Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

Yet the seagulls will always be the last ones to laugh

Why don't you ever see baby seagulls? We see baby deer, baby rabbits, even baby bears. Where do they keep the baby seagulls?

 

[skit_data]

Why don't you ever see baby seagulls? We see baby deer, baby rabbits, even baby bears. Where do they keep the baby seagulls?

They don’t have a hatchling or adolescent form, they are just born french fries eating, poop-bombing laughing machines of terror

 

[GymWolf]

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.

Not true, i said that they look like turds and not realistic, i had great fun with deep rock, maybe i exagerated when i say that they look like turds, but it was to prove a point when we were talking about realistic graphic.

And i don't really need to cherrypick games with almost no distruction, because they are the majority of them, i made the example of infamous but every open world with a city location is untouchable except for some wood stuff or some stoplights that you can run over with a car or maybe some objects that fly away in the indoors locations.

Sure every now and then we have something nice, but we are really stagnant overall.

 

[tygertrip]

From a fundamental design standpoint: no not really. Do the jumps feel incremental? Absolutely, but that's easily explainable.

From the 90 -> 00's we've seen major strides in technological jumps. With these jumps came new design opportunities to build on.

These incredible tech jumps have been more incremental after the 00's as time goes on, due to:

* Design tropes being more established
* The high cost and risks of production
* The jump to lower clocked multicore CPU and the complexity of simulations running multitreaded.

That's why we see less jumps, but it's not standing still. Simple example: Battle Royal type games could never be possible on 7th gen hardware, without massive compromises.

But yeah, in some cases with more traditional games, it can feel like we're still playing title where the design principles stem from the PS360 days.

The 90s?? Surely you mean the 70s-00s. Some of us were there, and witnessed it.

 

[tygertrip]

I believe that this is where RT is a double edged sword.

On the one hand, it truly adds a new level of immersion to the games when fully added and turned on. On the other, it forces a regression in up-scaling to maintain performance. DLSS and FSR are steps backward if you ask me. Its like a stop gap because AMD nor Nvidia cannot offer up solutions to truly push RT or 4k resolution so their PR teams have been reprogramming the masses to accept up-scaling as a new technology.

Sometimes I am flabbergasted at how the masses are so easily manipulated into conformity.

So, to summarize: "People who don't share my opinion about DLSS are easily manipulated into conformity". Damn bro, slow down on huffing your farts before you OD!

 

[Boy bawang]

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

I would even say that Witcher 3 is a step back on a lot of things compared to Skyrim. Great game nevertheless.

 

[HL3.exe]

The 90s?? Surely you mean the 70s-00s. Some of us were there, and witnessed it.

Yes, but If you read further, i'm clearly referring to design tropes and fundamentals that where discovered in the 90's/00's due to those specific technological leaps (jump van mhz to multiple Ghz CPU's within a couple of years, multicore CPU's, shader models capabilities with GPU's, etc).

Design tropes that we broadly still use to this day.

 

[TheBROgamer]

Yes, but If you read further, i'm clearly referring to design tropes and fundamentals that where discovered in the 90's/00's due to those specific technological leaps (jump van mhz to multiple Ghz CPU's within a couple of years, multicore CPU's, shader models capabilities with GPU's, etc).

Design tropes that we broadly still use to this day.

Correct

 

[Guilty_AI]

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.

Dude, mmos were extremely popular, there were tons of them, enough for you to get sick of, they weren't "lurking in the shadows" they were one the genres at the forefront. Some of those games made back then still run to this day.
They were figuring out mechanics and evolving sure, but you have yet to show me how MP games from the last 5 years have improved on what was achieved back then from a game design perspective.

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."

Battle royale didn't invent the sandbox genre nor emergent gameplay. You wanna know another game that let players play how they want? Daggerfall from 1996. Or, you guessed it, many mmos from the 90s and early 2000s, that was kind of part of their appeal. Oh, how about gmod?

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?

Nope, i genuinely can't see how Fortnite or PUBG gives more freedom and choices to the players than EVE online, or Gmod, or Wurm online, or Daggerfall which also happens to be a single player game (since none of this you're talking about is even MP oriented necessarely).

