Support NeoGAF

[orthodoxy1095]

Is valuing depth the same as valuing mechanics?

I'm not sure that it is, but whatever the case, that's what I feel like I'm missing these days.

 

[Durante]

That greatly depends on whether you define "the industry" as a handful of heavily advertised AAA games a year, or the totality of games being produced in the medium.

I mean, just a few hours ago Dungeon Rats was announced, and I very much expect that to be a game mechanics > everything title.

 

[Neoleo2143]

Is valuing depth the same as valuing mechanics?

I'm not sure that it is, but whatever the case, that's what I feel like I'm missing these days.

Depth is the utilization of mechanics to produce the intended emotion whether it be nervousness, elation or simple joy. To put it in writing terms, Mechanics are like sentences and sentence structures, depth is what all those words mean.

Thus your concern is that while mechanics are there, they're not being developed enough (through level design and what not) to elicit the proper emotions from the audience.

 

[Hypron]

Not really.
Focusing on what I like while ignoring the rest is easy.

This. There are enough games that I like that come out to keep me occupied (I'm quite a completionist so it also helps). I don't even play everything that interests me because I don't have enough hours in the day.

 

[Auto-Reply]

Maybe, but honestly, the mass market (the one the industry has it's attention on) never really valued game mechanics to the degree that would have made them a priority for developers/publishers. At least not after the 32bit generation. So I'm not sure if there is someone to blame, I kinda dread the triple A'ification of games in general. I love good graphics and high quality presentation etc but it often comes at the expense of great gameplay, not always but more than I'm able to endure.
The importance placed on mimicking choreographed action scenes from movies is a real turn off to me. It mostly feels like playing a glorified qte cutscene in disguise.

Then there is the automatic traversal, running/jumping/grabbing onto stuff has all become meaningless. You basically press forward on the gamepad and that's it.
I thought that was an improvement back in the early Assassins Creed 1 days when you could parcour your way effortlessly over rooftops... but now I think we have lost more than we gained from that.

I guess theres a popular crowd that still values game mechanics over everything elses, the online mp shooter.... which is something I don't like at all.
Maybe I should just have written "Yes!".

 

[Shaanyboi]

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

As... like... your only gaming machine? Because that would be incredibly narrow-minded. No one's saying your only options are Uncharted-style cinematic action games.

 

[BlindJesus]

Is valuing depth the same as valuing mechanics?

I'm not sure that it is, but whatever the case, that's what I feel like I'm missing these days.

Not necessarily. To make a (controversial)point, look at Skyrim. It has a myriad of mechanics: picking locks, crafting spells and weapons, manipulating NPCs, variety of combat styles, alchemy and more. But do these mechanics really change the users experience? Does breaking into someone's house actually cause consequences? Are there an abundance of enemies that can only be defeated by weapons/spells that were made specifically made for them? Are there events/quests that can only be activated after a specific set of choices, or is everything pretty much accessible regardless of how you play?

I like to think of gameplay depth as 'how much will my actions manipulate the game?' There are a ton of games out there that offer a giant checklist of gameplay mechanics/features, but it doesnt really affect the game in a meaningful way. I'll rag on one of my favorite games this year as an example, Deus Ex MD. Does offering the player a huge new selection of augmentations actually change the game for the better? How does being able to knock somebody out in a slightly different, easier way actually improve the game? It doesn't, it's just fluff. And it's a big problem with games nowadays. Developers(or pubs demanding it in the AAA scene) are adding so many features and options, that by the end of the day, they end up obfuscating their game designs into 'jack of all trades, master of none.'

 

[More_Badass]

Not necessarily. To make a (controversial)point, look at Skyrim. It has a myriad of mechanics: picking locks, crafting spells and weapons, manipulating NPCs, variety of combat styles, alchemy and more. But do these mechanics really change the users experience? Does breaking into someone's house actually cause consequences? Are there an abundance of enemies that can only be defeated by weapons/spells that were made specifically made for them? Are there events/quests that can only be activated after a specific set of choices, or is everything pretty much accessible regardless of how you play?

I like to think of gameplay depth as 'how much will my actions manipulate the game?' There are a ton of games out there that offer a giant checklist of gameplay mechanics/features, but does it doesnt really affect the game in a meaningful way. I'll rag on one of my favorite games this year as an example, Deus Ex MD. Does offering the player a huge new selection of augmentations actually change the game for the better? How does being able to knock somebody out in a slightly different, easier way actually improve the game? It doesn't, it's just fluff. And it's a big problem with games nowadays. Developers(or pubs demanding it in the AAA scene) are adding so many features and options, that by the end of the day, they end up obfuscating their game designs into 'jack of all trades, master of none.'

