• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

What does "next gen gameplay" mean to you?

I would say games that include all the interconnected, out-of-game social aspects that that last generation standardized, set in worlds that take advantage of the newest memory baseline and network architecture of PS4/PSN and XBO/XBL. In other words, a move toward what PC gaming has been doing with things like DayZ.

But the problem is that we confuse "next gen" with "good," or think of it as necessarily important for AAA games to be. For example, Titanfall isn't next gen, and that is not a criticism. It doesn't fulfill either of the criteria I've mentioned above. That doesn't prevent it from being one of my favorite games right now.
 
Xav said:
SsS5DnD.png


Something new that plays differently from anything we've seen before.
Click to expand...

That's not next gen gameplay, that is fresh and nice game design. It can happen everywhere on any console, crazy i know!

Maybe some devs would like new techs and consoles to invent new gameplay for them but in the end it's up to their ideas and work ..
 
Trago said:
And you know what? That's perfectly fine, I don't expect EVERY developer to bring something new to the table, but that doesn't mean I'll get mad if a reviewer knocks on a game for not giving new gameplay experiences.
Click to expand...

I can understand that and agree with it. I don't understand it but I won't get mad it either, considering that the review is obviously someones opinion. I like plenty of things others don't. I'd like to see some things get good marks and be successful but I understand others don't like what I like either.
 
The term itself is meaningless unless it's used in reference to a specific game. Even then, it's just an attention-grabbing way of saying "something more than simply more of the same." It's being used in some Second Son reviews as the game seems to be pretty much a prettier version of the same thing they did the last couple times out, which is a valid criticism (though not one that bothers me personally, because really, I expected SS to be more of the same going in).
 
Servbot24 said:
There was a bit of discussion on this in the Infamous review thread and I thought it warranted its own thread to be discussed on a broader scale.

A lot of criticisms for Infamous SS cite that it has a lack of next gen gameplay. Do you have any idea what that might mean? Not just as it relates to Infamous, but for console gaming in general. Do you have examples of gameplay which is next gen? Do you have the expectation that with the new generation will come new gameplay? Does such a thing even exist?

To me, you're basically using the same controllers as last gen. Last gen hardware was strong enough to accomplish just about any gameplay technique that could be achieved on a traditional controller... the challenge was simply adding scale and detail. I expect we'll see more FPS, TPS, RPG, sports, racing games, etc. There will be marginal improvements to the controls, but nothing that could not have been done on last gen hardware.

A game which effectively uses Kinect 2.0 could be considered having next gen gameplay (if it improves over controllers), but we've yet to see that, and with the lack of enthusiasm out there for Kinect I'm not convinced that developers are pushing for this.

Anyways, any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...

In the old days, that would appear due to the new hardware making gameplay of that scope possible, with it coming at the transition (Super Mario World), or appear later once the right game appeared (Grand Theft Auto 3).

Since 2005? It appears later, there's this slavish adherence to the successful ones, there's less about the possibility of scope and an increase in hegemony from the previous example, and it gets more expensive to enact that with each generation (which, in this one and the last one largely kept it to the bigger productions ie, that hegemony again).
 
I think where the gameplay feels like a complete step change from what we have seen previously.

Rumble triggers seems like a real easy area for implementation of new gameplay ideas, balancing a tray as you walk through a restaurant in hitman to drop off a drink where the icecubes are poisoned. as you walk you balance the tray with the triggers, over cook it and the tray falls and people realise that you are a giant bald monster with a barcode tattooed on the back of his head.

The way that we would have done this previously is had onscreen bars indicating where that is going to happen, but its more realistic if the controller is communicating with you directly, subtly drawing you into the game.

Infamous as a series has never really been at the forefront of anything, but had some neat ideas to start with, I think there was more opportunity to provide more engaging gameplay experiences than previous iterations and they have simply made it prettier.
 
One thing I find funny. The first game that will probably be lauded by all reviewers as finally bringing in next-gen, with scope and ambition, will probably be a cross-gen title (Destiny).
 
60 fps.

No/minimal install/load times.

