Support NeoGAF

[SatelliteOfLove]

I gotta say, this was more accurate ~6 years ago when that foul brew from untested game design Dogma, PR machines, skyrocketing development costs, and willful ignorance had such things on the backfoot.

Thankfully it's not the case any more.

 

[Bakkus]

Don't think it has anything to do with growing older. I'm 21 and I feel much the same way. Then again that's not just restricted to video games. Most of my favorite music is more than a decade older than me.

 

[Complicated]

I don't think there's any shortage of games focused on great gameplay. Probably more now than ever with the sheer volume of games coming out. I definitely think Sony has focused a lot more on things other than gameplay since back in the Ps3 days, Microsoft has been chasing them down that path a little here and there, and Nintendo is almost all gameplay as they've always been.

For the most part, I don't care for games that don't bother to keep gameplay engaging while telling their story because there are maybe a handful of video game stories that are worth anything standing on their own. There are a lot of cinematic games that can be turned into decent action movies if you edit out a lot of the filler.

 

[low-G]

The only thing I really miss are excellent stylistic choices, and that to some extent, the complexity of game assets has driven and changed game design significantly. Even the indie scene doesn't consistently escape that.

 

[Orayn]

This thread has a bizarre amount of hate for multiplayer from people who supposedly care about mechanics and nothing else.

 

[Gipsy Danger]

The biggest games in the world are some of the most mechanically insane games ever created and there are no shortage of great mechanics driven games to be found on every platform so I can't really agree with the OP.

 

[Stone Ocean]

I think I haven't been this happy with videogames in years. All it took was for me to stop playing mass produced AAA garbage

 

[Daouzin]

My group of friends talk about this regularly, but a focus on mechanics seems to come and go in waves.

Smash is the greatest example of this.

Melee built on Smash 64
Brawl destroyed what Melee/Smash was
Smash 4 built back from Brawl.

PM built on Melee and made it easier.
Rivals of Aether took Melee concepts in a different direction.

The real issue is that, back in the old days, what gamers loved were mechanic heavy games because the intricacy is what we loved about gaming to begin with. Once gaming became mainstream we got a huge influx of new gamers with new tastes. Now AAA games appeal to them and their tastes, but tons of games still come out that emphasis mechanics. They just are inherently more niche. So they still exist, but aren't the focus of what people talk about, so it's easy to feel like they aren't there anymore.

 

[correojon]

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!".

I find it funny that automatic traversal was pioneered by Zelda OoT and while modern games move in that direction, the latest Zelda seems to have taken a step in the opposite direction by introducing, for the first time in the series, a jump button.
I wonder if BotW happens to be the megaton it looks like it'll be, those devs will start backtracking and following this new-old path again?

 

[Complicated]

This thread has a bizarre amount of hate for multiplayer from people who supposedly care about mechanics and nothing else.

Yea the most popular games in the world are mechanics-only multiplayer games (LoL, Dota, multiplayer phone games). Then you have things like Rocket League, Halo 5, Doom, Dark Souls, and many others that have pushed game mechanics in their genre to new heights in the last year or so.

 

[Mupod]

No. Maybe the western AAA side is, but who cares? Even then, you've got companies like Firaxis.

The big thing for me is that I realized I no longer feel obligated to play everything highly rated or universally praised. While everyone is busy pissing themselves over bland big budget release #937 I'll keep on putzing around with Monster Hunter, EDF, weird Japanese games, various MMOs etc and not feel like I'm missing out.

This thread has a bizarre amount of hate for multiplayer from people who supposedly care about mechanics and nothing else.

High level MMO raiding to me is extremely enjoyable even if it burns me out over time. But I do understand a preference for offline/solo. Hell even in Monster Hunter I sometimes get sick of other people and just need to go up against something really hard by myself, and even leave the AI behind.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

Yes. Yes.

YES MOTHERFUCKER, YES!

 

[Toadthemushroom]

This thread was always going to be a generalisation no matter how many game examples you can throw at a post, but I agree.