Which is why I'm excited for the recent trend of immersive sims. System Shock 3, Consortium, Copper Dreams, Age of Decadence, etc.

 

[patapuf]

Not necessarily. To make a (controversial)point, look at Skyrim. It has a myriad of mechanics: picking locks, crafting spells and weapons, manipulating NPCs, variety of combat styles, alchemy and more. But do these mechanics really change the users experience? Does breaking into someone's house actually cause consequences? Are there an abundance of enemies that can only be defeated by weapons/spells that were made specifically made for them? Are there events/quests that can only be activated after a specific set of choices, or is everything pretty much accessible regardless of how you play?

I like to think of gameplay depth as 'how much will my actions manipulate the game?' There are a ton of games out there that offer a giant checklist of gameplay mechanics/features, but it doesnt really affect the game in a meaningful way. I'll rag on one of my favorite games this year as an example, Deus Ex MD. Does offering the player a huge new selection of augmentations actually change the game for the better? How does being able to knock somebody out in a slightly different, easier way actually improve the game? It doesn't, it's just fluff. And it's a big problem with games nowadays. Developers(or pubs demanding it in the AAA scene) are adding so many features and options, that by the end of the day, they end up obfuscating their game designs into 'jack of all trades, master of none.'

Deus ex is a fantastic example of a game giving you systems, an objective, tools and says: Go.

So called immersive sims are fantastic gamedesign and Deus ex is a pretty good one of those. Are some takedown animations superflous? sure, but overall it's pretty well designed. And yes, having a wide range of augmentations is beneficial to these kinds of games. Thief, System Shock, Deus ex, Dishonored, Hitman, all thrive on big levels with lots of different ways to play them.

 

[More_Badass]

Deus ex is a fantastic example of a game giving you systems, an objective, tools and says: Go.

So called immersive sims are fantastic gamedesign and Deus ex is a pretty good one of those. Are some takedown animations superflous? sure, but overall it's pretty well designed.

That's not the same as the kind of meaningful role playing he's talking about. Restrictions offer more effective RPG-ness than an open playground of systems.

 

[Greddleok]

There's so much out there for the "mechanics over story" focussed gamer.

Last year we had MGSV and Bloodborne on PS4. There was Super Mario Maker and Splatoon on WiiU and myriad indie games.

This year I've been grabbed by mechanics focussed games like Hyper Light Drifter, DOOM and Overwatch (albeit not single player).

I guess I see the argument that we're losing games with a mechanics focus similar to the Gamergate sort of thing, where they suggest that we're losing games that are "traditional AAA games." Nothing is being lost, there's just a lot more diversity. Mechanics, narrative, audiovisual spectacle, weird art games and nostalgia inspired fan projects.

There's space in the industry for everything, the explosion of the indie market proves that.

 

[Producer]

If what i played consisted of mainly AAA games then i'd probably feel this way.

 

[patapuf]

That's not the same as the kind of meaningful role playing he's talking about. Restrictions offer more effective RPG-ness than an open playground of systems.

I don't really consider Deus ex an RPG though. For me it's more like hitman or dishonored where the core of the game is manipulating the environment directly and interacting with AI is the core of the way.

Limiting your tools too much in regards to skills doesn't improve that kind of experience imo. Limiting things like the energy meter would be more interesting.

 

[danmaku]

The industry is passing you by because you're focused on a small subset of the industry and you stubbornly refuse to take a look elsewhere.

 

[EGM1966]

Sort of.

I think AAA gaming and big blockbuster games have been sacrificing mechanics for accessibility and ensuring more people feel they can "beat" the game.

I think the idea cinematic games are to blame is a red herring. People always love a story. it's part of our species. And game engines allow people to tell a story. There have always been story driven games and there always will be. They're not really the actual influence and I'll note cinematic games can still be as tough or have as good mechanics as non-cinematic.

The issue is rising cost to develop, increase in addressable market and increase in competition. That means you want your big expensive game to appeal as broadly as possible and that almost certainly means a different balance for challenge and mechanics, one that pushes ease of ability over challenge.

And that trend probably kicked in a while back as the market grew but I feel this gen you can really see its effects.

That said I feel just with PC/PS4 (and Wii U and XB1 and other options expand beyond even that) that there remains plenty of games focusing on mechanics.

 

[More_Badass]

Sort of.

I think AAA gaming and big blockbuster games have been sacrificing mechanics for accessibility and ensuring more people feel they can "beat" the game.