The game outside the game, i.e. social, second screen, etc.

Online dynamic world.

I suppose vr would be interesting.
 
Walking your fingers on the touchpad to move your character. Seriously, if games don't have that, they deserve all the 6/10s they get.
 
It creates a lazy out that allows me to justify a 7/10 on an otherwise good game. I am typing this in a post GTA5 world. /s
alt
 
We've had probably hundreds of threads related to the visuals of next gen, but it's a problem to some to bring up gameplay of the next gen.
 
Trago said:
Really? So games like Doom, and Super Mario 64's gameplay mean nothing?

If we're going to experience an evolution in graphics, then why's it a bad thing to want new gameplay?
Click to expand...
I didn't say that gameplay doesn't evolve. The point is the term that is being tossed around. These critics use the term to downplay games that carry over mechanics from older games, but they only do it at the start of a generation. After a little while they move on from the term and start to just say if a game has new ideas, or familiar gameplay. Gameplay can and does evolve, but it doesn't always happen at the start of a new generation, or even a few years into it. Case inpoint, when Minecraft hit it wasn't called out for having "next gen gameplay". Just because more powerful hardware can enable creators to explore new ideas doesn't mean that every game needs to, or even should. It is true that a lot of innovation happened at the start of the PS1 and N64 era, but that is because there was a fundamental shift in how games were made. That is a rather unique case of gameplay evolving with nearly every game at the start of a generation. "Next gen gameplay" is code for "I don't know what it is I am looking for, but I want it since we have this new hardware". I am not discrediting the idea that gameplay can evolve, or even that new hardware can promote that evolution, but I am saying that the term as it is used by the games media is complete BS. It gives them a reason to bitch about something, because after all they are critics.
 
What does "next gen gameplay" mean to me?

Right now I'd say particle effects. Everything has to have a bunch of particle effects.
It gets my official "Lens Flare Award" recommendations.
 
low-G said:
I played through Metroid Prime this last summer for the first time beginning to end and I was filled with feels. Nothing to do with gens.
Click to expand...

That's because you didn't play it when it came out or close to it. The fact that still holds up phenomenally well is a testament to how groundbreaking it was.
 
Next gen gameplay, in my vision, is about gameplay innovations only possible with a better hardware due the necessity of more computacional power. Things like better AI, more accurate collisions, vast worlds...
 
It goes way beyond graphics... Graphics are only part of the score...

next Gen to me includes but is not limited to...

larger, open world, more dynamic events, more varied options of how to attack a particular puzzle or task with -choices. AI that allows me to be challenged even when not in multiplayer. Using the new power to make maps, mission structure and world interaction more seamless , intuitive and organic.
 
Nothing honestly, we have reached a stage where the only difference is how the game might look.

The only thing I notice is that outisde of the Vita which only crime is the insanly priced memory cards, we are plagued with region locked devices and having to pay to play online (thanks god it's not both as far as i know).
 
We can (and have) debated on how sensible the word "gameplay" itself is, so I don't think we're going to get too far making sense of a modifier for it.

I vote we instead discuss "shooting sensations"

No, but seriously, I think the logical assumption is it means playing something that simply wasn't possible with previous hardware. I feel like we've been in the realm of diminishing returns in that regard since the start of 6th gen.
 
There is no such thing. Graphics and the place it is set in and other technical jazz is what next gen gives us. Anybody that expects all these new games to have gameplay that is completely different from the last gen are going to be really disappointed.

A better thing to have said would be innovative gameplay. Next gen gameplay is just some silly made up thing that really isn't going to be achieved by the majority of games
 
Complete immersion, and absence of menial tasks (aka a lot of the collecting stuff in AC)
- Project Morpheus/ Oculus Rift support
- Binaural audio support (demos: http://3diosound.com/examples.php)
- Incredibly detailed world (think Samaritan level of detail, or The Witcher 3)
- Incredible amount of interaction with the world (everything small and large is destructible (think Battlefield+ level of destruction)
Realistic interaction with smoke, water/snow, fire, vegetation, materials such as cloth (the film Frozen did a great job with this)
- Interaction with A.I. that learns and is aware of their surroundings
- Emergent, nonlinear, open-ended gameplay (their are no two ways to complete a task)
 
I think its unfair to compare "next-gen gameplay" with every genre. Every genre, should have different expectation and it shouldn't all have to become more open-world and become like GTA.
 
