I find that all these action/shooter games have all been implementing a degree of stealth. But it's a stealth that can be best described as "murder stealth". It's not like MGS or Splinter Cell, where the game encourages you to avoid combat completely (With Splinter Cell even having certain missions where you cannot kill anyone or it's game over.) Murder Stealth encourages murdering every enemy in the room without being spotted, and the only consequence of getting caught is that the enemies will attack you all at once. But since it's an action game that's not really a punishment since you're character is always equipped to get in massive firefights regardless. I don't know, I just think that for some reason companies feel the need to implement a degree of "stealth" in their action games, and it's more or less getting bland and just unneeded.
The reason is quite obvious, they think it will draw in a bigger audience when all it really does is watering down the game's main focus. They are following the same formula Hollywood has been following for years and they are now starting to experience the same backlash: too big to fail syndrome and talents hemorrhage.
Someone should make a puzzle game where you do some random puzzle and there are awkward and weird moments when you have to do stealth stuff, although it’s completely unnecessary. I really hate how every game needs stealth for some reason. Why make a game with pointless stealth when you can make a stealth master piece like MGS? We need more stuff like that.
@@peppinoandweskerfriendsfor3450 Tbf, I think stealth might have more in common with puzzle games than action. I mean, Stealth games are basically puzzles in which a lot of the fun is figuring out HOW will you reach your objetive without being noticed. (Do I creep behind the enemy and hold them at gunpoint? Do I shot them from a distance? Do I shoot the lights to create a distraction while I take advantage of the cover of darkness? Do I thow a poisonous snake at them? And will any of the other enemies in the area notice their bodies if I just leave them behind? Where can I hide them? Is it worth trying to get some information out of them before knocking them out? Or maybe it would be better to avoid combat entirely... Could I disguise myself and blend in? Maybe a carboard box would work....)
+Jack Heathen Jesus Christ get a load of this guy. How about watch better films. Watch lesbian and gay pandering films of you want. Watch foreign or independents films. Go on the criterion collection.
thatsnotchocolat Jesus Christ calm down? I was joking around. I wasn't wanting help looking for "better movies". I'm not a lesbian or gay, so how could I relate with those films? Foreign and independent films are becoming just as dumb as the Blockbusters, seen most of the good ones. And the Criterion Collection are you serious? Seen the ones worth watching, most are overrated.
Jack Heathen Lol, im starting to wonder what the hell films you actually like. You really don't like any film that came out in the past 5 years? Are you expecting a masterpiece of filmmaking at every turn? Do you even enjoy film as a medium
Agreed. As a kid, I used to love romantic comedy movies, but as I grow older, I just see all of them going through the same pattern, no matter how hard they have to stretch the story for it to work. The "Liar revealed, get in a fight, dramatic set-piece, make up and make love" trope is especially why romantic comedies is one of my most hated genres for films these days.
shajita 9 times out of 10, the liar revealed will be the male partner. And in the remaining one, it will still be the male's fault, for not being "understanding" enough about the female's particular situation that led her to lie. I don't know if this has anything to do with games, but I like pointing out cliches =)
karottenkoenig Totally. Like how every games commentator has to use the phrases "ubiquitous", "law of diminishing returns" and "ironically". I guess It's easy to be cynical about it while looking in, but much more difficult to forge a whole career of repeated groundbreaking successes.
to be fair, the mainstream part of games, movies or musical genres, often is the first and easiest way for us to discover new styles, we then like to discover more and dig deeper into. so even if it gets annoying, once a special taste is formed, it often led to looking into a particular genre in the first place
This isn't just nostalgia either. You look at games of the 6th generation and all the genres play differently. A splinter cell game doesnt play like a Silent Hill game and Halo didn't play like devil may cry. But now every single game from Tomb Raider to resident evil to splinter cell boils down to shooting tons of dudes.
Homogenization is killing games. Just look at The Last of Us: hailed as an innovative masterpiece all because it combined all of the gameplay tropes for the past decade or so into one package: shallow stealth, quick time events, third person pop and cover shooter, and all the other things George listed here. But, I didn't HATE TLoU. It was pretty well made. But best game ever? I can't see how. All games are nowadays are "jack of all trades, master of none" releases.
A game isn't just gameplay nowdays. It also has storytelling, music ... etc. TLOU is an evolution to a better storytelling by not failing at any of those aspects. When nothing seems out of place, you kinda feel like you are in that world you play. The best feature TLOU had was IMMERSION. It perfomed almost perfectly at graphics,gameplay,music,story and the only place that failed a bit to deliver was AI, only when you forced some weird situations.
Andrei Voiculescu I don't know about you, but when Ellie straight up stomps right by a Clicker with no caution whatsoever during gameplay, it pretty much breaks all immersion for me.
I don't recall anyone saying that The Last of Us was innovating in its gameplay department. The game in its core was a 3rd person shooter and no one said the opposite. What the game succeded in doing was delivering great storytelling and character development.
***** In Assassins creed games you would scale large buildings and after reaching the top, a portion of the map becomes viewable to the player. Shadow of Mordor did the same thing as I'm sure other games have as well.
+Alex Olinkiewicz (olinkalex) But that Ubisoft thing is acutally also seen in WB games. And +Super Bunnyhop himself said that the Witcher 3 had a similar thing going on.
+PyramiDie I'm getting sick of grenade indicators, hit-markers and death cams in games. I liked it better when I could keep my enemy on his toes if he didn't know he didn't kill me, and how the hell am I going to get someone with a grenade if they know where it is at all times!? Lastly, I'm sick and tired of seeing games with a number greater than 4 at the end of their titles. Just saying... because... there's a lot of them now. Make something new devs, and quit relying on the indie developers to make stuff.
Best example; Duke Nukem Forever. That game was literally just a collection of design trends from the late 90's to the mid 00's, to the point where it was barely even a a shooter anymore. "Hey, you wanna kick ass and maybe chew some bubble gum later? Great! but first, you have to check out our museum of passing design fads, such as: * Long platforming sections with no enemies! * Bloody screen! * Regenerating health! * Vehicle sections! * Long walks from point A to point B with no obstacles! And much, much more."
Thats becouse that game was suposed to come out in the 90s they scraped it and tried to rebuild it so many times it became a mish-mash of so many games
That's why the PS2 era was the best. Games were actually different from each other back then. When everything is streamlined to be accessible to everyone, everything ends up being the same.
+MegaPhilX This was bound to happen anyways, when allot of money is involved, it's no surprise publishers would rather go the safe route, rather than the experimental route.
+triedge763 Which is sad, because many interesting game genres/franchises were created through experiments. This copy-cating might lead to another video game market crash, unless people will continue to buy clones endlessly.
+Crap Com Eh, scratch the previous comment, but still FF13 doing new stuff is not the game's major criticisms, it is how the the game's new stuff was implemented that's the problem. Granted, I haven't played 13 so I have no real opinion on it, but still.