It's not just about how raw game mechanics are executed for me, though, it's more about how a lot of game design has moved away from pure game design to game design as a business science - the addition of things like random rewards and loot drops (and loot drops with duplicates) to all sorts of games really waters down the purity they could have offered. All for the pursuit of player retention and monetisation.

Take the rhythm game genre: It's one of the purest types of game there is. The core mechanics make a compelling title since the player has to master their timing and their synchronisation with the music. Aiming to beat a difficult stage or aiming to better your high score is where the appeal comes from.

Sega decided to add random loot drop mechanics to their latest rhythm game: Hatsune Miku: Project Diva X. Which not only adds an extra layer of busywork to the core game and menus, but also obscures any true motivations for playing the game. Now you might be replaying a song just for the chance of getting a particular costume drop, not because you actually wanted to replay that song to better your score. Dozens of hours are going to be allocated to pursuing random reward unlocks over just playing the game for the game.

These "Skinner Box" mechanics are designed to make the player feel great, but it doesn't mean they are good game design, and like achievements and trophies they can often affect player behaviour negatively.

While Skinner's techniques have always been a part of a few games, they certainly are becoming more cynical and pervasive.

There's also an increasing temptation to involve players in game creation, whether it be through Kickstarter (not really any better than going through a publisher - you now have to answer to fan demands instead of publisher demands) or episodic content. The urge to please players before launch can often mean more characteristic elements of a game get chopped before they are even given a chance. Even Nintendo had to remove the rollout of Mario Maker content because of complaints in the run-up to launch. But that rollout was designed to ensure that players don't just throw everything into a level at once, and instead consider the design of individual elements in turn.

Many players now have expectations ingrained into them too about a genre. Take the rather wonderful Code Name: STEAM as an example. It's an exceptionally well thought out and designed game of squad-based strategy, yet some people complained (loudly) about the lack of any sort of overhead map. I can get not personally getting on with this design decision, but the people who complained didn't think about why the game did what it did. It was the closest thing to fog of war in a third person strategy game, and one reviewer rightfully pointed out that information has now smartly become a scarce resource to manage. But because it didn't follow the norm it was dismissed.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

japanese games and indies still exist

western big-budget games have always been a bit shit when it comes to mechanics

 

[Mman235]

No, because I play stuff other than ridiculous budget AAA games.

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.

Also this, it's baby steps, but if anything developers have started to put more focus back on mechanics, and the "anything that inconvieniences the player in the slightest is evil" belief is thankfully starting to fade a bit.

 

[Lucario]

Even on the AAA side, I don't feel like there's a shortage of mechanically fluid releases that put gameplay over everything else. Just recently we've had Street Fighter V, Pokken Tournament, Dark Souls III, Splatoon, Monster Hunter Generations, Bayonetta II, and Overwatch.

Including indies, there's an endless stream of arcade-style games with fluid gameplay. Nidhogg is a goddamn masterpiece. Enter the Gungeon and Rivals of Aether both manage to match the mechanical complexity of older releases without all the clunkiness.

I think you're just looking in the wrong places, OP. A lot of the gameplay focused releases are primarily multiplayer these days, but they're certainly not a thing of the past. I'd argue that we have better mechanically focused releases now than ever.

 

[Leafhopper]

I can kinda get where you are coming from OP. Might be why as of late, along with how companies want to do consoles, closer to buying phones, I don't feel like getting a PS4 or a Xbox 1, like ever. As it stands, I really only want to play 2 games on the PS4 badly, Bloodborne and Persona 5 (because I don't have my PS3 anymore.) and not much else.

I get that games are becoming more diverse but, at the same time these new "The experience." isn't made for me. My experience doesn't have to be something made of just emotion, I kinda like mechanics that are fun and engaging first and then maybe a story that is good enough that I get something out of it. Making something and just being like either "Do you feel X" or "Tell me what it means!" is not really what I personally want so ehhh.

I do enjoy some of games that are just about the story, I read VNs and play story driven games but, a lot fall flat on me. It's not the biggest deal though in the grand scheme of things because I don't really play a lot of AAA games now a days since a lot don't appeal to me.