So, would you kindly explain it? Maybe Fortnite has a system that lets you build your own spells that i'm unaware of, like Daggerfall? Or perhaps there is a huge player driven economy affecting the game world of PUBG like in EVE Online? Oh, maybe Warzone lets me create my own game modes and maps and share it with others, maybe it even lets me make role playing servers! Just like in gmod!

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.

Why do you always coveniently ignore the cases i've been using from the very beginning? M-M-O-s.
"oh they were lurking in the-"
THEY WERE POPULAR, you seem to be under the impression MMOs were this obscure niche only a bunch of underground people knew about. Well, you're wrong.

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?

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.

Dunno, why are singleplayer games using formulas from 15 years still outselling these low budget "revolutionary" games? Have you perhaps ever considered bringing in money and being good aren't always the same?

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Dude, mmos were extremely popular...

Not on consoles they weren't.

Over the last 10 years, MMORPGS have proliferated console gaming. They're getting MORE popular, not less. Narrative multiplayer gains steam while sports multiplayer recedes.

but you have yet to show me how MP games from the last 5 years have improved on what was achieved back then from a game design perspective.

Sports style multiplayer (Goldeneye to Halo) never gave people the tools or incentive to retreat, to set ambushes up, to coordinate with teammates, to socialize, to play according to their own playstyle rather than what the developers wanted. It struggled mightily to create intense matches when everyone wins 50% of the time every 10 minutes. It's very hard to create water cooler moments when everything is based on a short gameplay, highly repetitive loop with no stakes.

Fortnite, Apex Legends, and Warzone became the biggest console games of all time because they began to solve the above problems. Survival games are thriving because players of varying skill levels and playstyle preferences can set their own objectives rather than compete "First to 50 kills wins." MMORPGs have been hot for a long time...precisely because they're not sports multiplayer.

Battle royale didn't invent the sandbox genre nor emergent gameplay. You wanna know another game that let players play how they want? Daggerfall from 1996.

Actually Chess, Checkers, Go, Pacman, Space Invaders all had emergent gameplay before Daggerfall. Daggerfall didn't invent anything.

Or, you guessed it, many mmos from the 90s and early 2000s, that was kind of part of their appeal. Oh, how about gmod?


Nope, i genuinely can't see how Fortnite or PUBG gives more freedom and choices to the players than EVE online, or Gmod, or Wurm online, or Daggerfall which also happens to be a single player game (since none of this you're talking about is even MP oriented necessarely).

You're comparing the wrong genres. Battle Royale killed the arena shooter. Overwatch plummeted in popularity once Fortnite released on console, not...EVE Online, GMod, Daggerfall etc...

So, would you kindly explain it? Maybe Fortnite has a system that lets you build your own spells that i'm unaware of, like Daggerfall? Or perhaps there is a huge player driven economy affecting the game world of PUBG like in EVE Online? Oh, maybe Warzone lets me create my own game modes and maps and share it with others, maybe it even lets me make role playing servers! Just like in gmod!

Again, your comparing the wrong games. You can learn more from studying how similar players react to new genres.

Why do you always coveniently ignore the cases i've been using from the very beginning? M-M-O-s.
"oh they were lurking in the-"
THEY WERE POPULAR, you seem to be under the impression MMOs were this obscure niche only a bunch of underground people knew about. Well, you're wrong.

MMORPGS weren't that popular back then. The market has grown considerably since the mid 1990s. However, MMORPGs do seem to have staying power...BECAUSE THEY'RE NARRATIVE MULTIPLAYER...sports multiplayer is what's struggling now.

Dunno, why are singleplayer games using formulas from 15 years still outselling these low budget "revolutionary" games? Have you perhaps ever considered bringing in money and being good aren't always the same?

Multiplayer has eclipsed single player in popularity, revenue, and cultural impact. A trend that's only going to widen over the next decade.

We can disagree on the above, but you still need to produce a hypothesis why Battle Royale, Survival, 4P Coop, and MMORPGS have been doing so well lately and old era multiplayer has struggled.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Not on consoles they weren't.

Over the last 10 years, MMORPGS have proliferated console gaming. They're getting MORE popular, not less. Narrative multiplayer gains steam while sports multiplayer recedes.

So we're talking about consoles specifically now?

Sports style multiplayer (Goldeneye to Halo) never gave people the tools or incentive to retreat, to set ambushes up, to coordinate with teammates, to socialize, to play according to their own playstyle rather than what the developers wanted. It struggled mightily to create intense matches when everyone wins 50% of the time every 10 minutes. It's very hard to create water cooler moments when everything is based on a short gameplay, highly repetitive loop with no stakes.