I think the idea cinematic games are to blame is a red herring. People always love a story. it's part of our species. And game engines allow people to tell a story. There have always been story driven games and there always will be. They're not really the actual influence and I'll note cinematic games can still be as tough or have as good mechanics as non-cinematic.

The issue is rising cost to develop, increase in addressable market and increase in competition. That means you want your big expensive game to appeal as broadly as possible and that almost certainly means a different balance for challenge and mechanics, one that pushes ease of ability over challenge.

Kind of why I'm so intrigued by Last Guardian. You get your cinematic platforming and collapsing set pieces, but with an form of storytelling not usually seen in bigger budget games; minimalism, granduer, visual storytelling, gameplay-driven storytelling come first in a Team Ico game

 

[AudioEppa]

I'm the complete opposite of you OP. I don't value gameplay with single player anymore, or maybe I never did. Before I experienced my first story heavy game I just played whatever, didn't matter what I just played until I got bored, never completed anything. Did I have 'fun'? Of course. But to keep it 100%, if there wasn't cinematic games a long time ago I probably wouldn't be playing games right now.

As a product child of metal gear solid. This industry pushing for cinematic storytelling with gameplay built around it was the best thing that has ever happened. Year over year these kinds of games get me more excited than movies, never cared about any book not called EGM and it's pretty much tied with my love for tv shows.

But like I always say this industry has so much for everybody, yet always someone highlights a few AAA developers who choose not to make games to THERE liking and then somehow it's a problem and the future of gaming is in jeopardy of crushing one of those days without "real games".. No it's not lol

At the end of day the general population of gamers decide what they want to play and where they want to play for themselves. As with any entertainment product in life, certain ones are more popular than others. People never thought video games would evolve into where it is today. But that's the keyword: EVOLVE.

I never thought I would go from playing something like Mario, to something like Uncharted. Completely different styles, one I grew up with and still respect, but the other one is where my passion is at. This industry is super diverse and I love it. Do I particularly play everything out there on the market? No because I can recognize what is / isn't for me and not make a big deal because Studio A is not making games like Studio B.

 

[Makonero]

I like games of all stripes and kinds but I find the games that resonate strongest with me are ones that have a defining vision, or goal. If your game is focused on storytelling, such as Her Story, Life is Strange or The Wolf Among Us, then I don't expect it to be mechanic driven. I look for interesting, complex characters, a gripping plot, and mechanics that enhance the story or give it more depth by allowing for branching choices.

If you are focused on gameplay mechanics, such as Splatoon, Mario Maker, or any number of Nintendo and indie games, then I expect depth of play, enjoyable gameplay loops, tight controls, and consistent performance.

The problem is when a game tries to have it all and fails at one or the other. I love Xenoblade Chronicles X and Tokyo Mirage Sessions, but because they tried to marry a complex story and engaging gameplay, they came up short. I still love them, but their stories weren't as focused as I would have liked. The gameplay in each was fantastic though. And likewise, there are games with good stories where the gameplay lets me down. I found Persona 4 to be a chore gameplay-wise and the central loop (bland dungeon, repetitive battles, do one social link/stat build, repeat) got tiresome around hour 30. I was engaged and interested in the story but the gameplay wasn't as solid for me personally.

Everyone has different tolerances and focuses, as do game devs. But I thinks games best succeed when they have a driving vision for the game.

 

[laxu]

Just having killer game mechanics is sometimes not enough. I think we can all agree that the core gameplay in MGSV is really damn good. But on the other hand tacked on top of it we have an open world devoid of life and surprises to find, a crappy resource management minigame and some very questionable writing and super-repetitive side missions. The bad sides were enough to sour me on the game after the initial wonder of the game mechanics wore down.

On the other side we have The Order. Pretty graphics, but completely bare-bones, cookie cutter cover shooter gameplay. I could not wait for the game to end but still wanted to see it through. Would not pick up a sequel if it didn't have everything done differently for the gameplay portions.

Then we have Max Payne 3. A game where running around, diving behind things and shooting is really fun. Classic action hero stuff but playable! The only problem is that Rockstar thought they were movie producers and there is never more than a minute or two of gameplay before you get a cutscene. It completely ruins the gameplay and with unskippable cutscenes drops its replay value all the way to zero.

 

[goldenpp72]

The industry is passing you by because you're focused on a small subset of the industry and you stubbornly refuse to take a look elsewhere.

It's not about being stubborn, it's just how I was acclimated my whole life. I still buy boxed games and am a collector of them now as example. I know i'm not THAT niche because you see 10 topics form for something like RE7, and one or two about a apparent great indie game, there's just a lot more exposure for the big budget industry.