+ZeroZXDev You're right. The execution of that new stuff is also important. It's also important to avoid making choices that will alienate your fan base. The point is back then for example, a Resident Evil game was a Resident Evil game. Now and since the PS3/X360, Resident Evil has to be something that it's not (has to have auto-save and big action set pieces). Completely forgot its horror roots.
I agree and disagree. I think that using trends and tropes just for the sake of having them can hurt the game. Not every game needs crafting system or RPG elements. Focus in game design is something quite rare in modern AAA games. They try to be the jack of all trades and often prefer quantity over quality. On the other hand, I disagree with your criticism of similar controls. Controls should allow you comfortable and easy gameplay. Try to play some games from the 90's and early 2000's and most of the time you won't believe how awkward and nonsensical the controls are. Controls became more similar because most games have similar actions and developers have finally found the most comfortable layout and gameplay mechanics. To use your own example, MGS3 had a very complicated and unintuitive CQC mechanics that were only described in the manual. It gave you maybe 10 possible actions, all very different, activated by button combinations, button pressure recognition, slight movement and so on. The difference between knocking someone out and slitting his throat was a slightly harder push of a button, which easily caused frustration. Ground Zeroes, on the other hand, assigns important actions to different buttons and gives you a well-arranged context menu where you can see every possible action. It lowers the learning curve and means that if you do get in trouble, it's your own fault, not something caused by bad layout or nonsensical mechanics.
As you both agreed and disagreed with SBH I will now do the same to you comment :D I agree that controls should be intuitive and that in a lot of genres familiar controls are something that lets the game focus on other things (like story or other mechanics as the obstacles in your way). I agree that I much rather take tested and similiar controls over some of the antiquated and straight up impossible controls of the past. On the other hand, I have to say that of new mechanics to put in a game the control scheme is the first the player usually is presented with and the one that probably differenciates the game the most from other games. There are sooo many intreresting mechanics out there left unexplored because of fear of changing the controls. A lot of these mechanics are beeing swooped up by indie developers but some could really use some AAA touch to polish them. When I try to design a game it in most cases is that I try to think of new control schemes to represent a action. By designing in this way you shift some of the focus of the game from trying to overcome the challanges the game creates in itself to the player trying to overcome the challenges of the controls. When I write it like that maybe it doesn't sound that good.... Let me put it this way: to learn to handle intruments and master them is something inherent in beeing a human. I like the thought of how fantastic our brain is at learning new tools. How it after a while gets stuck in muscle memory. Oh well. Maybe that way of putting it only made it sound pretentious. Once again I don't advecate for horrible controls no one ever will understand. Only more ways (maybe more elegant ways) to model the control of things onto a controller. Sadly I can understand why the AAA's dont wanna try new controls. I mean it has almost gotten to the point that they don't even have to playtest these kind of things. And a new control scheme is something that really can take up developement time as well as playtest-time. And as games of today are so horribly bad at tutorials maybe it is a good thing for us that we can skip most of them and don't have to live through one for every new game realeased.
Honestly, I feel a lot of the problems you're pointing out is primarily due to how we classify games in comparison to other media. Other media (books, movies, plays) are all defined by their content, and not by the techniques inherent to their construction. Games on the other hand are exclusively defined by their mechanics; I mean you yourself bring up "RPG Mechanics" in games, but when you look at what Role Playing Games are designed to do, the phrase becomes nonsensical and ludicrous. Mechanics in RPGs exist to cause failure to make success more engaging, because a single failure doesn't require restarting the session, or to create tension when you're confronted with the dissonance between what you as a player want and what you've designed your character to want. None of that is present video game RPGs, much less on the list of "RPG elements", it's only the progression system that's used to show character growth (Does your Shadowrun Decker finally beat his addiction? Does your heroic fighter finally master that elusive technique?) that gets poorly ported over. Controls are an extension of this issue, how you interact with the mechanics is just as important as the mechanics themselves. Yeah, having to learn an entirely new control scheme is annoying, but often times it's deliberate to disincentivize certain actions. You bring up CQC in MGS3 as an example of "bad" controls, but looking at what you actually post it's an example of controls that are deliberately designed to make CQC something you the player _do not_ want to do, fitting with both how real life combat works and how a stealth game is supposed to work. You aren't supposed to be fighting, so the combat can be designed to require a lot of involvement and precision on the player's part to be effective. In fitting with the homogenization of gaming this is removed and you get "stealth" games where the "stealth" only exists because it affect some score at the end of the level or you're shot down in a hail of gunfire and have to reload from the last checkpoint. It can't be both ways. If a game is to have "focus" and quality design, then the control scheme needs to reflect that, and thus be more intrusive into you learning to play. If the game is supposed to be a homogeneous jack of all trades, then the control scheme should be incidental to the play itself.
I agree with you. I tried Metal Gear Solid 4, but I just had such a hard time doing basic manouvering that it felt offputting. In my opinion, a games controls should be as simple as possible without diminishing the complexity of the gameplay. In a game you shouldn't have to stop and think about witch button to press, you sould just press the right one without thinking. Sure many games share controls and mechanics but that's just because people like them and are familliar to them. That is why I don't like fighting games. Sure you have basic punch,kick, heavy, light. But no way in hell I'll learn all those combomoves! I'l stick to smashbrothers because those controls make sense to me.
Max Payne I also disagree about the controls, but in terms of the 'player feel' aspect of controls, I do dislike how just about all third person games feel like I'm playing as Nathan Drake. There is a trend towards hyper-sensitivity to momentum. I played The Evil Within from start to finish and by the time I was in full control of Seb, I was already unhappy with the fact he didn't move more like Leon.
Zeful 1. RPG elements today are often very shallow mechanics translated in a way that has little to do with their original function, and you could even argue that skills and levels aren't the main signature of RPGs, since they can be used in linear games with little possibility for actual role playing. I used the term simply because they're usually called that way. 2. Making unnecessarily complicated and confusing controls is a lazy way to increase difficulty. MGS3 had many possibilities to make combat harder. Snake can survive a full clip sprayed at him, you can easily get access to M60 and other powerful weapons, silencers are rarely hard to come by, shooting through an entire location has minor consequences and with 90% camouflage, enemies can walk 2m from you and not see a thing. They could've changed the game design or the AI to increase the difficulty, so my guess is that it's simply an unfortunate design. Besides, what's the point of creating a new, complex game mechanic, only to make it so hard to use that it makes the tranq+vault technique seem like a total overkill?
Man that sounded cynical, George. You may even beat Yahtzee in the next cynicism competition. Perhaps you need a rest from AAA and check some of the more varied indie stuff (not counting the 400 early access zombie survival crafting simulators)
it's not cynicism at all. it's just frustration with how things are going right now. Cynicism would be making an attack against the character of the industry, likely by saying that nobody in it cares about consumers.