Sounds like you haven't played them.

MMORPGs have been hot for a long time...precisely because they're not sports multiplayer.

So we finally agree none of the "new wave" of MP game have really innovated anything.

Actually Chess, Checkers, Go, Pacman, Space Invaders all had emergent gameplay before Daggerfall. Daggerfall didn't invent anything.

The first two, yes. The last three, no.

Difference is, i never claimed it did.

You're comparing the wrong genres. Battle Royale killed the arena shooter. Overwatch plummeted in popularity once Fortnite released on console, not...EVE Online, GMod, Daggerfall etc...

Again, your comparing the wrong games. You can learn more from studying how similar players react to new genres.

So we're talking about specific genres now and not MP as a whole?

MMORPGS weren't that popular back then.

Yes they were.

The market has grown considerably since the mid 1990s. However, MMORPGs do seem to have staying power...BECAUSE THEY'RE NARRATIVE MULTIPLAYER...sports multiplayer is what's struggling now.

Indeed, concepts that have been around for +20 years and have not been improved, revolutionized, much less invented by BR, Survival or whatever. Get it now?

We can disagree on the above, but you still need to produce a hypothesis why Battle Royale, Survival, 4P Coop, and MMORPGS have been doing so well lately and old era multiplayer has struggled.

I already did. Just go back to some of my loaded questions and you'll start figuring how some of the extremely popular titles can make so much money. Hint: nothing to do with revolutionizing game design, everything to do with "revolutionizing" bussiness design.

Now tell me, whats the design purpose of limited-time skin sales?
Whats the design purpose of paid in-game currencies sold at packages?
Why do those packages give you an amount of coin just slightly below that of certain items?
Whats the design purpose of paid battle passes that give you a time limit to get their unlockables?
Whats the design purpose of daily challenges/objectives?
Whats the design purpose of limited time in-game events?
Whats the design purpose of gacha mechanics?

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I already did. Just go back to some of my loaded questions and you'll start figuring how some of the extremely popular titles can make so much money. Hint: nothing to do with revolutionizing game design, everything to do with "revolutionizing" bussiness design.

OK, so here's where your argument falls apart.

Old era multiplayer has copied modern payment models...and it never saves them.

It was never about the payment model. Game design has simply advanced at an absurd rate in multiplayer.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

good luck implementing that on a RTX 3090 too, this isn't real time. And even if it was, its still a major waste of resources and not worth implementing.

This is what they need for overcooked 3 to feel next gen!

 

[TheBROgamer]

Not true, i said that they look like turds and not realistic, i had great fun with deep rock, maybe i exagerated when i say that they look like turds, but it was to prove a point when we were talking about realistic graphic.

And i don't really need to cherrypick games with almost no distruction, because they are the majority of them, i made the example of infamous but every open world with a city location is untouchable except for some wood stuff or some stoplights that you can run over with a car or maybe some objects that fly away in the indoors locations.

Sure every now and then we have something nice, but we are really stagnant overall.

What are the specs of your rig?

 

[Haggard]

I believe that this is where RT is a double edged sword.

On the one hand, it truly adds a new level of immersion to the games when fully added and turned on. On the other, it forces a regression in up-scaling to maintain performance. DLSS and FSR are steps backward if you ask me. Its like a stop gap because AMD nor Nvidia cannot offer up solutions to truly push RT or 4k resolution so their PR teams have been reprogramming the masses to accept up-scaling as a new technology.

Sometimes I am flabbergasted at how the masses are so easily manipulated into conformity.

Sometimes I'm flabbergasted how people with obviously little to no understanding of a technology still have such strong opinions about it.

 

[ResetEraVetVIP]

Here is an example of diminishing returns in terms of graphics, and how 2007 set the standard for modern gaming as we know it.

Doom - 1993

Crysis - 2007 (14 YEARS LATER, destructible environments)

World In Conflict - 2007 (14 YEARS LATER, destructible environments/terrain deformation)

Saints Row - 2022 (15 YEARS LATER, NO destructible environments or terrain deformation)

Can anyone really say the rate of progress of the prior years, has kept up post PS360 era?