 

[ocean]

You're trying to make a case for a broad, sweeping shift in game design priorities but ultimately I feel you're looking for a very, very specific experience and are bummed it's not the industry standard.

I mean you want a game which isn't multiplayer-focused (meaning limited replayability), which skips over storytelling elements in favor of a gameplay-driven narrative, but which boasts high production values and fits the genres you like playing.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "mechanics", but Street Fighter V, MGS V, Bloodborne, Dark Souls 3, Divinity, Rocket League, Resogun, Diablo 3, Guacamelee, Axion Verge, Ori and the Blind Forest, Driveclub, The Witness, Doom, Wolfenstein, Overwatch, Halo 5, Hitman, all the MOBAs, Bayonetta 2 and a bunch of Wii U exclusives are all praised for their extremely tight mechanics. Coming up soon you've got everything from Persona 5 and Horizon: Zero Dawn to The Last Guardian to Yooka Laylee to a new Zelda. There's a ton of variety, a ton of genres, and a lot of design philosophies and aesthetics to chose from.

I mean there's a bunch of cinematic games out there too, certainly. But I don't think it's fair to suggest that they are everything which gets released nowadays. I mean the top-selling games (and thus the ones that get the most coverage) will be shooters and sports and GTA, for the foreseeable future. But beyond those top 10 sellers, there's an entire industry pumping out quality experiences.

 

[Nottle]

I would say that right now... There's never been a better time to play games.

Big publishers love their cinematic angles and pushing the big cinematic trailers because that's what gets butts in seats.

But a game being cinematic doesn't mean it's bad, I adore some of the assassins creed games and uncharted games. What I love about Uncharted in particular is how seamless it blends it's cinematic story telling with gameplay. You get some well acted cutscenes and then switch to bits of gameplay that include light banter. None of that just sit there and look at a window while story happens and oh btw you can move.

Speaking of which the view the story in another room and the moments where your character is injured and you have the trippy slow walk sequence are some of past generation's biggest story telling sins (which Uncharted 3 does.)

But compare Uncharted to Tomb Raider on the ps1. In uncharted the platforming is designed to have you gravitate towards what you need to reach while Tomb Raiders platforming asked the player to actually consider your input and the environment before a jump. But then look at gunplay, Uncharted asks you to move around, switch weapons, take cover, jump, punch, and aim your gun. Tomb Raider asks you to strafe back and forth and shoot. While one is more of a platformer with shooting, the other is a shooter that incorporates movement and manuverability. To me Uncharted's platforming is sort of simple and cinematic in order to make its other elements shine.

Big Games tend to appropriate what works and that can cause stagnation. Every game has towers, light rpg elements, regenerating health a simplistic skill tree, and collectables nowadays because all of that worked in Halo, Gears of War, AC, and Batman. But before that every game had 1 hit kills or health packs. Now maybe with Overwatch and Doom (thanks Revengence) we will go back to the earlier model of FPS.

But think about this, years ago you couldn't even skip cutscenes in games. You'd die and have to watch the same boss introduction every time. Years ago the acting wasn't even good if it even was acted. Licensed games had some of the most flat 3 hit combo lameness around. People still copied what worked.
A cinematic flair is honestly what made something like DMC or Resident Evil or Final Fantasy even work, but what's also important is how they balanced the cinematic flair with good gameplay. Resident Evils camera and story work because the gameplay is tense and engaging and the cinematic aspect of it elevates the gameplay, without polluting it.. DMC works because the weapons feel impactful and look stylish as hell.

 

[Gai Murakumo]

There are some companies that are focusing more on graphics and making them a movie like experience to try to catch the mainstream audience. But there are those companies i.e. Platinum Games, that give you tight gameplay experience with trying to stay at 60 fps.

 

[FlaygletheBagel]

Couldn't agree more with the OP - I think I came to this realization when I started the Bioshock Collection. I had never played Bioshock before but I kept hearing things about how good the game's ambience was, and how good its story was, and since I generally like shooters, I figured I'd pick it up.