The definition is clear: when you play a game in a way that could not be done on the previous generation. Now, what that means is up to the individual. I personally believe that it is very much AI driven. The control methods this generation (thus far) are the same. The graphics are better, but it's not to the point where the graphics make the game play different. It was true SNES to PS1, as true 3D opened up a whole new way to play, which was due to graphics. Controls, same thing, the introduction of dual analogs opened up things like first person shooters.

But now we're at a plateau. The two sources of new gameplay are more powerful AI computations and online integration. Things like the Twitch user effecting the game IS a next gen only feature. Things like AI being incredibly complex to the point of altering the game IS (potentially) a next gen only feature. Crowd dynamics in particular for open world games could change these kinds of games. SimCity tried this and failed, but that kind of idea could be incredible.

We won't see these games until we're out of the launch period and cross-gen games are no longer the norm.
 
Bgamer90 said:
Gameplay that feels like it isn't possible on last gen due to the game needing a huge hit in performance and/or a significant amount of scaling back just to be playable on those consoles.
Click to expand...
That's generally what I think when I think of what "next-gen gameplay" should mean. But most gameplay concepts that I think of in that regard, such as destructible environments, I realize already have more examples done in the past than there seem to be on the horizon.
 
lyrick said:
264495-Untitled-2.jpg
wiiu-golf-2-495x500.jpg


ZombiU-21.jpg


ZombiU-2.jpg
Click to expand...

Doing things I've already been doing in countless other games?

Just seeing the few examples cherry picked from different generations shows how rare it is to truly play something new. It's only going to become less common as the hobby continues to age.
 
Definitely one of the most worthless phrases in gaming.

It's simply the term "revolutionary", which is perfectly fine word, but "next gen" is just a completely unnecessary marketing tag-along. Yes, a revolutionary game can be something great, but the fact that they're so unique is what makes them so special. Calling those "next gen" games just downplays everything else, and for what? I get people listing SM64, Halo, Prime, etc... and I agree those games are something special, but they are not the *bar* of their generations. They're the TOP. If those are the only next-gen games, what the heck generation is every other game on their respective systems? It's complete nonsense,
 
Yeah it's kind of a stupid term, especially regarding a series. What did he want the next Infamous to play like? A Kart Racer?

If the gameplay feels stale to a person, it's probably because they're done with that IP, it doesn't need to keep changing it's identity. Infamous SS shouldn't be reviewed as a standalone game trying to be something new, it's not, it's another game in the Infamous Universe.
 
Mario Kart 8 (Anti Gravity)
Mario 3D Land/World (New level design direction)
Nintendo Land (Asymmetric gameplay)
Titanfall (Parkour + mech -> new map design)
The Wonderful 101 (Original game design)
A Link Between Worlds (Wall merging)
 
Absolutely nothing.

The advent of new generations might cause developers to try out new mechanics that hadn't been done before (Mode 7 during the fourth era allowing for some neat gimmicks; the addition of analog during the fifth making 3D platforming or whatever-you-want-to-classify-NiGHTS-as possible; exploring motion controls during the seventh generation), but at this point there's not a whole lot that couldn't already be done on the last generation of consoles, strictly in terms of gameplay. The Wii U's second screen gameplay didn't really set the world on fire, I don't expect the touchscreen on the Dual Shock 4 to do much either, and the Xbone's Kinect is still just a Kinect, no matter how much more fine-tuned it is now.
 