Yeah, he should play some Indie horror ga-...wait, i forgot, most of them are just trying to be Outlast/Amnesia/Slender/Jumpscare/Pewdiepiebait-clusterfucks... nevemind then -_-
Oh god yes! Finally I see someone else mention this somewhere. Are there not already more than enough open-world, zombie survival, crafting games to last us a lifetime? Right now as I type this there are probably about 100 more being worked on and will be released on Steam next month.. early access of course. Enough, you guys killed the zombie.
***** I'd also recommend trying out some free stuff, its rare and really hard to find but there is some pretty good and completely free games out there, such as.. Lost Alpha or even got replay a some old games you haven't touch in a year or longer and look around for mods, that's always a welcome change for me whenever I get bored of everything else.
and yet people pan games like Splatoon and Star Fox Zero for having these weird and outlandish control schemes. People don't wanna spend time "gitting gud" at a game and learning it's "weird" control scheme. They'd rather stick to what they know and that's why most games don't even try anymore. They'd rather hook people in with nice look set pieces and use what everyone else has been using for 10 years instead of making a unique game
I agree, I hate design fads, and the last couple of years have been dreadful. Far worse than "lack of new IP", I want new creative mechanics, not just new characters and settings. It's actually why I am a bit concerned about the new Zelda, with all the talk of "open world game". I want innovative controls like Z-targeting in OoT, or new ways of streamlining gameplay like replacing ammo with an energy bar in ALBW. Zeldas are rarely derivative (except of other Zeldas), but I'm definitely worried it might end up being Skyrim with worse graphics and a Triforce.
I worry about the now-common use of the word 'content', as if content somehow makes everything better. No amount of content can make up for poor gameplay, or a poor setting or story.
I was just thinking about how RE4 changed the gaming landscape so drastically and then this video comes along. RE4 was a game that was so influential that even it's sequel couldn't stop ripping it off. Another thing, that just feels extremely over done in today's games is the overuse of "see through" vision. I really miss the days of hearing footsteps and using meters to see how far you were.
***** Basically, in the mind of the devs, appeal to people with the mindset of DSPGaming. I'm pretty sure even deaf people can listen to those footsteps. They are loud.
Thank god in most games this shit is an upgrade or an option, and not default. Games like Dishonored and Deus Ex HR made so much better with optional hud markers and other clutter turned off.
***** I notice that games based off old PC franchises tend to do this. One thing that really annoyed me about the new Thief that it held your hand even with hints off. I always did laugh at games that had optional stuff turned off on higher difficulties.
Hahah, just today, eight years later, I saw apparent discourse on Twitter about how the RE4 remake overuses icons for the breakable boxes, and this RUclipsr gamedev had the interesting take that she'll take those over the see-through vision any day lol
The Halo series suffers from this. Recent games have tried adding ordnance drops (kill streak rewards), loadouts, instant respawn, sprinting, etc, etc. All of these thing detract from the simple arena FPS gameplay that made Halo so popular in the first place. Putting Halo 5 and CoD: Advanced Warfare side by side is hard to see the difference, whereas comparing Halo 3 to Modern Warfare the differences were immediately obvious. A real shame really. The arena FPS that were popular in the late 90's and mid 2000's now only have tiny niche audiences. A lot of developers are also taking the Ubisoft approach to game padding which is basically a bunch of useless time wasting quests (climb a tower to reveal the map) that aren't really fun and are really only in the game to distract from the fact that the main game can be finished in 6 hours.
I also hate how mainstream media is hurting game development, some devs are afraid to implement some idea into a game just because someone out there might dislike and criticize it.
Can you blame them when games cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce and the profit margin is ridiculously thin? Derivation, cliche, adaptation, sequels, and rote features happen because those are proven entities that usually return an acceptable profit. Big companies are naturally risk-averse. It's the same reason why Hollywood has been so creatively bankrupt for so long.
Except i'd argue it's not the fault of mainstream media this time - it's the fault of the consumer. The consumer practically wants games that play the same. I've noticed what Bunnyhop has been saying for years, but no one else is complaining about it - no consumers, no RUclipsrs, no reviewers. Nobody. Businesses do what they have to do because they have to make money and I respect that. If you want trends to change, only the consumer can demand change. If the consumer has no problem with a product, then there will be no change.
Game james they didn't, actually, sure you climb three radio towers, but it's part of the story, relevant, and fun. It's nothing like in the ubisoft games where it is done to gain map vision.
I agree in one sense, but you said it yourself. All these games have systems that work. Technology has gotten to a point where games can copy mechanics from each other in a way that wasn't possible earlier, and the fact that every game in AAA is touched by 100 people or more dilutes any unique identity even further. That being said, I'd never want to go back to a time when controls weren't standardized across their genres. I don't have the time anymore to learn a game's insane control scheme unless it's something really special, and trigger buttons just feel right for run and gun shooting.
I agree. I like the somewhat standardizations of control schemes. I don't miss clunky controls, crappy camera systems or the like. I've been gaming for almost 30 years and regardless of what hipsters say these days I remember how clearly stuff used to suck and don't have nostalgia goggles. Well maybe except for rpgs in some form.
Agreed. As much as I hate bland generic games, I'm glad we now have found things that work really well and standardized them. I remember the dawn of FPSes in the '90s, some of them had really weird controls (*cough*SystemShock1*cough*cough*).
I don't know. I agree that standardized controls are great for use gamers, but, I can't say that it's great for EVERY AAA action game. How great would the 2013 Tomb Raider would have been if the the control scheme wasn't standardized, at least in the beginning of the game. The level up system in these games aren't enough to make most gamers feel... weak. Creating ludonarrative dissonance that kills any sense of immersion the game could and should have. I don't think all games needs to break away from standardize mechanics, but it would be cool if some did.
This is a HUGE part of why I'm getting bored of video games. They have been starting to feel too close to the same. Hell, pretty much this whole gen has had this problem and some of last gen too.
There are still unconventional games with unique, sometimes to a fault, controls. Take for example a game called DUSKERS, you control a team of AI bots in a top-down grid-based computer simulation and you must type out orders in a survival horror roguelite experience. As much as I admit some formulas are becoming more predictable, I am happy to see that some games are branching out with improving other areas of their content like the story and player choices for a strategy campaign in Divinity: Dragon Commander.
Maybe spend a year or so playing some indie games casually. Or a genre that you typically wouldn't play. Or maybe some really esoteric Japanese game. Mix it up!
That's why you want to be a pc gamer. Most of the interesting games I played in the last 5 years were indie games, fan made mods and games I missed when they were released some time in the last 25 years for any system (pc is eventually backwards compatible with them all through emulation)..
You know which design trend is even MORE overplayed than these design trends? The fact almost ALL games that are set in medieval or ancient times seem to be set in a real or fantasy version of ENGLAND, GREECE or ROME . Very few are set in Asia and NONE are set in the pre-colombian Americas or AFRICA. Think of all folklore and other story telling opportunities that are being overlooked. From stategy to MMORPGs to third person games its all the same. Orcs, elves, warriors, wizards and thieves in the fantasy setting and knights, men-at-arms and longbowmen in realistic settings. Its so dull.