On 360, I used to download tons of games because they all had demos, and that made it easier to find interesting smaller games, I believe I own over 100 of them actually. However that is no longer the case on consoles at least, my laptop could never run any of this stuff

 

[Romars202129]

Well, last generation for sure. This gen feels like it's taking the fight back somewhat.

 

[RooMHM]

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

Agree. But few indies do that. And their games sometimes are subpar even with interesting mechanics.

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

I actually think that the amount of 'cinematic experiences' are grossly exaggerated. Even multiplayer shooters are very mechanics-driven.

Of the many games I've bought this year, the only one that I feel relied more on it's story and cinematic nature was Uncharted 4. Everything else I've played through, be it Hyper Light Drifter, Dark Souls III, Fire Emblem Fates, Street Fighter V, Monster Hunter Generations, Deus Ex etc. have all relied heavily on gameplay systems, even if they also provided a strong narrative.

Given how Tomb Raider underperformed and Quantum Break bombed, that should give you an idea of how 'popular' cinematic experiences actually are these days. They're not that common anymore because Call of Duty campaigns and Uncharted have sort of eaten up that market.

 

[Purple Cheeto]

I certainly feel like the emphasis on walking around sad simulators like The Last of Us is the wrong direction for the industry to head. In general I think cutscenes are an abject failure of game design.

But I don't think the industry is without hope. I just think it'll be awhile before all the people who wanted to be movie directors but ended up in games like Kojima are finally gone and maybe we can move on to making games that are good again without having to settle for From's clunky attempts at making mechanics driven games.

 

[BlindJesus]

I don't really consider Deus ex an RPG though. For me it's more like hitman or dishonored where the core of the game is manipulating the environment directly and interacting with AI is the core of the way.

Limiting your tools too much doesn't improve that kind of experience imo.

Dishonoured falls into the same kinda trap in my eyes, they offer so many abilities and tools that gameplay becomes trivial. Compare the original Deus Ex vs mankind divided, the original intentionally limited your skills so not all level routes were available to you. You could be a good hacker and open a PC terminal, but you couldn't move those giant boxes to get on top of a storage container. Or you invested all your skills into combat and now you can't bypass a fortified gate without a proper electronics skill. These things required thought and your decisions would affect the rest of your play through. In MD, you could get great hacking, the ability to break down walls, manipulate conversations ,and jump extraordinary heights before you left the first mini hub. After that, you could do anything and go anywhere and it removes some of the magic IMO.

I'm getting a bit off topic, but I will agree with you that to an extent that having many tools to your disposal can add depth( like MGSV or Crysis or FTL), but it doesn't work for a lot of games.

 

[More_Badass]

I certainly feel like the emphasis on walking around sad simulators like The Last of Us is the wrong direction for the industry to head. In general I think cutscenes are an abject failure of game design.

But I don't think the industry is without hope. I just think it'll be awhile before all the people who wanted to be movie directors but ended up in games like Kojima are finally gone and maybe we can move on to making games that are good again without having to settle for From's clunky attempts at making mechanics driven games.

Are you sure we played the same games?

 

[johnnydrama]

I certainly feel like the emphasis on walking around sad simulators like The Last of Us is the wrong direction for the industry to head. In general I think cutscenes are an abject failure of game design.

But I don't think the industry is without hope. I just think it'll be awhile before all the people who wanted to be movie directors but ended up in games like Kojima are finally gone and maybe we can move on to making games that are good again without having to settle for From's clunky attempts at making mechanics driven games.

I agree with the first bolded part. I don't enjoy cutscenes in games as much as I used to, and I feel they're an obstruction at this point. However, I don't agree that From's games are clunky. Bloodborne and Dark Souls 3 are very solid and a lot of fun.

 

[RedSwirl]

Has OP played the new DOOM?

And I still haven't played Deus Ex MD yet, but is it really that well-designed? I heard some people talking about it because it looked sort of "janky" compared to today's typical cinematic singleplayer games and took that as a sign it retained a surprising amount of the systemic nature of the original Deus Ex. In any case, Dishonored is very similar.

On the issue overall I think accessibility and the trend of anti-frustration design is what killed skill-based mechanical singleplayer games. Developers started realizing how small a percentage of players were actually getting very far in their games, so they made games to hold your hand more and more and require less skill to actually finish. They listed to a lot of people who hate seeing a game over screen. There are articles and thinkpieces everywhere from the last couple years talking about how the "fail state" style of game design is a relic from the arcades of the 80's that needs to be left behind.