Yoday said:
I didn't say that gameplay doesn't evolve. The point is the term that is being tossed around. These critics use the term to downplay games that carry over mechanics from older games, but they only do it at the start of a generation. After a little while they move on from the term and start to just say if a game has new ideas, or familiar gameplay. Gameplay can and does evolve, but it doesn't always happen at the start of a new generation, or even a few years into it. Case inpoint, when Minecraft hit it wasn't called out for having "next gen gameplay". Just because more powerful hardware can enable creators to explore new ideas doesn't mean that every game needs to, or even should. It is true that a lot of innovation happened at the start of the PS1 and N64 era, but that is because there was a fundamental shift in how games were made. That is a rather unique case of gameplay evolving with nearly every game at the start of a generation. "Next gen gameplay" is code for "I don't know what it is I am looking for, but I want it since we have this new hardware". I am not discrediting the idea that gameplay can evolve, or even that new hardware can promote that evolution, but I am saying that the term as it is used by the games media is complete BS. It gives them a reason to bitch about something, because after all they are critics.
Click to expand...

And yet, it's ok to judge these next gen games on their graphics immediately. I don't think these developers should get a free pass in the gameplay department just because its the start of a new gen. We should expect everything to feel new.

For all the crap Nintendo is getting on the Wii U, we at least got games that introduced new gameplay at the launch of the system. And they plan on doubling down on the game pad ( which is a good thing.) for future titles.

Microsoft should be showing us why Kinect should be included with be Xbox One. That brings potential for new gameplay.

These new consoles have already proven that they can deliver great visuals, but as far as gameplay is concerned, there's hardly anything.

I don't blame reviewers for wanting new gameplay.
 
Klocker said:
It goes way beyond graphics... Graphics are only part of the score...

next Gen to me includes but is not limited to...

larger, open world, more dynamic events, more varied options of how to attack a particular puzzle or task with -choices. AI that allows me to be challenged even when not in multiplayer. Using the new power to make maps, mission structure and world interaction more seamless , intuitive and organic.
Click to expand...
other than the AI, and dynamic events we can't expect every game to become open world games, right?
 
NextGen means we get better hardware.
So I expect better graphics, more effects, bigger/more detailed environments, better AI.

Whoever expects more creative gameplay or new ideas to appear with next gen hardware should adjust their expectations.
 
orioto said:
That's not next gen gameplay, that is fresh and nice game design. It can happen everywhere on any console, crazy i know!
Click to expand...

One of the worst posts I've ever seen on GAF.

Whether it can happen on any console isn't the point of relevance, it's whether it HAS happened and the answer to that is NO.

I'm sure you're familiar with Star Trek The Next Generation. It was called the next generation because the cast was new, the Enterprise was new and NOT because the picture quality or the number of actors on screen had increased.

Next generation gameplay to me is something NEW.

Could The Wonderful 101 have been done in 2005 when the Xbox 360 launched? Yes

Was it? No
 
LegendofLex said:
The difference between solo play and simultaneous multiplayer.
The difference between a joystick and a gamepad.
The difference between side-scrolling/top-down shooters and first-person shooters.
The difference between keyboard-only and keyboard-and-mouse.
The difference between D-pad only eight-way movement and 360 degree analog control.
The difference between single-analog and dual-analog control.
The difference between local and online multiplayer.
The difference between Wii Sports and pretty much any other home console game before it.
The difference between dual-analog aiming and motion aiming.
The difference between timed button presses and precision movements/gestures.

Basically, new experiences that weren't achievable on previous hardware, and that aren't minor iterations of stuff that came before.
Click to expand...

The problem with this kind of view is that these are mostly controller improvements. The controllers have barely changed this gen. More to the point 'next-gen gameplay' (hate the term) is quite different from a 'next-gen console'. The console is really just some updated specs, while the former is something we havent seen before.

Also notice that complainers fail to promote any solid idea of what would constitute 'next-gen gameplay'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Are you looking forward to next gen in 2027?
2 3 4
168
2K
InterMusketeer replied
What new 1st Party games will start Next Gen?
41
542
yogaflame replied
What's gonna be the Series S of next gen?
2
59
627
Exede replied
Nice Graphics cool but what can we look forward to next gen when it comes to gameplay & interactions? A.I could actually change gaming for the better
2
57
707
Unfortunatecookie replied
What silicon feature do you want for next gen?
8
319
analog_future replied
Top Bottom