But something about the mechanics just didn't click with me. The gameplay just doesn't feel that good (it may have felt pretty good 9 years ago but it didn't feel good to me today). Probably an unpopular opinion, but it's a game where I wondered why I was playing it when the only parts that even mildly interested me were the story and the setting. I could've just watched someone else's gameplay of it, watched the key story points, and saved myself 60 dollars and a lot of time.

The whole thing is starting to make me wonder why I drop $60 on any of these story-first games at all. I'm realizing I have little interest in game stories unless there's equally good mechanics to back them up. Persona 4 and the Witcher are the only game stories that have genuinely captivated me in the last couple years and that's predominantly because there were satisfying RPG mechanics to back it all up. Most times when I get a AAA game with a cinematic story, I wonder why I'm not either a) watching a movie or TV show to get a much better story, or b) playing something mechanics-based that I'd enjoy a hell of a lot more, like an SNES-era platformer or RPG, just about any Nintendo game, the occasional indie, or a multiplayer shooter.

Speaking of which, the latter category (especially Titanfall and Call of Duty) has taken up a lot of my time lately because it's mechanics based, quick to jump in and out of, and doesn't waste my time with a B, C, or D-tier story. Sad to say it, but I'm honestly looking forward to Call of Duty more than any other game this fall because I know the multiplayer end of it will give me more satisfaction than most games do these days.

 

[afternoon delight]

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

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

Think of it like music.

Perfect response. The AAA spectacle has been shit since the market rewarded Michael Bay wannabes with middling graphics and vapid shit. Indie (and the plethora of older games you haven't discovered) will turn your frown right upside down! I guarantee you there's something ballshard in every genre you haven't played yet, more likely ten to twenty of them. Sprinkled over the year in sparse amounts and it's like magic!

 

[More_Badass]

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/

I think that has more to do with reviews being written for a general audience and perhaps the writing skills of the average person rather than any desire not to highlight "god-tier design" or anything like that. It's not like you need to study game design or have a degree in writing to become a reviewer

Somewhat sure, I definitely do have preference towards certain things....

You don't think that maybe some of your perspective on things might be a bit askew? Like there a lot of good reasons why RE5 was criticized and it certainly wasn't because of the co-op, many people hate that forced walk and talk approach in games, and that notion of reviewers seems so tinged by bias than any legimate concerns. Also I get the impression that you don't play much on PC, since refunds and stuff like early prototypes, alphas, betas, and demos are much more common, offering ways to check out games

That boat hasn't moved on. You just need to get on a different boat

 

[Yoshi]

This thread has a bizarre amount of hate for multiplayer from people who supposedly care about mechanics and nothing else.

Multiplayer and singleplayer are profoundly different though. If you are looking for set, designed challenges, you can only find that in singleplayer, multiplayer lives off changing competition. I do not want to devalue multiplayer, but personally, it is not what I am looking for in games, even though I would say I am about as much gameplay oriented as one could possibly be.

 

[KingBroly]

I do, unfortunately. It feels like the industry is more focused on chasing the hot ticket of the day rather than trying to make long-lasting games that hold their value over time. So you get shit from Bethesda that have almost no feel to them while selling 10's of millions of copies. Last gen, every game, for some reason, just HAD TO HAVE COD-style multiplayer. Why? I don't want to play a tacked-on, half-assed MP that's just like COD. I want to play the real deal. It didn't help games keep their value, so this gen games are focused on random unlocks/loot crates was the best way to get money because they realized copying the King of the MP Mountain wasn't the way to go.

 

[GooeyHeat]

I don't think it is. I do feel that there are more games that do not value solid mechanics as their main core feature, but that doesn't mean the ones that do have stopped existing. If anything, the fact that gaming is more diverse is only a good thing.

One thing that bugs me is that a lot of open-world games rely on their core mechanics for their fun, but because the world has to provide an opportunity to move through it in any direction, they can't design areas and challenges around the mechanics as freely. Some games have mechanics that are independent enough from the play areas that they are still fun in those situations, while others are much less fun to work with without areas designed specifically for them, if that makes sense.