 

[TissueBox]

Game critique is complicated, especially regarding the divide between what makes a game vs. an 'experience' and what rules to follow, and I used to have very extensive, spanning thoughts about this. But nowadays I just wish there were more games like Fallout: New Vegas.

 

[WolvenOne]

It really depends on what you mean by mechanics. I tend to be a narrative driven gamer, but narrative and mechanics aren't necessarily different things.

That said, yeah, triple-A especially is increasingly passing me by. I love platformers, I love quirky colorful games with unusual mechanics, fun bright worlds, likable characters, etc etc. However, it feels like triple A games keep getting more serious, more realistic, and recycle the same mechanics over and over again.

Indie and smaller budget titles are helping a lot, but man I really miss games like Klonoa, Kingdom Hearts, or Valkyria Chronicle. (Note: I know the later two franchises are still alive, but they're still rare exceptions to the rule in the big-budget space.)

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Not necessarily. To make a (controversial)point, look at Skyrim. It has a myriad of mechanics: picking locks, crafting spells and weapons, manipulating NPCs, variety of combat styles, alchemy and more. But do these mechanics really change the users experience? Does breaking into someone's house actually cause consequences? Are there an abundance of enemies that can only be defeated by weapons/spells that were made specifically made for them? Are there events/quests that can only be activated after a specific set of choices, or is everything pretty much accessible regardless of how you play?

I like to think of gameplay depth as 'how much will my actions manipulate the game?' There are a ton of games out there that offer a giant checklist of gameplay mechanics/features, but it doesnt really affect the game in a meaningful way. I'll rag on one of my favorite games this year as an example, Deus Ex MD. Does offering the player a huge new selection of augmentations actually change the game for the better? How does being able to knock somebody out in a slightly different, easier way actually improve the game? It doesn't, it's just fluff. And it's a big problem with games nowadays. Developers(or pubs demanding it in the AAA scene) are adding so many features and options, that by the end of the day, they end up obfuscating their game designs into 'jack of all trades, master of none.'

For a really controversial pick, what you're saying about Deus Ex and Skyrim kind of feels like what I felt about MGSV last year actually. There's like a bajillion options, and many of them are fun and have consequences in the game, but then there are kit options that are so clearly optimal (in terms of capturing guards, getting faster clear times, etc), that it feels like a bit of a let down.

But anyways, MGSV poos on most games' depth, so I digress. I guess I was mainly thinking of No Man's Sky, since it's been on my mind ever since I played it. It has a minimal backstory/lore going on, but the main focus is the exploration. It's a pretty "mechanical" game, and yet it's the classic "wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle" issue. Having a game with tons of mechanics (like you said with Skyrim perhaps) doesn't really matter if the options don't matter or if (even worse!) the options suck.

 

[fabricated backlash]

A bit yeah. I just feel like AAA games haven't evolved mechanically since the early 360 days.

But there are some that try. Splatoon, Overwatch, Deus ex, Zelda BotW, many Indies. So while its getting harder for me to get excited about new AAA games, at least there are some options.

 

[Wind's Howling]

TLDR
Absolutely. This industry is passig me by.
Cinematicness, focus on story or online multiplayer, 30 something withe male characters with brawn hairs and beards...I hate everything about modern gaming.
I'll always be an arcade player. I don't want to constanly navigate menus. I don't want to hear the story of some edgelord beardy guy.
I just want to feel the action on the screen. Is ti too much to ask?

I honestly believe this is one of the reasons why DOOM (2016) is most of GAF's GOTY for now. It introduces the nostalgic feeling of good old days into a new jacket.

I do believe that, if the game industry goes back and refines that sort of genre, people will say they miss cinematic games. Each era has changed the way games are being made. I highly doubt VR would make the older crowd even more excited.

VR is the one thing I am afraid of. It could happen that, if it becomes mainstream, I am going to stop with gaming all together. I find VR one of the most anti-social part of gaming in a world where couch coop has already been driving back to the stone age.

OP. Your feeling of the industry passing you by is probably also related towards the fact that you have less time, more responsibilities and just want to start up a game and go straight into the action without having to hear and read 10 minutes of material before you can finally go ahead.

 

[N.Grim]

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

.

 

[jahasaja]

I would look at this problem from a different angle. I agree with the majority in here that games with good mechanics still exist in abundance, however, the main problem is that is is hard to find them.

I stopped playing games after the N64 era because I was planning to become "serious". However, I could not be away too long so I came back in the middle of the xbox360 era. I was really excited to play all the critically acclaimed AAA games that I had heard so much about. But, I found almost all of them underwhelming and felt like they had taken away a lot of the player agency. It took me over a year before I realised that the good games still existed you just had to look harder for them.