Compare the 14 year jump from Doom in 1993 to Crysis and World In Conflict which released in 2007, 14 years later.

Now compare the jump from Crysis and World In Conflict, to Saints Row 2022 (15 years later).

*Nvidia CEO, stated that Moore's Law is dead.*

"The long-held notion that the processing power of computers increases exponentially every couple of years has hit its limit, according to Jensen Huang."

https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/moores-law-is-dead-nvidias-ceo-jensen-huang-says-at-ces-2019/

The comparison below represents a generation apart, PS4 on left/PS5 on right.

That is the definition of diminishing returns and why the gen to gen jump, has been minimizing.

The problem is greed, money and laziness.…companies want multi platform games…they don’t use the power of the hardware…

 

[ResetEraVetVIP]

good luck implementing that on a RTX 3090 too, this isn't real time. And even if it was, its still a major waste of resources and not worth implementing.

This will be the normal next gen…but as of now its too high fidelity to implement as of now…

 

[TheBROgamer]

This is video highlights the regression on what game have become, editor within the game itself.

 

[TheBROgamer]

The problem is greed, money and laziness.…companies want multi platform games…they don’t use the power of the hardware…

Correct, and we should not be okay with this.

 

[gatti-man]

Because it turns out it's not such a fun mechanic in most cases. In Bad Company 2 after a few minutes you can level the entire map flat and the game becomes a chore to play. Subsequent battlefield games limited how much destruction you could have even though they could easily do the same, it just wasn't fun.

Bad company 2 had some of the best MP of the series on PC.

 

[Guilty_AI]

OK, so here's where your argument falls apart.

Old era multiplayer has copied modern payment models...and it never saves them.

It was never about the payment model. Game design has simply advanced at an absurd rate in multiplayer.

Its not just payment models themselves like MTX and DLC, its how they're designed and implemented. In fact, its not just about monetization either, there are tons of tricks to keep players logging in as often as possible in order to increase the chances of him buying stuff on the in-game store, or just exploiting FOMO and the need for social expression.

Another huge factor that differentiates a hugely successful MP title from a failed one is how often they chug out content, like new skins, missions, maps, monthly battle passes, etc; others might simply push grind to absurd levels, though it might not work if done poorly. Very few MP games are capable of keeping players engaged without the need to constantly give out carrots to be chased, ironically many of them are the "outdated" stuff like the CSs or MOBAs.

Here, i'll answer my own questions to give you a better idea:

Now tell me, whats the design purpose of limited-time skin sales?

Get players to spend money by giving them a sense of urgency to buy something or they'll "lose it". AKA FOMO.

Whats the design purpose of paid in-game currencies sold at packages?

Muddle the real value of the money, so you never realize just how much you're spending on the game

Why do those packages give you an amount of coin just slightly below that of certain items?

Obviously to inspire you to buy even more packages when you want certain items, so theres always some extra v-bucks left in your wallet.
Those extras credits might even inspire you to spend even more money in the future.

Whats the design purpose of paid battle passes that give you a time limit to get their unlockables?

First of all, FOMO, if you don't pay that monthly fee you'll feel as though you're losing out on content.
Secondly, drive up engagement, aka get you to login to the game as often as possible, because you don't want to 'miss' the stuff you're paying for, and increase the chances of having you spend something on the in-game store.

Whats the design purpose of daily challenges/objectives?

Again, get players to login to the game as often as possible, increase the chances of purchasing items.

Whats the design purpose of limited time in-game events?

Same as the above. And they often come with a 'festival mood' and "limited items" that are sure to loosen up your wallet.

Whats the design purpose of gacha mechanics?

Do i need to explain? Create gambling addictions.

==//==

You might point out some of this stuff isn't really new either, and you'd be right. But thats the thing, thats the "revolution" modern MP games brought about that made them such a lucrative endeavor. It isn't because they're fun, it isn't because they're good, it isn't because they're revolutionary as games.
Its because they managed to refine and perfect the art of monetization.
They also realized the most efficient ways to "engage" the players. Not by being entertaining products, but by creating a habit out of them.

What is the perfect description for Fortnite?
A Game? No.
A Battle royale? No.
A Social media? Also No
Fortnite is a store. A store with a semi-game semi-social media attached.

Thats what these "new wave" multiplayer games, as you're calling them, are.

