Is gaming right now what you thought it would be?

[Zernath]

I think the proliferation of multiplayer is part of the problem. It's made developers incredibly lazy.

 

[ZombieFan]

Graphics and hype sells games.

Unfortuately that's the crux of the mater. A huge amount of game sales (and pre-sales) are generated on what a game looks like or how much hype has been generated - CP2077 is the obvious example, but it happens for pretty much every 'AAA' game which has a thread on this forum.

Game publishers know this, and as a result they invest a lot of time and money into crafting and generating hype for a game. That's the reason marketting departments exist. Hype doesn't appear by accident - The amount of time and money spent on marketting (hype generation) can be higher than what is spent on development (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop).

The games which recieve the most marketting are the ones which get the most attention, and therefore are the most commonly played - and these are the ones which usually over promise and under deliver. If you keep putting yourself through the 'hype->buy on release->disappointment' cycle then you will feel that game quality is regressing.

There are games out there which are innovative and push non-graphical boundaries but are overlooked by the masses. Examples include Wilmot's Warehouse (https://store.steampowered.com/app/839870/Wilmots_Warehouse/#app_reviews_hash) and Stephen's Sausage Roll (https://store.steampowered.com/app/353540/Stephens_Sausage_Roll/).

Another genre I particularly enjoy is Metroidvanias. These have reached a new pinnacle over the last few years with games such as Hollow Knight and Ori (inc. the sequel).

 

[GIBURROWS]

Sounds like a lot of you guys haven't played Stardew Valley!

Yes gaming has gone stale as devs/companies are all about those benjamins, they've all seen how much money Rockstar have made with shark cards so loot boxes or player packs are what people build their game around and the story/experience comes about 4th or 5th.

 

[PC777]

Sounds like a lot of you guys haven't played Stardew Valley!

Yes gaming has gone stale as devs/companies are all about those benjamins, they've all seen how much money Rockstar have made with shark cards so loot boxes or player packs are what people build their game around and the story/experience comes about 4th or 5th.

To be fair Stardew Valley isn't a great example of innovation or game freshness as it's colossally, massively, almost entirely influenced by a decades old console series, Harvest Moon. To the point it might as well be a sequel to those games. Stardew Valley didn't innovate at all, but most didn't know about Harvest Moon so assumed it was a new style of game.

I think it's one of the most ripoff games to receive the plaudits it has - the whole concept was taken from Harvest Moon that perfected that formula including dating, marriage and kids, exploration, etc, all some decades before Stardew Valley even came out. Truthfully, Stardew Valley is not innovative or new style at all, it's actually one of the more blatantly derivative games to be released in recent years.

 

[GIBURROWS]

To be fair Stardew Valley isn't a great example of innovation or game freshness as it's colossally, massively, almost entirely influenced by a decades old console series, Harvest Moon. To the point it might as well be a sequel to those games. Stardew Valley didn't innovate at all, but most didn't know about Harvest Moon so assumed it was a new style of game.

I think it's one of the most ripoff games to receive the plaudits it has - the whole concept was taken from Harvest Moon that perfected that formula including dating, marriage and kids, exploration, etc, all some decades before Stardew Valley even came out. Truthfully, Stardew Valley is not innovative or new style at all, it's actually one of the more blatantly derivative games to be released in recent years.

It was a tongue in cheek comment, most people on this thread have crazy cpu/gpu combos and the thought of them playing Stardew Valley on those would make me laugh so much.

 

[Calin Banc]

I am going to write something up later, but it’s worth also pointing out that if you have been playing video games for 10 or 20 years already, then what you found great back in the day can sometimes be put down to the fact that you simply didn’t have enough experience yet.

but anyway, i think I would have liked things to be ‘further on’ but it’s more that the fantastical things you could dream up 10 years ago are much more complicated to put into practice than we hoped.

But there are still great games and gameplay experiences to be had.