So, would argue that the main problem is that you have to stay really informed about video games to find the games with good mechanics. (The easiest way is probably to stick with Japanese games.)

 

[Morfeo]

Just wanted to say that this was a great read, and that I agree 100% with the OP.

 

[Mephala]

I don't think the industry is passing me by I feel that the industry has grown to encompass so much more than the niche few things that I prioritize. It is both good and bad in my opinion. On one hand I like to try new things and find new things I enjoy. On the other there are plenty of mixes that simply aren't great in my books.

 

[goldenpp72]

Has OP played the new DOOM?

And I still haven't played Deus Ex MD yet, but is it really that well-designed? I heard some people talking about it because it looked sort of "janky" compared to today's typical cinematic singleplayer games and took that as a sign it retained a surprising amount of the systemic nature of the original Deus Ex. In any case, Dishonored is very similar.

On the issue overall I think accessibility and the trend of anti-frustration design is what killed skill-based mechanical singleplayer games. Developers started realizing how small a percentage of players were actually getting very far in their games, so they made games to hold your hand more and more and require less skill to actually finish. They listed to a lot of people who hate seeing a game over screen. There are articles and thinkpieces everywhere from the last couple years talking about how the "fail state" style of game design is a relic from the arcades of the 80's that needs to be left behind.

I began Doom but didn't get too far, at the time I began playing it, I started Ratchet and Star Fox at the same time. I got through one, got deeper in another and just didn't get the time to finish that one, but I plan to. My time with it I was pretty endeared with it, with my only concern being the way every fight felt like an arena fight of sorts, with little combat in between, guess I'm worried it could get tedious. I guess the guns felt kinda wimpy as well, but it was still a good time and I appreciated the nod when he threw the tablet when the guy started talking, so definitely something I will return to

 

[KooopaKid]

As someone who likes Nintendo games, I couldn't agree more. The vast majority of AAA games are very shallow mechanically, automated, devoid of meaningful interactions. You watch them more than you play them. The number of games I'm playing every year is getting smaller and smaller as a result. The indie scene is a bit better but they can't replace the big games we used to have.
The only single player game I played this year that was mechanically "perfect" is Hyper Light Drifter. Superhot was pretty good too, but a very small game that isn't meaty enough. The Witness being a puzzle game and the player input being limited, I don't know if I can consider it strong mechanically.

I tried to give 2 "AAA" games a try recently, No Man's Sky and Rise of the Tomb Raider and couldn't get past the 2 hours mark. I hope this "experience" trend slows down because it's getting dull and the games that have good word of mouth and long legs are often mechanically strong. I hope the industry sees that and stop relying on hype, marketing and wow factor to sell their shallow games as fast as possible before the word spreads out.
Hoping for the best with NX too.

 

[Langdon Alger]

Yes. It seems like AAA games are more and more interested in story at the expense of gameplay these days. But I don't blame the industry, they're just giving people what they want. I mean, how many people think The Witcher 3 and Red Dead (both of which have good stories but terrible gameplay) are some of the best games ever made?

 

[danmaku]

It's not about being stubborn, it's just how I was acclimated my whole life. I still buy boxed games and am a collector of them now as example. I know i'm not THAT niche because you see 10 topics form for something like RE7, and one or two about a apparent great indie game, there's just a lot more exposure for the big budget industry.

On 360, I used to download tons of games because they all had demos, and that made it easier to find interesting smaller games, I believe I own over 100 of them actually. However that is no longer the case on consoles at least, my laptop could never run any of this stuff

Isn't this the definition of being stubborn, though? "I did this for a long time and now I don't want to change it, no matter how unreasonable it sounds".

I know what you're talking about, I used to play a ton of shareware games and demos from PC gaming magazines CDs and now they don't exist anymore. It's annoying, but I can't really complain when games got so cheap and so easy to get. You just need some good pointers. Recently I played Furi and Redout: both of them are indies and extremely gameplay focused, but they also look great. They're stylish and colorful, they don't have AAA production values but they don't look cheap either. 20 years ago I would've gladly paid full price for Redout, now it's just 30€ and it's awesome. You can find a compromise, gaming isn't just dumb AAA or smart super cheap indies (not that AAA is always dumb but you get my point).

 

[PsionBolt]

"Passing me by" is a very good way to put it, but not quite in the way you meant it, OP.