Ah, that makes more sense. Yeah that would be much more interesting. An old game I loved was Tenchu Z that did a pretty good job of old Asia for the time, but yeah games should use those different settings for those type of games.
I agree that is strange. The closest thing to medieval middle eastern setting after that is the first Assasin's creed only to then go to Europe and America in the sequels.
That does seem to be the problem these days. Most developers have chosen graphical fidelity over innovation and mechanics. Back in the 8 and 16-bit days it was always about "look at all the new game mechanics we made, look at all the new things you can do we spent months trying to redefine the way you play this game, and oh yeah the graphics are nice too". Now its "look how beautiful this game is, look at the colors, and how high def everything is, we spent months with a team of artists to make sure every drop of sweat coming off generic space marine #268's forehead looked as real as possible, and oh yeah the gameplay is the same as the last three games." For something called a video game the actual gameplay aspect of it seems to have become an after thought
+David Maglioli i think it comes down to the more expensive development is, the less risk that shall be taken, which is well noted even today, but only time will tell when we reach a mid point where creative development and astounding AAA capabilities will blend
+David Maglioli there was tons of that back in the day too. nearly every action game claimed to have "realistic graphics". youre right to an extend though. watching the old DKC commercial video tape for example includes a lot of boasting about the incredible graphics, the 3d models and the advanced computers required to make them, but other bullet points include things like "so many levels and areas!" and "look at all these moves DK has!". ...witch is still said today about new elder scrolls and gtas, but today its usually "the map is bigger than azeroth/skyrim/gta X" or "over X00 hours of gameplay!".
+David Maglioli I disagree--the difference between then and now is that we have games with great controls that the audience has determined to be the industry standard and should be re-used everywhere. In the "good old days" there were no rules, and the controller limitations dictated game design. Today we are on the 2nd consecutive console generation where the "pro" controllers have the same layouts as each other (and can be seen as variations of the DualShock), so most gamers expect to push the left trigger to aim and click in the left stick to sprint. Action games in the NES era also copied great ideas--how many platformers used B for run/action and A for Jump because of Mario? And how weird it is when those buttons are swapped, or worse they used D-Up for Jump? We still like to complain that some games have terrible controls and should be more like this AAA game, even after complaining that everything is so refined that no one wants to take a chance and use left trigger to shoot.
+David Maglioli Not so sure I agree there. I was around in the 8 and 16-bit days. The 8 bit (and much of the 16 bit) days was awash with cookie-cutter platformers, where you either punched things, jumped on things, or shot things. Then later in the 16-bit era we were treated to Street Fighter 2 clones; up to jump, weak attack, medium attack, strong attack. Or high attack, low attack. At the end of the day there are only so many buttons on a controller - unless its an Atari Jaguar controller - in which case it has ALL the buttons!
Kj16V Yeah, I was around near the end of the 16 bit era just before the rise of 3D, You're right, that there were a lot of cookie cutter games but at least they were copying good games XD. Also something I often forget about these new games. They are so complex now, and far more expensive to make. When I was a kid I remember so many niche games that would never see the light of day on a console these days, and if it does it would be digital only unless its something uber successful like Minecraft or Shovel Knight. I'm really getting burnt out with shooter after shooter, and third person action game after third person action game. Anything new or exciting (to me at least) either comes from Nintendo or the indie scene. Playstation and Xbox have pretty much lost me.
and the new Rise of the Tomb Raider becomes a survival game with an expanded crafting system. Because it's trending. And it's not what millions of fans wanted after the 2013 reboot.
Suwat Saksri I'm sure there will be a bit more because of all the complaint. I just don't have high hopes... I really don't like trends. Having a bow in a 1st or 3rd person action shooter kind of game was another one in the past few years. But I'm sure it's just my personal taste that doesn't fit in with the masses. Bows and zombies. I want them gone.
balázs gyurka nah, i know what you mean, i am with you on that, i expected a puzzle and plattformer focused TR but instead got "Gears of Uncharted Duty" that people praises for having a female character looking normal? Because the game, its characters and story sure as hell arent belivable and all those scripted sequences are so blown out and over the top, it was downright insulting if the game has to constantly do that to try and entertain me
Depressingly accurate.... I commend you for your honesty... Too many people either catering to heavily to popularity and viewer choice or purposely stirring up controversy... Hopefully you will find many great games to enjoy this year
I find it quite fascinating how this issue, sort of, matters in video games, as opposed to say, movies or books. You will probably never hear people talk about how movies are a set of the same shots, made with same lighting, etc. or how books are made with mostly the same words, and sentences etc. In them, it seems to me, differences are appreciated more than in video games. And that reminds me of a scene in Singing in the Rain, where the girl argues that all the movies are basically the same, which I understood as reflecting sentiment at the time some people held, though I might be wrong. Now, it is rarely the case that a film is made that looks completely unique, many tricks are standardized so to say, but what keeps them from tiring you is the sheer number of standards. So movies with same tricks are usually not what you see consequently. Same with books. Overall, kind of a point I'm trying to make is, standardization of tricks in a media is inevitable, in a way it might be what makes the media grow. However in order for things to not feel so repetitive we would need a variety of standards, which itself would probably require things like wider paying audience, something that would assure the big publishers that at any given time there are substantial amount of people who at any point of time who will be willing to pay for game of any genre that was popular at some point in time. TL;DR: Standardization of Tricks in a genre is good for developing a medium. What we have to avoid is domination of one genre in a period of time. PS. Now that I think about it, there are kind of the same arguments posed against teen-romance genre domination
Is it really any different to the onslaught of mascot platfomers that plagued the 16 bit era etc. People should just do a bit of research into what they're spending their money on rather than complain about getting shit games and then continuing to blindly throw cash at dog shit.
Haha yes. There are brilliant games out there. Just like there's brilliant music out there, and art, and films. But you gotta search for it. If you stick with the mainstream for too long it's gonna become repetitive and boring.
At least they all played differently. At least Sonic and Mario did. All the others that just tried to do a copy of one or the other are forgotten just like most games today will be.
Thanatos388 So, there were two, maybe three or four different platformers. The rest were an iteration/re-skin of the popular ones?
10 лет назад+3
TrueMizu Exactly. The first half of the problem is people are too rich. And entitled. They throw money basically at anything that is new (or re-released or rebooted or whatever). The second half is that people are lazy. There are good games out there! Find them.
This sentiment is understandable and relevant still 8 years later, but using TEW as the catalyst for this was pretty bad considering how unique the game is in a lot of other aspects. The game had a large focus on instakills and traps, with instant kill AoE trinkets which can be activated only on a downed enemy, strong focus on traps (which are usually cliché but they are rarely used to degree they were in this game), freezing, instant kill critical shots, instant kill melee when an enemy was flashed, explosive bolts (and the Agony Crossbow which was basically the best gun of the generation). Not only this but the game also had great weapons (the RE4 weapon types all combined, so you had the pistol which had the best features of all the RE4 pistols), great enemy design, good fights and a OHKO Very Hard Mode (which is well done and also pretty unique). Crafting, stealth and upgrades are a bit generic, but the rest of the game isn't. If only every AAA game would be like TEW (only a few common elements while having a unique foundation and focus) then the industry wouldn't be in the state it is now. It's ironic that TEW2 was better received when it was that the generic one (Joel-like protagonist, open world, more focus on stealth, less traps and instakills etc.).