 

[Himuro]

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.

Wow Mafia II looks incredible. Gaming really did peak in the ps360 era despite me preferring the ps2 era.

 

[timmyp53]

For some reason I read this thread title as "Gambling has not evolved".

 

[Red Crayon Aristocrat]

Graphics are definitely way better now than 2007, compare say Witcher 1, 2, 3 and Cyberpunk 2077 maxed out on PC, all from the same dev, using Saints Row 2022 is cheating because it's just a shit game.

That said it's not like the quantum leaps from 1993 to 2007, no.

80s, 90s and 00s was a special time with a special kind of magic that seems to have been lost, ever notice how a lot of things kind of froze around 2007, not just games?

 

[Sosokrates]

It is a bit disappointing that a game like shenmue has not progressed to much.

I loved the 2nd life style simulation thing shenmue had. Going to work and working everyday, then going back home, u ate and earned money, it felt immersive and like experiencing someone else's life.

I suppose RDR2 did a lot of things like this where you had to hunt food, build house in mini qte mini game, transport your family, do farm chores etc
But they are still very similar to shenmue in there execution the tasks are not more complex then shenmues.

I was hoping last gen that instead of just a big story based games following the latest trends that a Dev would go smaller and really try making a game extremely detailed. Less limitations really.

It's like games are like a simpler form of the matrix, with a lot more rules. I want a game with less rules.
I guess it's incredible hard, even making a game which is just a person in a average living room and you can do anything apart from harm yourself or get naked. Even picking up objects and smashing them then piling up the debris and making a little mound of broken plate would be very hard. So maybe limitations like that would be a good limitation. Maybe an open game where there is a fully functioning economy most NPCs have jobs, if you kill all the garbage pick up guys, rubbish starts mounting up etc
It's kind of depressing when we think about how little progress the industry has made in terms of simulation. Most games are still orchestrated theme park rides.
I guess VR could help in some ways on this aspect, recently I've been playing cooking simulator, and i was quite impressed by how well it simulated the feeling of cooking in a real commercial kitchen and how many different ingredients and cooking methods there are, however the interface is still not very realistic and so are the visuals, VR could help make some actions more natural, but there needs to be a lot more work in the animations hit detections and visuals, and no publisher is going spend 10s of millions on a cooking simulator

 

[iQuasarLV]

Sometimes I'm flabbergasted how people with obviously little to no understanding of a technology still have such strong opinions about it.

Two console generations of pushback (X360/PS3 and XBone/PS4) over upscaling, and now just about everyone is sucking on the teat of GPU vendors selling it as the next greatest thing since sliced bread. Hypocritical much. Take your ass and suck on that PR cock some more. Just remember, that is not milk you are swallowing.

For the rest talking about predatory monetary practices in the industry here is a primer on the context of why shit started going downhill around 2007.


One seemingly innocent piece of DLC basically gave the OK for an entire industry to start abusing the pocketbooks of any consumer willing to look their way.

 

[ShinFuYux]

Right now, all sandbox games are trying to surpass RDR2.

That game set a new standard in terms of gameplay, graphics and story telling.

No one has surpassed it or even achieved to that level, yet...

 

[TheBROgamer]

It is a bit disappointing that a game like shenmue has not progressed to much.

I loved the 2nd life style simulation thing shenmue had. Going to work and working everyday, then going back home, u ate and earned money, it felt immersive and like experiencing someone else's life.

I suppose RDR2 did a lot of things like this where you had to hunt food, build house in mini qte mini game, transport your family, do farm chores etc
But they are still very similar to shenmue in there execution the tasks are not more complex then shenmues.

I was hoping last gen that instead of just a big story based games following the latest trends that a Dev would go smaller and really try making a game extremely detailed. Less limitations really.

It's like games are like a simpler form of the matrix, with a lot more rules. I want a game with less rules.
I guess it's incredible hard, even making a game which is just a person in a average living room and you can do anything apart from harm yourself or get naked. Even picking up objects and smashing them then piling up the debris and making a little mound of broken plate would be very hard. So maybe limitations like that would be a good limitation. Maybe an open game where there is a fully functioning economy most NPCs have jobs, if you kill all the garbage pick up guys, rubbish starts mounting up etc
It's kind of depressing when we think about how little progress the industry has made in terms of simulation. Most games are still orchestrated theme park rides.
I guess VR could help in some ways on this aspect, recently I've been playing cooking simulator, and i was quite impressed by how well it simulated the feeling of cooking in a real commercial kitchen and how many different ingredients and cooking methods there are, however the interface is still not very realistic and so are the visuals, VR could help make some actions more natural, but there needs to be a lot more work in the animations hit detections and visuals, and no publisher is going spend 10s of millions on a cooking simulator

It's crazy how Shenmue 3 had less content and gameplay than it's predecessor that pre-dated it, by nearly 20 years.