Still, though, putting aside multiplayer games you can still find some really fun games to just play these days. DOOM and Ratchet & Clank are both incredibly good at that, as are From's games, various Nintendo games, and other Japanese games such as Musou games, the Earth Defense Force series... hell, despite being licensed from an anime, the new Attack on Titan game looks really fun to play (though I haven't personally played it).

It can feel a bit bleak when you're bombarded with advertising for open-world games with weak mechanics, which I feel have kind of replaced cinematic games with weak mechanics as the flavor du jour. But keep your eyes, ears, and mind open to AAAs, indies, and everything in between, and there are guaranteed to be games you like.

 

[spiderferi]

I think the main thing that is missing from the current wave of mainstream Singleplayer titles, is that they want to tell the story through the cinematic settings. I like them to break the barrier between cutscenes and gameplay time, not the way David Cage does but in a decent manner. If I want to play as a US marine through the WWII I want to feel like one, because I'm controlling one. I want to experience my own story not watch it through the cutscenes. I'm not saying that they need to be interactive with choices and etc. no! but they should be delivered differently.

I think the next big "Design" solution of the gaming would be merging these two. That would be the missing part of the game mechanics for me.

 

[correojon]

I think that has more to do with reviews being written for a general audience and perhaps the writing skills of the average person rather than any desire not to highlight "god-tier design" or anything like that. It's not like you need to study game design or have a degree in writing to become a reviewer

I agree, but I hope the average review quality and depth was better.

 

[PeskyToaster]

This thread has a bizarre amount of hate for multiplayer from people who supposedly care about mechanics and nothing else.

Yup. The industry didn't leave people who value game mechanics above all behind. It embraced them through multiplayer. There's (in most cases) only the thinnest frame of a story, no real dialogue, no cinematics, it's just pure gameplay. And it's the most popular mode in most games. It's probably because they found they can't hack it when using their game mechanics against an actual person rather than predictable game AI.

 

[Peltz]

I agree with those who say that great games with tight gameplay mechanics are still being made. If you are just looking at Ubisoft or Sony's first party output, I could see where you're coming from, OP. They don't seem to care about tight, fluid gameplay.

But they're not at all representative of what I've been playing over the past 2 generations. In fact, I'd say that Rocket League is the most mechanically tight and fun game to control in the history of the medium, and it's a fairly new game.

 

[Gully State]

This thread has a bizarre amount of hate for multiplayer from people who supposedly care about mechanics and nothing else.

Yeah, dota 2 and mobas in general are the distillation of mechanics based gaming.

 

[watdaeff4]

I think the actual gameplay/mechanics are better in this generation than last gen as a whole.

MGS is a perfect example. MGS4 was moving from cutscene to cutscene. Phantom Pain? Blows all previous MGS games out of the water in terms of gameplay. It's problem with many is how the story was done.

Halo 5?

Many People hate the story and some design aspects of the campaign, but those who have played the game *mostly* agree the Arena MP is sublime

 

[spekkeh]

It's actually gotten much, much better recently OP. What you describe is a result of different design philosophies. Companies like Nintendo and a number of other Japanese developers started as toy companies and have a history of prototyping and iterative design.

As complex 3D games became the norm and took over everything else, the (Western) industry became dominated by software engineers who programmed to specification, especially as production ballooned and different teams had to work on it concurrently.

The first approach works well for gameplay but poorly for stories, the second approach works well for stories but poorly for gameplay.

But indies came up and because their games tend to be short and small, they can experiment a lot with game mechanics in prototypes, and AAA games have become so big that they started adopting agile approaches, and multiple iterations where they can correct the course of a project if it turns out not to be fun.

 

[wild wild rice]

There's definitely less for me to buy nowadays, but the stuff that does come along (Nintendo games, Bloodborne, Resogun, DOOM, Overwatch) are all top notch so I can't really complain.

 

[GamerJM]

Not really, but most of the developers I like who made games focused on mechanics ~15-20 years ago are still making similar games today. The biggest issue is just that they don't release games as frequently as before due to increasing development costs.

 

[Bladelaw]

The AAA space definitely feels like it's more interested in telling a story than making the experience fun. That said some recent games like DOOM, Axiom Verge, Rocket League, and HITMAN(TM) are gameplay masterpieces.