Tried Thief: Deadly Shadows a few days back and I'm still impressed by it. Had dynamic shadows for almost every light in the game which adds a lot to the atmosphere, there wasn't much nonsense in terms of gameplay, just some objectives, the map and there you go (not much hand-holding). Sure, the graphics are "ancient", animation clunky, but managed to create a certain atmosphere seeing the shadows dance on the walls and floor of the room as two of your persons of interest spoke near a fire in a chimney.
Latest Thief solves some of the issues of Deadly Shadows, but also has some "modern" elements that i loath as it tends to get too much in your face -> paint over the edges that you can climb (Tomb Raider is guilty of the same thing). A lot of stuff looks and should be climbable, but it isn't. Why? Because the devs said so! Assassin's Cred and Dying Light do here a nice job (although in the latest AC game you can climb on glaciers like you climb a tree, lol ).

Half Life 2 with new graphics, if it were to be released now, probably would have won a few GOTY awards.

In terms of technical stuff, Red Faction had advanced physics for a long time - even in GTA like environments. How many are using similar tech? None. Some aspects can be perfected even with the addition of simple mechanics, like basic survival stuff. Is total immersion breaking to be exploring a northern land, during a cold night with a snow storm raging and while you find a journal in a ruin, you go through it and see that it speaks of the troubles an expedition had due to the weather, and then comes the realization that you're right there, in the cold, able to go outside, take a bath naked in the freezing cold water of the ocean and fight other barely dressed NPCs without an issue... Details make or break a game.

Why expected continually improvements and innovations in such areas as gameplay, interactivity, immersion, complexity etc? Are novels 'improving' in such ways year on year? Or are today's novels basically the same level as those of the 1950s or 1900s? In gaming, the hardware improves rapidly - which drives rapid improvements in the visuals - as we've seen. But it doesn't follow that other areas of gaming should improve similarly just because rendering performance improves.

Just as novels have reached the limits of their platform (arguably a century+ ago), maybe those aspects of gameplay, interactivity, immersion, complexity are also approaching their limits. Sure there'll be some (subjective) improvements with future hardware improvements, but don't expect games a decade from now to be dramatically more 'fun' than those of today, just as today's games aren't dramatically more fun than those of 2010 despite huge hardware advances.

Graphics, physics and AI are just at the beginning. They play a huge part in how the world revels itself to the player, how real it fells as it respond at the action of the player. AC:Unity gave a glimpse on how a city should be with lots of people on its streets. Hitman had some similar situations.

I still haven’t had time to reply properly, but this nails a big part of it. I don’t think people are looking at this from a game design perspective.

sure you can programme in the ability for everything to be set alight and break quests.. but is that a fun game?

The mechanics/technologies people are asking for here are interesting, but how many of you can come up with an entirely new game system that will be balanced and enjoyable? Seriously, try it now. You’ll realise you come up with something that is ‘just’ Far Cry, or Counter Strike or WoW.

The underlying theory of what a game is has been explored for centuries now. I’m not saying something new can’t come along, I’m just saying it’s not easy.

Let's see some aspects of gameplay/technology that already have been implemented in games or demos (as in: it can be done): Red Faction physics for general stuff, MudTires physics for offroad use, BeamNG as physics for the vehicles, Deus Ex type of level design with multiple approaches to finishing a mission (ergo, some RPG elements), AI on the GPU so you can have thousands of them which can respond dynamically to danger and still be able to do their stuff (was a demo by AMD way back in HD4xxx days), advanced physics on the GPU, Euphoria type of animation (the same animation used in GTA games), ArmA style of ballistics, helicopters and planes flight mechanics + level editor, Star Citizen size and so on. Sky is the limit.

Stagnation came due to "let's ship this ASAP at minimal costs and maximum profits!".

 

[manic111]

The only AAA title I've enjoyed for a long time was Death Stranding. But there are some fantastic indie games.

 

[chef-borjan]

Tried Thief: Deadly Shadows a few days back and I'm still impressed by it. Had dynamic shadows for almost every light in the game which adds a lot to the atmosphere, there wasn't much nonsense in terms of gameplay, just some objectives, the map and there you go (not much hand-holding). Sure, the graphics are "ancient", animation clunky, but managed to create a certain atmosphere seeing the shadows dance on the walls and floor of the room as two of your persons of interest spoke near a fire in a chimney.

I think you are just pointing out it has... a good art style? I fail to see why many many other modern games don't do this well either.

Latest Thief solves some of the issues of Deadly Shadows, but also has some "modern" elements that i loath as it tends to get too much in your face -> paint over the edges that you can climb (Tomb Raider is guilty of the same thing). A lot of stuff looks and should be climbable, but it isn't. Why? Because the devs said so!