Yeah, thats why you should look elsewhere and i'm not talking only about indies. alot of japanese games have a unique feeling to them - Fatal Frame combat is not like any horror, Resonance of Fate is no like any RPG, Wonderful 101 is no like any other action game. You just have to look, not complain that generic AAA is... generic. Mikami obviously was not given creative freedom - just look at God Hand or Vanquish - thats where he had it. Great video btw.
Suwat Saksri I think a QTE (that's humanly possible) can be a good break from action in small portions. Also, the Zandatsu mechanic of MGR was a great ying yang act to the fast action of regular combat
For the most part George really likes most of the japanese games that you have listed and I couldn't agree more with your post. I've stopped completely from playing triple AAA games because they all feel the same and lack any sort of focus or actual identity and creativity. That's one of the big reason why I purchased a wii u over the xbox one or ps4 because I wanted fun games that had variety and creativity but didn't feel all the same.
Yeah this guy gets it. The best thing to do is to just abandon AAA games and find a niche that works for you, even if you need to go outside of your comfort zone at first.
a bit off topic but what i really hate is that thrid person shooters are all over-the-shoulder nowadays. i hate that. why cant the camera be in the center like it used to be with these games? when its over-the-(right)shoulder i always feel like i cant see whats on the left side of my character. mgs5 did this way better though. you could always change the angle and that was awesome for the stealth gameplay
The problem is, when you say that games are starting to become Homogenized...you'd have to come up with alternative systems. For example, how would you propose alternatives to the noise maker? A lot of things are derivative simply because they WORK. For example, moving a character with the analog stick rather than the triggers. There's no reason to change that, because the analog stick is simply what works.
Rewatching this after playing some of Revelations 2, I agree on so many levels. It's the number one thing that's holding gaming back these days IMHO. I was playing some smartphone titles in the holidays and I stumbled across a couple of old adventure games from the PC glory days that were rereleased with touch-screen controls instead of Mouse and Keyboard. What took me by surprise was how much they resonated with me despite how... well, passive they were. The thing is, they were different from anything else I had been playing lately at the time, and that goes into what you say in this video. If everything plays the same right down to the control scheme, no matter how much the graphics and "concept" of the game changes it'll just feel like going through the motions. That's the number one most positive thing about VR right now, but we all just know that whatever killer app VR gets will set a new standard and then the entire industry will milk the shit out of that narrow path where every game is the same, gets one-upped by one game that does the same thing but tighter, or with a new twist and then the next 20 games will follow suit. At some point I feel like gaming stopped growing, probably somewhere around the middle of last-gen. Perhaps it's partially due to the economic crisis and failing publishers that has made the entire industry play a lot safer to keep a momentum going, but IMO the emphasis on mainstream gaming has been taken too far. Every new game is derivative to some extent and I really just wish it wasn't. I think there's a difference between games adopting the Z-targeting founded by Ocarina of Time for 3D action/adventure titles to games incorporating throwable distractions or crafting systems like TLoU. The former is a foundation for 3D-based controls, the latter is a game-specific feature to be copied by developers that have no creativity.
It's what happens when you don't take your influences from outside the medium into the gameplay you're making. You can chisel a rich environment with relatable story from any weird and interesting idea stemming from real life experiences, stories or anecdotes, but using those same influences on gameplay requires some serious out-of-the-box thinking. In the end, a game that has gameplay indistinguishable to another game is basically the same game. That's the exclusive thing in this medium. If a game doesn't feel different in your hands compared to past experiences with games, it isn't a new game.
FTL is friggin awesome. I remember being amazed by the entire idea of Kerbal Space Program being a thing, then the hook it dug into me after managing to get a successful ship into orbit, still pick it up from time to time now. There's definitely a lot interesting niche/indie stuff about, just sometimes so damn hard to find the good stuff over all the crap.
I (we) beat Isolation on the hardest difficulty (insta-death), over the course of a few nights, taking turns with a friend on every death. One of the best video game experiences I've ever had.
That's why I mainly stick to the indie scene. Not that indie games are all new and inventive and revolutionary or anything, but they're willing to take risks because that's the only way they're going to get any amount of success at all. I only play a AAA title once in a blue moon, and since I don't get exposed to them all that much (other than through youtube) they can actually still be kind of enjoyable in that lazy entertainment way. Oh, and co-op with a friend makes even the shittiest games kind of fun for me.
I've watched a bunch of your videos, but this is the one that sold me on clicking subscribe. A really interesting look at game evolution in a short video. Really got me thinking about why I always get annoyed be people complaining about odd control schemes, or why I always enjoy a new Metal Gear game, but it takes me a few hours to get to the point I am actually enjoying it. Differentiation is important, especially when polish is not as key to your games goals.
Are we really arguing in favor of shitty control schemes and frustrating cameras, now? I can definitely agree that gameplay variation is important and designers shouldn't rely too much on old tropes, but control schemes (in particular) are not the place to innovate. A good control scheme is intuitive and reduces the distance between player and avatar, the perception of the controller falls away and you feel like you are there. By standardizing control and camera schemes across so many games, that happens much more naturally. Asking for games with "innovative" control schemes is like asking for books to be written with innovative grammar. Sure, it might work for James Joyce, but I don't want to be stumbling through sentences for the sake of flaunting convention. Likewise, I don't want to play with awful control schemes just because the designers didn't want to follow the crowd.
I don't necessarily understand the disdain towards control schemes specifically myself. I suppose what he means that you are given too similar of commands in the game (which is certainly valid) and there is nothing the player can specifically do that is particularly novel. While this fits more into gameplay variation more than anything, that's probably what he meant. To be fair, I never buy AAA titles as I've given up on them, and more-or-less just play roguelikes now. As a result, I don't have much context of what modern AAA titles are like. I watched my brother play games like far cry 4, watch dogs, and a few other AAA's and they look boring s hell. The gaming industry imo is just too trendy. If some developer gets a formula right, there will inevitable be countless derivatives of that formula for absolutely forever. For example, sandbox titles with basically no content in said sandbox. There are also games now trying to capitalize on the Souls series, such as lords of the fallen. Every time the product is mediocre, yet the company makes profit. Granted, as a company you want to make a profit, but you probably want to gain long-term consumer trust (i.e. "hardcore gamers") opposed to adopting the quick cash grab method every time (i.e. "casual gamers"). Video games are a form of entertainment, and really shouldn't be treated like an assembly line. I don't know, jsut frustrating to see the market largely going down the shitter, and people with literally no standards white knighting in the name of their favorite developers to the death.