DOOM's dance of shooting things, chainsawing enemies, and brutally killing them to keep your ammo and health up keeps every encounter engaging and the game sometimes openly mocks it's own story. One of the best games of the year and it's mostly mechanics focused.

Axiom Verge and Rocket League are both older (a year is a long time in gaming I guess) but both shine in their gameplay. Axiom Verge lovingly calls back to Super Metroid while putting it's own spin on the formula. Sure there's a story but only so much to motivate you to explore deeper. Rocket League hits the "easy to learn tough to master" note better than any multiplayer game I've played in years. The controls are simple, turn, gas, reverse, jump, and boost and you can look up countless videos of stellar players pushing those controls to their limits.

HITMAN(TM) revels in its freedom. The variety of ways you can end your target combined with the pressure of an elusive target bring a feeling of finality to games that's been missing since hardcore modes went out of fashion. The game literally challenges you to execute the mission in dozens of different ways while also showing that a truly episodic game can work purely from a gameplay and mechanics standpoint.

So while it's easy to dismiss single player games as mediocre storytelling mediums there is still some great work being done in gameplay in the AAA and indie space that's worth recognizing.

 

[correojon]

Many are saying that gameplay focus has moved to multiplayer, but multiplayer games don't fill the same gap as single player gameplay driven games. In a single player game mechanics need to evolve and interact with other game systems to keep things interesting (platformers introduce new obstacles in different levels, shooters new types of enemies...). In multiplayer games however game mechanics are more static, gameplay base is more repetitive and the variations occur by how the players use these mechanics, but nothing really new happens. This can be clearly seen in Splatoon, where the single player follows a more traditional platformer structure and introduces a new mechanic in every level. The multiplayer however, uses only a couple of these mechanics in some levels; the base of the gameplay remains the same you saw in level 1 of the singleplayer. Gameplaywise, multiplayer "cheats" when compared to single player, as it doesn't need to come up with as many new systems or depth. Because of this, it's understandable that some players won't feel as realized when playing multiplayer games compared to singleplayer, more elaborated games.

 

[Shizza]

Personally, I love games focused on tight game mechanics and puzzles more than story-driven experiences. Visuals and music/sound can definitely enhance or degrade the experience for me though. But ultimately it's the challenge they present that makes me keep coming back to them.

Now that's not to say I don't enjoy games like the Last of Us and Red Dead Redemption - because I very much do - but after beating them I feel satisfied, and am ready to move on to the next game. Maybe I'll play it again sometime, maybe I won't. However, for a really great platformer/metroidvania/puzzle game, often times I'll beat it and dive right back in to 100% it, or even add it to the list of games I play annually.

Going back to your question about if it feels like the industry is passing me by? I don't see it that way. Between Nintendo and various indies, I have tons to satisfy me.

 

[Retro]

I've been lurking in this thread, thinking about posting about the overall discussion, but decided to chime on on this specific comment;

I think the main thing that is missing from the current wave of mainstream Singleplayer titles, is that they want to tell the story through the cinematic settings. I like them to break the barrier between cutscenes and gameplay time, not the way David Cage does but in a decent manner. If I want to play as a US marine through the WWII I want to feel like one, because I'm controlling one. I want to experience my own story not watch it through the cutscenes. I'm not saying that they need to be interactive with choices and etc. no! but they should be delivered differently.

I think the next big "Design" solution of the gaming would be merging these two. That would be the missing part of the game mechanics for me.

I agree, 100%. Film has the concept of "Mise-en-scene", which translates as "placing on stage." The idea is that you use story boarding, cinematography and stage design to use the lighting, shadow, color, space, props, and movement within the stage to tell the story in a visual manner. The shorthand is "Show, don't tell." Instead of having a character saying "I am lonely", you can convey that information by making the room dark, the colors subdued, position the camera or audience in such a way as to convey isolation of the subject (a huddle of furniture in a huge space, for example), etc.