 

[64bitmodels]

Was looking for this. Quake 2 RTX is a massive improvement over the original

No way, Quake 2 RTX completely fucking shits all over the atmosphere the original game was meaning to establish, and overbrightens the game to a point where every little inch of suspense and darkness has been completely scrubbed out of the game. Darkplaces does a better job of enhancing lighting while keeping the game's atmosphere

 

[Alan Wake]

I'm fine with the graphics standard, I want to see progress in other areas. Like script, character development and voice acting. Very few cation or adventure games have a really well written story to begin with.

 

[darrylgorn]

No way, Quake 2 RTX completely fucking shits all over the atmosphere the original game was meaning to establish, and overbrightens the game to a point where every little inch of suspense and darkness has been completely scrubbed out of the game. Darkplaces does a better job of enhancing lighting while keeping the game's atmosphere

I never had the impression it was too bright and I've played Quake 2 XP which is based on the darkplaces version.

I really enjoy the reflections and dynamic lighting of the RTX version. Also, the updated gun models and the way the strogg guns are illuminated in the dark is really cool.

I think there's a digital foundry comparison out there by Alex Battaglia which shows off how the global illumination works.

 

[Feel Like I'm On 42]

That chubby Aloy face always get me.

But you can blame consoles. Around that time was when consoles became really popular, and that made devs develop more games focused on consoles, limiting their potential.

Consoles were still the more popular platform in the 90's-2006 so not sure what you mean

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Its not just payment models themselves like MTX and DLC, its how they're designed and implemented. In fact, its not just about monetization either, there are tons of tricks to keep players logging in as often as possible in order to increase the chances of him buying stuff on the in-game store, or just exploiting FOMO and the need for social expression.

Another huge factor that differentiates a hugely successful MP title from a failed one is how often they chug out content, like new skins, missions, maps, monthly battle passes, etc; others might simply push grind to absurd levels, though it might not work if done poorly. Very few MP games are capable of keeping players engaged without the need to constantly give out carrots to be chased, ironically many of them are the "outdated" stuff like the CSs or MOBAs.

Here, i'll answer my own questions to give you a better idea:


Get players to spend money by giving them a sense of urgency to buy something or they'll "lose it". AKA FOMO.


Muddle the real value of the money, so you never realize just how much you're spending on the game


Obviously to inspire you to buy even more packages when you want certain items, so theres always some extra v-bucks left in your wallet.
Those extras credits might even inspire you to spend even more money in the future.


First of all, FOMO, if you don't pay that monthly fee you'll feel as though you're losing out on content.
Secondly, drive up engagement, aka get you to login to the game as often as possible, because you don't want to 'miss' the stuff you're paying for, and increase the chances of having you spend something on the in-game store.


Again, get players to login to the game as often as possible, increase the chances of purchasing items.


Same as the above. And they often come with a 'festival mood' and "limited items" that are sure to loosen up your wallet.


Do i need to explain? Create gambling addictions.

==//==

You might point out some of this stuff isn't really new either, and you'd be right. But thats the thing, thats the "revolution" modern MP games brought about that made them such a lucrative endeavor. It isn't because they're fun, it isn't because they're good, it isn't because they're revolutionary as games.
Its because they managed to refine and perfect the art of monetization.
They also realized the most efficient ways to "engage" the players. Not by being entertaining products, but by creating a habit out of them.

What is the perfect description for Fortnite?
A Game? No.
A Battle royale? No.
A Social media? Also No
Fortnite is a store. A store with a semi-game semi-social media attached.

Thats what these "new wave" multiplayer games, as you're calling them, are.

We can actually look at recent examples to show us your hypothesis is incorrect.