Metal Gear Solid 2 limits the player's ability to look wherever the game doesn't want him to and shoot whoever the game doesn't want him to with its control scheme and camera angles. That's done not because it's a janky old game but because it makes combat difficult without hindering stealth, thus stealth turns into the more viable strategy. Metal Gear Solid V on the other hand borrows its controls and camera system from every cover shooter/modern "stealth" game on the market and thus there is no focus, the game becomes a mess of sub-par combat and sub-par stealth elements. So yeah, experimentation with control schemes is a good thing.
George, I'm glad you acknowledged the uniqueness of your perspective on this. As someone who plays a whole lot of games, you have a chance to get tired of things that many have yet to even experience. So often I see critics unequivocally put "more of the same" into the negative column when for many of us with other life commitments - it's still new and enjoyable. Having your own identifiable point of view is great. Expressing it while still acknowledging alternate perspectives and experiences is even better.
one thing a lot of people have to remember is that in order to find good things, you're not gonna find it when you just jump into the format. if you want to find good music, you can't rely on itunes top 10 (although a lot of people do), you have to research, go to concerts and other stuff (but that takes time). you can't rely on the hype crazed games with marketing teams (although a lot of people do), you have to search for new genres, old games, new games, indies, sleepers (but that takes time). all in all, the hardcore of any format of hobby will always be displeased by whats popular because there are less "experts" then there are "amateurs" and that goes for devs as well. most games now a days are more of a product then a game. They're trying to make money in the most clever and cheapest way possible, by bribing (don't even know if i should call it bribing anymore, its more like a shared interest) reviewers and taking no risks at all
Why does every recent game have some sort of half-assed crafting and level-up systems? It's rare to find one that's satisfying; reloading 30% faster isn't all that fun, and clicking on a recipe to craft instead of finding the item in the first place isn't all that rewarding.
The thing that irritates me the most about these level up systems is that the game is then atrociously unbalanced for endgame. In Shadow of Mordor, crowd control starts of being quite difficult, and when you're finally getting the hang of it, capitalising on your opportunities, it throws in Berserkers and Shieldbearers that require completely different tactics. But a few hours later you already have so many tools (wraith flash, critical counter, more executions) and far too many bow abilities (so many shots, so much focus, Shadow Strike, combat brand for more arrows) that getting rid of them is just a minor five second annoyance, to the point where defeat doesn't feel like being overwhelmed so much as just 'you lost the coin flip in glass cannon v glass cannon'.
PoliteTimesplitter Don't forget all the games that have boring abilities like +10% damage or +1 round of ammo if in the shadows or what nonsense. Not just that but they are often horridly balanced to boot.
This video does a pretty good job of illustrating the trends, but I wish it offered some more suggestions to fresh alternatives. To suggest that we should have games with deliberately difficult control schemes is pretty odd, making the game frustrating to interact with is just going push people away and perhaps break immersion.
I totally agree with that and it's something I've been thinking for a long long time, even had debate with friends where they were saying that 'it's still different". I know there are always trends, but they seem to last longer and be less interesting now. I used to love stealth game, the first Splinter Cell was amazing and even 2 and 3, but now stealth game are pretty much in every game, but put to it's simplest expression, like in the video. I sued to be tired of shooters a few years ago when Call of Duty was at it's peak and every game tried to be it, still is today, but much less, because 3rd person stealth with action and quick kill is the new trend, it's a more cinematic experience and a good way to reward players for doing awesome stuff, which is simply pressing a button. One other thing I would like to mention also is the open world trend. We had games for years that didn't have open worlds, but instead some linear and less linear games, but filled with exploration and things to do. Now playing an open world game is doing always the same thing, a huge map with things to collect and some secret here and there. I love Dragon Age Inquisition, but I hate the open world aspect of it. Same with all Ubi games, Far Cry, Assassin's Creed, Watch Dogs, it's a routine now. It's easy to create a big world, but it's more difficult to create good content for it and not some side missions of collecting and killing. I know trends moves, and sometimes this generation they'll come with the next big thing, maybe more casualisation, maybe not, but for sure it'll be something exploited to death where everyone will be tired of it after a few years.
I've been saying this for some time. Nowadays, in every single videogame, your character knows how to handle a handgun/rifle almost like a pro. Remember when headshots weren't always the best option to dispatch an enemy? Remember when using your handgun/rifle wasn't always a good idea because your character wasn't an expert with said weapon? I know that in Deus Ex 1 it was hard as hell to kill more than one enemy with your weapon if you didn't have enough skill points, I know that in MGS3 aiming was a bit slow and required pressing the buttons softly during a tense situation, but I think that I prefer games in which your character has to look for other options than the classic instakill takedown/headshot or games where the player needs to learn how to handle the weapons and eventually become an excellent marksman. But nowadays your characters is an expert at everything and the control scheme is always the same. Learn to shoot in COD and you know how to shoot like a pro in 90% of today's FPS/TPS.
I liked the point you made about convoluted control schemes and how they serve a purpose. It reminds me about the argument of old-school arcade fighters' button combo mechanics vs. more "modern" easy to access streamlined moves (P4 Arena, SSB etc.). These new game controls (regardless of genre, really) may seem superior for being agile, easy to approach and execute, but as tacky and aged the old control schematics sometimes feel, they demand a sort of understanding or mastery of the overall gameplay and performance as a whole to appreciate.
They feel like RE 4 streamlined. RE 4 had weapon sway, it was tough to line up shots, but many devs considered that a "flaw" and copied the style without understanding weapon sway was fundamental.
the sway was rewarded when gonados would hurl axes or you stumbled a rush of 'zombies' with a well placed 180 flinch back step headshot. you had to get used to the laser sight aim over a crosshair. wish I could play it again for a first time.
Not to argue your idea, but it's interesting to think about the positive sides of this sort of homogenizing. Maybe a somewhat uniform language of very basic controls and mechanics remove some useless barriers so players can more quickly get into what does make each game unique. I'm all for creativity but I'd hate to ask developers to reinvent the wheel on basic actions - hopefullly letting them focus on brand new mechanics that shake up the standard rather than throw it out completely.
+Karl Nilsson I don't think it's about reinventing the wheel so much as being mechanically unique. The majority of modern AAA games play exactly the same way, which isn't interesting. Innovation isn't everything, but it is something, and if the only mechanical differences between games are the ways in which they space out the same game play, they get boring and stale. They ought to do something to make their gameplay feel different. In the long run, that probably just means moving away from the light stealth shooter default altogether, as it presents a minute scope of gameplay possibilities. Of course, the reason that doesn't often happen is because AAA funding demands reliable results, which demand tried-and-true mechanics, which mean more of the same.
wait, in fps & 3rd-shoulder-shooter you shoot with the L & R triggers?? back in ps2 era it was the circle button or r1, worked in gta 3, lcs, vc, vcs, and sa
Having not played any console shooters in decades, I was shocked and annoyed to find out just about every console game nowadays putting shooting and most other actions on the L&R buttons. The face keys seem to be totally ignored.