I've been saying for years now that gaming needs the equivalent; "Play, don't show." If you need to convey something to the player, don't do it in a cutscene where agency is taken away; let the player experience it for themselves. If you need to convey that your character is a badass, watching the hero doing some amazing thing in a cutscene is infinitely less effective than letting the player do it themselves, and if the game engine can't handle it mechanically, don't fuckin' do it.

That is absolutely where gaming needs to go.

 

[KahooTs]

But something about the mechanics just didn't click with me. The gameplay just doesn't feel that good (it may have felt pretty good 9 years ago but it didn't feel good to me today). Probably an unpopular opinion, but it's a game where I wondered why I was playing it when the only parts that even mildly interested me were the story and the setting.

No, Bioshock's gameplay is widely derided, it is in many ways a great example for the OP. Only then there's the sequel, which also refutes the OP. For every Bioshock the industry produces, there's a Bioshock 2 out there.

 

[disappeared]

Not really. I mean there's a wider variety of games available now than ever before. The indie boom has also helped.

 

[JayEH]

I am starting to feel it is a bit. When I was younger I could deal with mediocre games with these grand epic scales but I really can't anymore. I want deep gameplay mechanics. It's actually part of the reason why I've started to play fighting games so much over the past year, they're all mechanics and mastering them. I won't say that there is no mechanics driven games anymore of course. We've gotten bayo 2, mgsv, bloodborne, dark souls 3, and doom this gen but it really disheartens me to see so many games focus on story. Like the new God of war, almost all interview are solely on the new story. I don't care about that, I'm more interested why they changed the camera and how it will affect combat now. I'm tired of games chasing the cinematic/open world generic gameplay mechanics collecathons.

 

[Ubernube]

I'd say my biggest issue is that it tends to be one or the other. You either get a story focused game, or one that's mechanically/gameplay focused. I suppose one of the reasons I'm looking forward to Nier Automata so much is that it's looking like both elements have the chops to carry the game on their own.

 

[NervousXtian]

OP has a case of the 'member berries. If you want to say the whole industry is like 10 games you can shape the narrative how ever you want depending on what 10 you pick.

There's more diversity and deep game play experiences than ever these days.

Also people acting like Nintendo hasn't dumbed shit is kidding themselves.

 

[george_us]

Honestly I think you only say that if you only have a limited exposure to indie games. There are endess amounts of gameplay-oriented indies and equally endless amounts that aren't retro throwbacks or that aim for focused and lean rather than grand and ambitious

Could be. My primary exposure to indies has been on consoles, as I don't really have a gaming capable PC at the moment.

 

[antitrop]

The recent popularity of walking simulators makes me feel like that sometimes, yes.

 

[FlaygletheBagel]

The recent popularity of walking simulators makes me feel like that sometimes, yes.

I find myself more often than not getting let down by "first person experiences" because the stories take front and center, and most of the time they're not very good. Firewatch, for example, had an interesting start to its story but had very little payoff. Its ending ruined the whole game for me. Even Gone Home, which seems to have praise heaped on it constantly, just left me totally unsatisfied after playing it, like I had totally wasted a 2-3 hours of my time.

The problem with these games is that there are no mechanics to bolster the experience if you end up not liking the story. And while I think the term "walking simulator" is an unfair simplification of these types of games, I do think this genre is where the general mediocrity of video game stories is most evident.

 

[Orayn]

The recent popularity of walking simulators makes me feel like that sometimes, yes.

They're not really that popular, though. In the past few years we've had only a handful of them that actually sold decently and were well received.

Dear Esther
Gone Home
The Vanishing of Ethan Carter (More of a puzzle/adventure game)
Soma (More survival horror)
Firewatch

I can see not liking them but it's pretty hard to argue that they're somehow a plague that's negatively affecting more mechanically-involved games.

 

[TeddyShardik]

It seems the scales are tipping little more to narrative focused games lately but I wouldn't say I feel left behind.

There are still many mechanics focused games on offer for me to enjoy with companies like Platinum entirely focusing on what I like most in a game. And then you have games like the Souls series that blend both together perfectly for my tastes.

 

[wild wild rice]

Nier: Automata and Breath of the Wild will be our saving grace in 2017.