I've been playing a lot of Game Boy Color games lately. Not replaying classics -- picking up GBC games I've never played before, and giving them more of my attention than any other platform. When I do play on modern platforms, it's almost always a few rounds of Smash 3DS or a few games of Hearthstone.

"Passing me by" in my case doesn't mean that the games coming out have changed in a way I don't like. It's just that while the industry's culture is focused on moving forward at breakneck speed, I'm content taking the time to appreciate the scenery closer to home. Hype, specs and numbers, ever-expanding budgets, multi-million-seller phenomena; it's got nothing to do with games themselves. What I love about games has always been there and will always continue to be there, but no part of it incentivizes a focus on the new.

There's nothing wrong with the new; I still plan on eating up Pokemon Moon and Gunvolt 2 in the near future. But by and large, there's no need for the new. It's just more options among many, in no way guaranteed to be better (or even as good) as options that have existed for decades.

 

[goldenpp72]

Isn't this the definition of being stubborn, though? "I did this for a long time and now I don't want to change it, no matter how unreasonable it sounds".

I know what you're talking about, I used to play a ton of shareware games and demos from PC gaming magazines CDs and now they don't exist anymore. It's annoying, but I can't really complain when games got so cheap and so easy to get. You just need some good pointers. Recently I played Furi and Redout: both of them are indies and extremely gameplay focused, but they also look great. They're stylish and colorful, they don't have AAA production values but they don't look cheap either. 20 years ago I would've gladly paid full price for Redout, now it's just 30€ and it's awesome. You can find a compromise, gaming isn't just dumb AAA or smart super cheap indies (not that AAA is always dumb but you get my point).

Somewhat sure, I definitely do have preference towards certain things. Digital stuff is something I shy away from due to lack of ownership, but it won't stop me from playing a great game (see, Shantae, etc). With that said, digital only games now cost between 15, 20, or even more, all the while offering no way to experience them without a purchase. Basically, I guess you can call it a fear of sinking money into something I end up hating, while also being unable to resell it for at least some money back.

As the digital world presses on, it actually becomes less and less convenient to use. The fact I have to look back at a system released in 2005 fondly for how digital products were handled is kind of sad to me. I think I've spent probably 1/50th on digital goods since the new consoles hit simply because they are largely blind buys unless you have some history with the games (Pac-man, Sonic)

One could say, listen to reviewers, watch video, or something else, and that can work somewhat, however when you have people who consider TLOU the greatest game of all time (a large amount at that) while blasting a game like RE5 (which is one of the best CO-OP experiences ever made), it becomes difficult to discern who has similar taste to you. Especially when people get mad because you don't want to slow walk, talk, and listen to an attempt at an epic story when you really just want to have fun playing the game.

I guess I am kind of stuck in a rut with a hobby I enjoy, it feels like I missed some kind of boat that was important to get on, and I don't see a very linear way to get back on. Perhaps if I found a reviewer who is in tune with my taste it would be a good guiding point to start, but most reviews in the media seem unable to even handle a controller let alone understand what makes a game legitimately good to play.

 

[Opa-Pa]

Well, last generation for sure. This gen feels like it's taking the fight back somewhat.

Yeah I think so. Last generation saw the rise of more cinematic, shallow, handhold-ly games and some of them are still being made and remain popular, but some relatively mainstream games have been quite mechanic heavy recently. MGSV, Deus Ex, Doom... I guess Fallout counts too?

I feel you in a way OP, since sometimes it feels like the most advertised and talked games are rather shallow, but the industry is more diverse than ever and there are so many options. The fact that we've seen something like the popularization of Souls in the last gen's climate blows my mind, for example, and I'm sure it has to do with many long time players getting tired of these trends. Undertale quickly became a cult classic last year as well, for many different reasons, but gameplay wise is quite inventive too.

Next week we're getting a sequel to a mainline Shin Megami Tensei game in the west too, so personally I can't complain.

 

[jroc74]

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

Pretty much this.

Unless its The Walking Dead or some other point n click type game I think the industry is doing fine with gameplay mechanics.

And doing fine with mixing in narrative, cinematic with gameplay.

Are you sure we played the same games?

Hyperbole 101. When I started reading that post I thought they were gonna say Ether One or Everyone Gone to Rapture. TLoU?