Fortnite launched with no Battle Pass and no MTX. It was just a vanilla *** vanilla game from September 26th 2017 to December 13th 2017. The result...






https://www.gamepur.com/news/fortnite-battle-royale-45-million-players

Overwatch on the other hand had all those greedy loot boxes that were so addictive governments banned them, FOMO events, skins, emotes etc....The result? Fortnite ate its lunch.

in fact, you can look at a number of highly successful modern games that launched with low expectations and therefore zero greedy MTX you describe and they all blow up based on the strength of their game design. PUBG launched with nothing. Everyone loved it. Valheim launched with nothing. Everyone loved it.

There are also a number of recent examples of games launching fully ready to exploit people based on your greedy monetization claims that go belly up immediately.

Remember Roller Champions? Or Knockout City? Or Lawbreakers? Or Halo Infinite? Or traditional CoD multiplayer?

All of those games did the greedy, evil, mind control stuff you hate...and they all crashed and burned because they sucked now that multiplayer has advanced. All happen to be "sports multiplayer" too huh? Who could have guessed...

Your conspiracy theory doesn't withstand any degree of examination. Quality game design trumps meaningless cosmetic and FOMO BS. Always will.

 

[GymWolf]

What are the specs of your rig?

I have to upgrade the whole thing when series 4000 is gonna be out, for now i'm stuck with a 2070 super.

 

[rofif]

There are good examples. Look at tlou2. Incredible graphics, animations, emotions and story that that stuns and takes you for an emotional ride. And you can see the struggle in characters.
The gameplay is too notch too. Fluid mix of stealth and action through seamless levels.

Or death stranding. Game that actually tried a lot of new stuff and got bombed for it just like tlou2.

People don’t want anything different. They prefer same old apparently. That’s why we don’t evolve too much. Because evolution is risky and games cost too much to make.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Big Improvements
- Graphics
- Resolution
- Online (modes, communication)
- If you like open world and battle royale games
- Anything system or OS related (load times, apps, Twitch integration)

So-so improvements (assuming you got decent audio gear)
- Audio, with all the Dolby this and Tempest 3D that

Zero improvements
- AI
- Physics and destruction unless it's a Battlefield game

 

[Moses85]

Buy a VR Headset..even PSVR will evolve your gaming experience

In general AI must do a huge step forward

 

[StreetsofBeige]

If you want to see diminishing returns and the smallest improvements ever in a franchise over 10 years, compare gameplay of NHL 12 to NHL 22.

 

[supernova8]

If you want to see diminishing returns and the smallest improvements ever in a franchise over 10 years, compare gameplay of NHL 12 to NHL 22.

I'd imagine sales volume for NHL titles is miniscule compared to Madden and FIFA so they just couldn't be bothered.

Also it's hilarious how EA Sports gave up on NBA Live from 2018 after getting rocked by NBA 2K ever year. Just goes to show they're not interested in actually innovating and just want money spinners. I guess NBA 2K also kinda looks a bit samey now but I can let them off given the gigantic visual jump that started a few years back in terms of visuals and animations.

I would love 2K to get the FIFA license so that they can embarrass "EA Sports FC".

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I'd imagine sales volume for NHL titles is miniscule compared to Madden and FIFA so they just couldn't be bothered.

Also it's hilarious how EA Sports gave up on NBA Live from 2018 after getting rocked by NBA 2K ever year. Just goes to show they're not interested in actually innovating and just want money spinners. I guess NBA 2K also kinda looks a bit samey now but I can let them off given the gigantic visual jump that started a few years back in terms of visuals and animations.

I would love 2K to get the FIFA license so that they can embarrass "EA Sports FC".

A shame since there were giant strides in NHL improvements going from 06 to Id say NHL 11.

I’m not a bball player but dabbled with demos of 2k and some of the old ass EA basketball games. Call me crazy but I’d didn’t think the EA games were bad at all. 2k just seemed a bit more polished but I wouldn’t say they were giant leaps from what I saw or played.

Then again I wouldn’t know since I’m not an expert basketball gamer.

 

[TheBROgamer]

Graphics are definitely way better now than 2007, compare say Witcher 1, 2, 3 and Cyberpunk 2077 maxed out on PC, all from the same dev, using Saints Row 2022 is cheating because it's just a shit game.

That said it's not like the quantum leaps from 1993 to 2007, no.