Hold up. The xenomorph actually can get use to your noisemaker though and even make it seem like she is going for it if you rely on it or other options too much. She can even break through the flame of your flamethrower on harder difficulties.
+Moussmouss Moid Well most have played enough. It doesn't even take that many to start realising you're doing the same thing over & over. Pick about 3 or 4 games from any genre and you'd have experienced pretty much 60%~70% of what that genre has to offer.
The first thing that came to mind watching this was the term "Don't fix what ain't broken". It's a term I heard Yahtzee Croshaw use in a situation where a game didn't use the same control mechanic as every other game out there and he criticized the game for it. I never have any problems with games having similar controls, but I do agree with you about the other trending mechanics. The number one trend I'm tired of is playing as Macgyver. I'm sick of crafting home made bombs and other weaponry in games where I don't think they belong, Alien Isolation being the biggest offender on the list atm. Crafting has become almost a Deus Ex machina that explains how the player is able to have nearly infinite amount of weapons in situations where he should have none. Characters can conjure almost anything these days out of seemingly nothing and it just bugs me to no end.
Seems Super Bunnyhop is only just now figuring out what most gamers have known for about a two or three decades. There is a reason games are broken into "genres", It's because they are essentially the same thing. There was a wonderful period about two decades ago where they started blending genres. Games like citizen kabuto melded FPS and RTS into a single game and it was amusing to see something "fresh". These are no longer fresh, and genre blends are just as common now as everything else. It's quite difficult to think of something NOONE has done before. It's even harder to get someone to risk so much money to bet that new thing will work, especially when they KNOW they can make money off another Call of Duty or Assassin's creed game. The Evil Within was never going to innovate with gameplay. It was about it's creepy story. I did not get far before I lost interest, but then I never cared much for horror games. It was NEVER going to live up to the commercials that made it look so awesome. You need to read between the lines to know what they describe. I... never played the last of us. I assume it's bland gameplay with decent story and very compelling characters. Telltale's The walking dead being better at character and story but far worse at graphics and gameplay.
Something something indie titles. Less sarcastically, this really does help clarify my own thoughts as to why I don't play a lot of big titles. I think you hit the nail on the head--everything feels same-y these days. The best way to get away from it is to play things that aren't shooters or that aren't big-budget titles--genres and studios that by nature take risks.
Stop playing the AAA titles and go with indie games. I barely buy AAA titles anymore and when I do they're usually a year or so after release. I tend to stick with old school games and indies. Child of Light is absolutely fantastic game that you should really give a try.
I still think at this day and age games still have to pull from prior franchises because gaming has almost gotten to the point of "no what?" when it comes to innovation. Look at Shovel Knight, it took the best from various franchises but the game still felt fresh and fun to play. Child of Light takes it's cue from Grandia as far as their battle system goes but also adds the fairy to help during battle. I haven/t touch Transistor yet but that is definitely on my "to do" list.
Well for some reason there is this unwritten rule that indie games don't count when examining the industry. It's so weird to see people always talk about each year based on the 3-5 huge AAA releases and determine if it was a good or bad year. Indie games only get a passing mention for some reason even if the critic liked them a lot.
Suwat Saksri Some of them yes. Perhaps even many of them. Of course many indie games suck, but there's still a lot of good ones that do new things.. who cares about AAA?
And it's the same with movies, and music and any form of art that becames widely popular. But just as with movies and music it doesn't mean the quality isn't there anymore. It's just very well hidden under the crapload of crap.
Something random that stood out about this (as usual very astute) video: I have come to see the word "hate" used very regularly in online discussion and it often serves to undermine the ability to have a successful dialogue since it trivialises a wide range of negative responses into an amped up "purely negative" term. Perhaps it's not always correct to call "strong negative criticism" in such an anodine manner, and sometimes perhaps that feedback does become hateful, but the word should be used with caution when describing gaming community reaction. You can hate a person, and that is a terrible thing to do, but the million lines of code that make up a game doesn't really warrant emotional language in their defense - especially if the game is objectively flawed. It's similar to how damaging the buzzword "toxic" has become when thrown at something, either in a pro- or anti sense - it moves dialogue from the conversational towards the hysterical. I realise that you didn't use the word in an extreme way, but hey, this comment may be of some vague use because it *is* easy to just generalise the opposition to something perhaps underrated as "hate" - sometimes *too* easy, and feels as though that a straw-man is being invoked not so much through misuse of language but from a deliberately easy to rattle off buzzwords which while successfully underlining points, may serve to make those points appear less well-considered, which brings ups towards the usual unfortunately "them vs. us" polarising screams when discussing gaming. I may be off-base here, however.
I was shopping for Rise of The Tomb Raider, The Evil Within and Dying Light. I thought to myself "have I played gameplay like this before in other games"? Turns out I was right, that I would get more tired of the new games with the same old gameplay formula in 3rd and 1st person shooters and thought to myself that I didn't want to play the same old shit and decided to get Resident Evil 1, 2, 3, Code Veronica X, Remake and 0 to let Capcom know that the classic Resident Evil formula sells REALLY WELL! I really feel like the AAA games industry is giving up on innovation and the best way to combat this lack of imagination is to simply not buy their stuff. Maybe I might change my mind on Rise of the Tomb Raider, The Evil Within and Dying Light, but that feeling that I will eventually get tired of those good old gameplay formulas will make me think that I wasted my money IF I decide to buy them.
And this is, I believe, why Indie titles are so successful overall these days. While they still fall into patterns a lot, they tend to offer the kind of diversity and creativity that big, tripe A titles don't touch on. There is a big discrepancy between design philosophies there. Major publishers are trying to minimize risks and deliver a safe product that will earn them money, whereas more often than not, innovation is the key to success for indie developers. Being different is how they set themselves apart from the crowd. It is an interesting dynamic. large, successful studios are trying to repeat what worked for them in the past, whereas smaller studios with everything to gain or lose are investing all they have, from money to passion and ideas, into making a good game. And once they've achieved success, they tend to try and change things around for their next title, while keeping the soul of the first intact. And it is becoming quite telling that playing it entirely safe isn't working so well anymore, as publishers stumble left and right. Smaller publishers like Devolver Digital, who pick games based on innovation and creativity, are growing while the big, traditional companies are giving ground. Interesting times, I'd say!
One of the things I hated the most about MGSV was that they abandoned the old style with well thought-out maps in exchange for the popular open world crap.
puhfrugherter That’s why I hate open world games... When you get an old game and combine it with an open world, it sounds fucking awesome. Think of all the things you could do. Sadly, open world games fill like a bunch of filler that takes up a lot console/PC memory storage.