The devs say so because if any game gave you full control (as if a real human being was standing there) it would be extremely unwieldly, either from a movement control perspective or a level design perspective. The game of chess is fun because it has set rules that we can understand and stick to. Just because it feels like a pawn should move sideways doesn't make it a better game.

In terms of technical stuff, Red Faction had advanced physics for a long time - even in GTA like environments. How many are using similar tech? None. Some aspects can be perfected even with the addition of simple mechanics, like basic survival stuff. Is total immersion breaking to be exploring a northern land, during a cold night with a snow storm raging and while you find a journal in a ruin, you go through it and see that it speaks of the troubles an expedition had due to the weather, and then comes the realization that you're right there, in the cold, able to go outside, take a bath naked in the freezing cold water of the ocean and fight other barely dressed NPCs without an issue...

Details make or break a game.

Attention to detail to the underlying mechanics that are specific to each game are vital, but what you seem to have listed are random features.

So what if I can have terraforming in a game if it completely breaks progression or renders entire weapons/playstyles pointless? So what if I have to balance survival meters and its hindering my ability to complete story beats? Additionally, the more you model 'realism' you also bring up more problems when the game world abruptly tells you something is not possible, uncanny valley style.

Let's see some aspects of gameplay/technology that already have been implemented in games or demos (as in: it can be done): Red Faction physics for general stuff, MudTires physics for offroad use, BeamNG as physics for the vehicles, Deus Ex type of level design with multiple approaches to finishing a mission (ergo, some RPG elements), AI on the GPU so you can have thousands of them which can respond dynamically to danger and still be able to do their stuff (was a demo by AMD way back in HD4xxx days), advanced physics on the GPU, Euphoria type of animation (the same animation used in GTA games), ArmA style of ballistics, helicopters and planes flight mechanics + level editor, Star Citizen size and so on. Sky is the limit.

Is this a game, with clear identifiable loops of rewarding gameplay that can be refined or tweaked or your misguided attempts at forcing together tech demos?

I think sport is a fantastic analogy here. Let's just mash up the rules, 5 players a side, you can either score by dunking it in the hoop or performing a double backflip as long as you are not standing in an offside position. If you knock overall of the pins at once its a strike, but three strikes and you are out.

My point is, you have to think critically about what each of those technologies bring to the table for a specific game/genre. Shoehorning mechanics for the sake of it creates a messy experience.

 

[PC777]

It was a tongue in cheek comment, most people on this thread have crazy cpu/gpu combos and the thought of them playing Stardew Valley on those would make me laugh so much.

My apologies, I get your context now, this is unrelated to your comment, but that game's success has been a bit of a bugbear for me due to the fact it's so blatantly derivative.

Mini rant incoming (unrelated to your comment just an expansion on my thoughts about Stardew Valley)

The irony is it's a good game that even some are playing on top systems because the basic Harvest Moon farming concept was so good and original. It kind of annoys me as an aspiring indie dev that the guy who made Stardew Valley is now a multimillionaire set for life when he really did just totally copy an existing successful formula, not just as a genre influence, but damn near a straight copy.

To me he's been rewarded for absolute plagiarism, I'm amazed Natsume or whoever owns Harvest Moon didn't sue him. To me Stardew Valley sets a bad precedent for indie game innovation. Why bother innovating when you can simply copy an old game and make millions from it?

I think one of its contemporaries shows the right way to be influenced - Terraria was essentially a 2D Minecraft game that they worked really hard at and ended up with something great with some original elements. Stardew Valley is technically a sound game that happens to be a complete and utter ripoff.

But as developers go, he's basically won the lottery, total freedom, ownership of IP, there's many devs in top studios that wish they could be in his situation.

And he got it all from having no shame about totally copying another game. Doesn't set a great example for innovation in indie games.

Portal started out as in indie game with a highly innovative concept that Valve quickly realised the potential of and made as a full game. That's the kind of indie ideas I like, not just ripping off an existing formula.

 

[Calin Banc]

I think you are just pointing out it has... a good art style? I fail to see why many many other modern games don't do this well either.

