attempt to obfuscate that multiplayer has seen an incredible and overwhelming change over the last 5 years.

What are those changes you speak so highly of? When i asked you answered something about narrative focus and players building their own story instead of 10 minute matches, to which i responded - and showed - that was far from a new thing, but a rather long running standard that has been present for +20 years in the multiplayer world, so that isn't it.
To borrow your 3D comparison, its as if asked someone whats so revolutionary about, say, Far Cry 6, and they answered with "You can move and see in 3 dimensions!!! And you can shoot guns!!!!!"

3D games got larger more interactible worlds after mario 64, more things on screen, new genres, and so on. Same for VR. Analogue sticks got better ergonomics and happened to fit right in with certain types of games.
So, i ask again, and please be more specific this time. What has changed for multiplayer games from a design perspective? Whats so overwhelmingly revolutionary about MP games from the last 5 years that didn't exist 10 years ago?

 

[Fbh]

11 years later, Skyrim is still relevant and still doesn't really have competition. This for me is the poster child of diminishing returns. During the 90s or the 2000s, there wouldn't have been a single game with such longevity. We will see how far Starfield goes... But even then, it would have taken Bethesda 12 years to beat their own benchmark.

Yup, same with stuff like GTAV.
Even some of the very popular contemporary RPG's don't really do anything new.
I love the Witcher 3 but aside from having nice graphics, a lot of content and well written sidequests it has no real innovations in its mechanics and design

 

[Krappadizzle]

You're right. Of course there are small evolutions on it's design that make it worthwhile. You'll not see me deny that. (In an earlier post you see me breakdown why I think things are stagnant with more nuanced points).

What i'm pointing out is specific stagnations in Red Dead 2's design that disappointed me personally. I could list a few more, like: that hard split between instanced mission design with failstates, and the openworld itself. It doesn't mesh or reacts with each other it makes the whole thing feel like a theater play. All these amazing mechanics and systems that barely seem to talk to each other, or have any meaningful player driven consequence, to create interesting emergent moments.

This doesn't mean I don't have sympathies for the development team or admire the work that went into it. I still very much love RDR2, but I can also be critical and see how such an ambitious games still has these same limitations 8 years from RDR1. (Mainly because of lowest common denominator logic when designing your ambitious title for 2012 level hardware, and pushing visuals instead of complex simulations presents/sells better).

The tech jumps you mention are more jump in render and fidelity, which you're absolutely right about. Local ray tracing on consumer hardware is a incredible feat. But personally, i'm kinda over incredible fidelity in games nowadays. I wanna see more granularity in interactivity/reactivity in gameworlds, instead of looking at an incredible world that feels/plays way more dated when I touch it.

I can get behind what you're saying for sure, I just think the title of the O.P. is being a bit melodramatic. I've espoused for a long time that I'm disappointed in the lack of A.I. innovation of the last 15 years or so. We are getting these bland and forgettable games year after year because publishers are full of milksop ass dudes that don't want to take risks, so the few that do, stand out so much. But it's not like it was in the 90's and early/mid 2000's where we were getting brand-new unfathomable experiences that had never been done before. We are just evolving from the templates set by those landmark titles.

Deep Rock Galactic like turds now.

Who dares besmirch Deep Rock Galactic? One of the best co-op games ever made...

 

[skit_data]

Again, I point you to dinosaur/mammal ages. There was a time when dinosaurs dominated and a few mammals scattered about. Then there was a time when mammals dominated and dinosaurs diminished. Make no mistake, the Jurassic period is over. A new era has arrived.

I have no idea what you guys were discussing, I just want to point out avian dinosaurs are still among the most prominent and successful groups on the planet.

 

[Nautilus]

Wii? Switch? VR?

Power is not the only source of innovation

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

And all those things saw many improvements over time, which goes back to the original point of:


What are those changes you speak so highly of? When i asked you answered something about narrative focus and players building their own story instead of 10 minute matches, to which i responded - and showed - that was far from a new thing, but a rather long running standard that has been present for +20 years in the multiplayer world, so that isn't it.

No, narrative multiplayer was not "the standard for +20 years". What a ridiculous statement. It existed sure...lurking in the shadows, figuring out its fundamentals, while games like Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Halo, Fifa, Madden, Call of Duty, and Overwatch set the standard on console. And games like StarCraft, Quake, Unreal Tournament, Counter Strike and League of Legends set the standard on PC. Now...narrative multiplayer designers have figured out enough of the formula to steal the spotlight away from sports multiplayer.

Just like automobiles existed before the Model A. Horse owners in the late 1800s said "Automobiles have existed for +20 years. You're crazy if you think they're a revolution in locomotion. There's nothing new about what Henry Ford is doing!"

To borrow your 3D comparison, its as if asked someone whats so revolutionary about, say, Far Cry 6, and they answered with "You can move and see in 3 dimensions!!! And you can shoot guns!!!!!"

The father of Battle Royale, Brendan Greene was asked what made BR such a phenomenon. He answered it by saying "Because it let's players play how they want."

Surely you can see how BR and Survival games are giving players exponentially more choices to make, choices that cater to player preference, more than the old era multiplayer, right? Picture the gameplay loop of old CoD multiplayer...everyone just runs around like CoD man and tries to out reflex everyone else. There's only one way to play that game. The new era of multiplayer continues to solve that issue more and more.

Don't you ever ask yourself why traditional CoD multiplayer, which had refined itself through 20 years of revisions, got eclipsed by Activisions first attempt at a Battle Royale?

Whats so overwhelmingly revolutionary about MP games from the last 5 years that didn't exist 10 years ago?

You have to answer that yourself. Why have games like PUBG, Fortnite, Apex Legends, and Warzone dominated console gaming in such a ludicrously unprecedented way for the last 5 years? Why are janky, low budget games like Rust, DayZ, and Ark dominating all the big budget arena shooters released over the last 10 years on PC?

You may not like those games, but they very clearly appeal to players in ways old era multiplayer never could. Just wait until wave two arrives.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I have no idea what you guys were discussing, I just want to point out avian dinosaurs are still among the most prominent and successful groups on the planet.

Bird are so dominant we keep them in cages for our amusement.

 

[Krappadizzle]

I have no idea what you guys were discussing, I just want to point out avian dinosaurs are still among the most prominent and successful groups on the planet.

 

[skit_data]

Bird are so dominant we keep them in cages for our amusement.

Yet the seagulls will always be the last ones to laugh