80s, 90s and 00s was a special time with a special kind of magic that seems to have been lost, ever notice how a lot of things kind of froze around 2007, not just games?

Elaborate a bit more that comment?

 

[TheBROgamer]

Consoles were still the more popular platform in the 90's-2006 so not sure what you mean

Consoles were more popular but the power gap between consoles and PC were more significant, at the time.

For example, Battlefield 2 had 64 players in 2005.

Don't think any console until the the Xbox One or the PS4 had the capabilities of pulling that off.

Devs (albeit a declining number) still focused on putting their most high-end game on PC. Crysis for example is one of them, although that was one of the last tech pushing AAA PC exclusives.

 

[TheBROgamer]

I have to upgrade the whole thing when series 4000 is gonna be out, for now i'm stuck with a 2070 super.

Still a pretty nice card, but a 4000 series will definitely be a good upgrade for sure.

 

[TheBROgamer]

If you want to see diminishing returns and the smallest improvements ever in a franchise over 10 years, compare gameplay of NHL 12 to NHL 22.

This applies to most sport games, a majority of them are copy & paste roster updates.

 

[lyan]

It's crazy how Shenmue 3 had less content and gameplay than it's predecessor that pre-dated it, by nearly 20 years.

To be fair it probably had a lot smaller budget on actual content and gameplay systems.

 

[Ozzie666]

I somewhat agree overall. We do have small AI improvements and physics. But most improvements are graphical. The main thing now is gaming is connected, through on-line, through socials whatever. We are also in the micro transaction kill the customer phase. Business would call that improvement. Costs and risk are becoming the governing factor more so than ever, we are actually losing features one would expect. Look no further than Halo Infinite, Madden, NHL, Nintendo Sport titles. In some aspects gaming is losing its innocence and going backward. Hopefully new experiences like VR can become mainstream. At this rate AAA games will be for the 1% of the world.

 

[anthraticus]

2006 was right around the beginning of the great decline/rise of the brainless AAA 'trying to appeal to everybody and their grandmas' era. The new gens of kids who grew up with that shit didn't know any better and all the longtime fans wouldn't get any relief until the rise of digital distribution, steam, etc... (probably around 2013 or so) enabling the studios who made games for actual enthusiasts, be able to get stuff out to the public.

 

[Guilty_AI]

We can actually look at recent examples to show us your hypothesis is incorrect.

Fortnite launched with no Battle Pass and no MTX. It was just a vanilla *** vanilla game from September 26th 2017 to December 13th 2017. The result...

So? It "evolved" to include all those things. And we have no shortage of games that had great popularity at first but declined later, especially among F2P ones.

Overwatch on the other hand had all those greedy loot boxes that were so addictive governments banned them, FOMO events, skins, emotes etc....The result? Fortnite ate its lunch.

...and went on to include those things all the same .

in fact, you can look at a number of highly successful modern games that launched with low expectations and therefore zero greedy MTX you describe and they all blow up based on the strength of their game design. PUBG launched with nothing. Everyone loved it. Valheim launched with nothing. Everyone loved it.

Naturally. If the first thing people see when they go on to try a game is a bunch things trying to get their money, they'll be put off.

You have to be smart about the timing, get people into the game first, develop an habit in them. Then, slowly, start implementing egregious methods of monetization, trickling them down one after the other, once people already developed an habit of playing the game and have a harder time letting go. Its all part of the "perfecting and refining" of monetization i spoke of before.

All of those games did the greedy, evil, mind control stuff you hate...and they all crashed and burned because they sucked now that multiplayer has advanced. All happen to be "sports multiplayer" too huh? Who could have guessed...

Its just that Fortnite did all those evil, mind control stuff i hate more cunningly, and that makes me hate it even more than the others.

Your conspiracy theory doesn't withstand any degree of examination. Quality game design trumps meaningless cosmetic and FOMO BS. Always will.

Its not conspiracy theory. People in mobile game dev talk about the stuff i said before all the time, openly.
Ever saw this very infamous video which has nowhere near enough views?




If you ever wondered how mobile games make so much money despite being the least innovative stuff you can find (something that furthers proves my point in fact), theres the reason.
And guess one company that managed to successfully implement a lot of of these "new ideas" into the pc and console market?

 

[Chronicle]

I can agree with this TS. Especially with Sports franchises.

 

[Tomeru]

VR would like a word with op.