What I wanted to say is that I could still enjoy an older game if I find it good all around (not just the art style), as a reply to that older games aren't as good as we found them to be back in the day - and indeed, aren't, but still can be entertaining and can still make us wanted something better for the sequels. I would also add that an older game can be more appealing if we don't have now other games for that play style or genre.

The devs say so because if any game gave you full control (as if a real human being was standing there) it would be extremely unwieldly, either from a movement control perspective or a level design perspective. The game of chess is fun because it has set rules that we can understand and stick to. Just because it feels like a pawn should move sideways doesn't make it a better game.

To have full control it would be extremely difficult for a game that is based on some sort of story as it would need multiple back ups paths to branch said story and, on top, AI capable to respond to player actions and other NPCs properly. But is not about that, not now when we don't have the hardware for it. I'm fine with rules, but those rules have to follow logic and not oversimplify things. I don't mind (that much), that I can climb extremely fast some buildings in Assassin's Creed, but it is jarring when I can freely climb a glacier without equipment, just walking up Spider-Man style - gameplay mechanic probably used to cut short some traveling times.

When it comes to the newer Thief game, you can allow the players to climb other obstacles, the game still has a lot of verticality as it is. You even have a segment at the beginning of the game in which you follow a character and parkour your way towards an objective. To find later on that you can't really jump (just climb up or down certain stuff) and you can only go through some narrow passages at times, it loses that sense of freedom, of having options. Easiest thing to do, just remove the white paint from ledges, at least is not in your face that you can only go through there. It doesn't signal and mark the limitations. Same for Tomb Raider. Of course, I would like for them to do more than this, but it could be the bare minimum (this is one of the stuff that is lacking form the older Thief game (Deadly Shadows), which I liked).

Attention to detail to the underlying mechanics that are specific to each game are vital, but what you seem to have listed are random features.

So what if I can have terraforming in a game if it completely breaks progression or renders entire weapons/playstyles pointless? So what if I have to balance survival meters and its hindering my ability to complete story beats? Additionally, the more you model 'realism' you also bring up more problems when the game world abruptly tells you something is not possible, uncanny valley style.

Indeed, some of those mechanics apply partially and not all at once, depending per game; don't have to be all in the same game if there is no need. I don't think you need survival stuff in Doom, for instance. At least not for the gameplay we have now.

But in GTA type of game or open world action RPG, I can see MudTires and BeamNG stuff, advanced physics, plenty of AIs, etc., without breaking the game. In Skyrim, although there isn't the survival aspect in the base versions, there were mods which brought that in without issues. Even had extra clothes and such, tents and NPCs were actually wearing proper attire depending on their environment. Fallout 4 had Survival as difficulty with survival aspects - did not break the game. Same for RDR 2. In all Red Faction games, although it had the advanced physics, you still used your guns for a lot of stuff and did not break the story or game.
Ergo, is very much doable, more so since you'd have the actual devs in control and implementing mechanics.

Of course, would need some tinkering compared to today's standard games design and AI.

Is this a game, with clear identifiable loops of rewarding gameplay that can be refined or tweaked or your misguided attempts at forcing together tech demos?

I think sport is a fantastic analogy here. Let's just mash up the rules, 5 players a side, you can either score by dunking it in the hoop or performing a double backflip as long as you are not standing in an offside position. If you knock overall of the pins at once its a strike, but three strikes and you are out.

My point is, you have to think critically about what each of those technologies bring to the table for a specific game/genre. Shoehorning mechanics for the sake of it creates a messy experience.

Taking GTA 5 as it is popular: Mud Tire and BeamNG would work just fine - GTA 4 had better vehicle physics and destruction of them. Advanced physics also would be fine and so would big crowds of AI, to actually have a living city, not a city which looks like is in a pandemic. Some proper AI for the Police, to not just spawn around you, would help as well (people complain that in Cyberpunk the Police spawns close to you, but they (the law) spawn in ALL Rockstar games around you, just further away). Probably some SWAT tactics for them and other similar law enforcement tactics to approach a dangerous situation in order to keep the illusion alive. Living the Matrix. Then you have grassy fields, so you can simulate grass moving in the wind and reacting to outside forces (like Crysis 3). Perhaps a better implementation for fluids since you spend time on water as well. A better control scheme for airplanes and helicopters, plus better physics for them would be nice as well (you can't use a joystick/hotas now) and so on.