 

[correojon]

I think one big problem is the media and their poor understanding of games. I just stumbled upon this review of DKC Tropical Freeze:
http://venturebeat.com/2014/02/17/donkey-kong-country-tropical-freeze-isnt-the-game-the-wii-u-needs-right-now-review/

Some highlights:

The mine cart stages are a highlight, offering cinematic, fast-paced journeys through caves filled with pitfalls

You have an amazing game focused on gameplay and for the author the best part are the cart levels because they are cinematic.

wish Tropical Freeze had just copied the Mario model, with each boss, except for the last, taking a mere three hits to kill

Yeah, because Mario games are famous for their awesome boss fights /s. C´mon we just had a thread this week discussing what could be done to mak mario boss fights better and how they were the glaring weakest points in mario games.

Tropical Freeze is the first game to let you play as Cranky Kong. The character had endeared himself to players because he was such a humorous part of the series. He’d always go on about how games were much better “back in his day” and, well, just sort of act cranky in that lovable, grandfatherly way.

But now, Cranky is just another silent protagonist. His best trait is gone. In fact, he doesn’t really do anything to indicate that he’s the least bit cranky. It’s nice to see him playable, but what’s the point if you neuter his character?

Why bother talking about Cranky allowing you to play levels in a different way thanks to his pogoing mechanic and abbility to bounce on hazards? The most important thing is that he won´t appear in "cutscenes" to make jokes.

The review goes on and on, no mention of the god-tier level design, or how collectibles successfully implement different playstyles into the game (puzzle pieces for exploration, KONG letter for level mastery). Gameplay is only mentioned in two short paragraphs which completely miss the point by a mile.

Sadly this is not an exception, if you want to read about a game´s mechanics, gameplay systems or design you´ll have to look for enthusiat articles or Youtube videos. In a review you´ll only get a shallow summary of these points at best, the rest of it being dedicated to how pretty the game looks or how profound the cutscene dialogs are. I think this is a reflection of the industry´s priorities, after all it´s much easier and profitable to just throw money at the graphics department to pump up your game´s looks to 11 and do better in reviews, than to try to come up with interesting game mechanics that won´t even get aknowledged outside of fan circles.

 

[SmokedMeat]

I don't care about a game's budget or how deep or shallow it's mechanics are. What matters is whether I'm having a good time playing it. That's my measuring stick.

I've had far more fun playing games with simple, addictive mechanics, then the big overrated "GOAT" titles people like to name drop all of the time. Honestly it seems mostly indies are doing it for me.

 

[Sulik2]

I kind of feel like the Souls genre and explosion of Rogue likes has actually put an emphasis on mechanics back into gaming that was missing in the start to middle of the last gen.

 

[patapuf]

Somewhat sure, I definitely do have preference towards certain things. Digital stuff is something I shy away from due to lack of ownership, but it won't stop me from playing a great game (see, Shantae, etc). With that said, digital only games now cost between 15, 20, or even more, all the while offering no way to experience them without a purchase. Basically, I guess you can call it a fear of sinking money into something I end up hating, while also being unable to resell it for at least some money back.

As the digital world presses on, it actually becomes less and less convenient to use. The fact I have to look back at a system released in 2005 fondly for how digital products were handled is kind of sad to me. I think I've spent probably 1/50th on digital goods since the new consoles hit simply because they are largely blind buys unless you have some history with the games (Pac-man, Sonic)

One could say, listen to reviewers, watch video, or something else, and that can work somewhat, however when you have people who consider TLOU the greatest game of all time (a large amount at that) while blasting a game like RE5 (which is one of the best CO-OP experiences ever made), it becomes difficult to discern who has similar taste to you. Especially when people get mad because you don't want to slow walk, talk, and listen to an attempt at an epic story when you really just want to have fun playing the game.

I guess I am kind of stuck in a rut with a hobby I enjoy, it feels like I missed some kind of boat that was important to get on, and I don't see a very linear way to get back on. Perhaps if I found a reviewer who is in tune with my taste it would be a good guiding point to start, but most reviews in the media seem unable to even handle a controller let alone understand what makes a game legitimately good to play.

To discover new devs one might like or new kind of games, there's no way around taking the plunge a few times. Why not try out a few things on steam during one of the seasonal sales? You can even refund if first impressions are bad.

Or peek into some of the threads dedicated to find games on GAF?

There's the general Goty thread but also some focused on smaller games like

for 2014
2015
or for upcoming stuff

If one is willing to look, it doesn't take a huge amount of time to find new stuff. Not everything is a masterpiece of course, but a lot of it is genuinly new.

 

[More_Badass]

I don't care about a game's budget or how deep or shallow it's mechanics are. What matters is whether I'm having a good time playing it. That's my measuring stick.

I've had far more fun playing games with simple, addictive mechanics, then the big overrated "GOAT" titles people like to name drop all of the time. Honestly it seems mostly indies are doing it for me.

That mirrors my stance pretty closely