Brilliantly put, George. I've been feeling this way for quite a while now but any time I try to mention it I get called a hater or fanboy. I'm not one for commenting with regularity, I just wanted to show my support by saying this and to thank you for yet another interesting video. Playing a new game lately feels like a grind, as they seem full of checklists of things from other games. This is especially true of Last Gen's Assassin's Creed Rogue. More so than usual.
And this is why I've become disillusioned with gaming in the past 5 or so years, and have started to prefer jumping around in colorful levels as an italian plumber more often than not. Make of that what you will, but after 3 decades at least that's still fun to do.
I noticed this too. Im in my late 30s and have been gaming since my dad and his buddy played Wizardry on the Apple 2e in like 1984. If it wasnt for indies and the occasional unique AAA I probably would have quit gaming. Its like many AAAs its the same game with a different skin.
Pretty much my own tale, word by word. I'm glad that I got into PC gaming so early on, as otherwise I'd been bored to death years ago. Surprisingly, 2017 ended up being extremely nice year for once when it came to amount of great games. However, now there's pretty much nothing major to look forward to in the near future.
I dind't realize the mind numbing staleness some games were at with regards to some design decisions but you are right. I mean, Alien Isolation had this convoluted ways to open doors and I always felt that those gave a lot of personality to the game eventhough they were just gimmicks meant to play on the player's anxiety while performing simple tasks. But it did feel kind of same-samey despite being a really nice spin to the survival horror genre. And that got me thinking about the fact that on an environment like this, gimmicks really do stand out.
I can't disagree with this video, I can't disagree with your opinion on the evil within, because you're not wrong, but I don't think some of the things you listed as "design trends" are fair, even subjectively speaking. I rewatched the video before writing this just to make sure this spiel of a comment would be fair, and when you get down to it your criticisms of design trends kind of cultivate into the modernization of control schemes. This for the better, in every situation. I recently replayed MGS 2 and while I love that game, it's controls are a convoluted mess, and mastering them doesn't make them more rewarding, it just means you can auto-pilot the 4+ buttons you have to press when you want to shoot around a corner. You showed MGS 3 on-screen when talking about controls, but I think that MGS 3 has the best controls it could, I mean sure it still has "Shoot" bound to "Square" but many other aspects of the controls have been refined to work with that. There's a reason "Shoot" is bound to RT and "Aim" is bound to LT these days - it works. Playing a game needn't be about spending the first 2 playthroughs learning the buttons anymore, we are far past that point. Similarly to what you said about cameras, I can't remember the last game I struggled with a control scheme (outside MGS 2) and that's for the better, because when a game has poor controls it generally means you won't want to have to struggle through it again. If I can pick up a brand new shooter and know it's controls from the get-go, good, now challenge me with with the game design, surprise me, and THAT'S where the problem with modern game design is, as you said, the games generally won't surprise you, and outside that, a game generally won't challenge you anymore. Sure, you can crank up a difficulty setting, by today "Hard" means "More enemies, more damage" and nothing besides. I didn't mean to post such a big, dumb comment. I just wanted to say that developers shouldn't be criticised for using proven control schemes.
There's truth to that. If the control schemes are very convoluted, it's harder to switch between more games too, or if you want to take a break and there are skills (like actual manual control skills) I was supposed to master in the game and have forgotten in the break I took, I'll be unable to get back into the game (since in older games there's often no way to change control settings, review button combos for skills you learnt later, etc.)
You are so refreshing. After such a long time of listening to people with english accents that act strange and play dubstep in the background, I have finally found someone that I WANT and ENJOY listening to. The classical music in the background is a major plus. I love classical. Thank you. Definitely subscribing. Edit: Think the music may have been part of a game. Unsure.
I agree with what you are saying in general, but you fail to realize the small and awesome things a game like Alien Isolation brought to the table in comparison to the Evil within. I can understand how their gameplay seems similar on many levels but there is a sense of hyper tension and horror constantly permeating in game like Alien Isolation where as games like the evil within and watch dogs there is not. I feel like that is a valuable difference you have over looked. I know I sound like a fanboy and I love Alien so I probably am, but to use another example OoT and Dark Souls are about blocking, dodging, and timing when it comes to the core game play. They are similar in that respect, but they are so different in so many other respects that one does not feel like the other. I am just saying I agree the meat is the same but the condiments are what help make for a different and tastier sandwich if that made any sense.
***** I did actually read your whole reply, and found it rather interesting, but the main difference of why you and super bunny hop felt the way you did was because you were to immersed in the current gaming culture. I was not. I usually stay back a generation or so because games are cheaper generally. I did buy Alien Isolation when it first came out but I never experienced anything like it. As you said you can see the love the creators put into that game even if it does have ubisoft written all over it. But then again that is the point of my post. Sure things are formula, but once you get past that part you can enjoy the game for what it is, and I am glad you were able to.
***** @paragraph2 The silent Hill games are near master pieces and it was not something I was expecting of alien isolation. I will admit I was waiting for the alien to come at me in the beginning thinking it was already on the ship, so due to my own naiveté that actually hooked, but I doubt that happened to a lot of people. There was a portion in the game where the alien disappeared for a moment, and during that time the game was much less tense because I understood how the game worked, and if I was to start from the beginning again I am certain I would run into the same problems you were having. Also I like the example you give but I personally prefer my horror to start slow and build up rather than begin in In medias res. I enjoyed the beginning for what it was though. The ending was terrible and a bit anti climatic and really cliché in all honestly. And if you look at Silent Hill 1, 2,and 3, you know the good ones, their quiet time in the beginning really doesn’t last that long. It was probably better for it, but I think this is more what you meant. Give us a bit of a story start a little slow then hit us with the alien. So a good editor could have probably made it better, but like I said I enjoyed it. @ paragraph 3. I think having a system shock sort of element could have helped drive the game in the direction of a silent hill. But there is the problem right there. Silent hill was a master piece of its time and it is doubtful that anything like it on that level will reach there again especially in the realm of gaming. It is a sad truth, but one that I have learned to live with.
I guess the video game industry is just going through a phase as it has been the last year or two. Even considering myself as a heavy gamer I've let many AAA releases pass me by, but perhaps I would feel the same way as you George if I had played all of them. It does seem like the big developers are leaning heavily on the safe side of game design because it sells well.. for now. Nintendo's unique flavor of games is probably also absent for many who, like myself, refuse to choose Wii U over a ps4 or xbox one. In any case there are still some games that feel new and different like The Talos Principle, which I have been having a great time with. It may not be completely unique(as nothing is) but it is refreshing to play in a time when puzzle games feel nearly extinct, especially on consoles.
Sounds like what /v/ has said for years. Thanks for making a video I can show people to explain this to people. It's almost like Hollywood blockbusters with comic book movies. Both industries refuse to talk about it to.
I feel this is a different problem than comic book movies. I mean the Batman movie vs Captain America vs Scott Pilgrim are all different things. This problem is more literally playing games with the same mechanics over and over vs a corporate oversight pulling the teeth from the subject matter.
Wednesday's Serial they spend their budgets getting the comic book story and spend millions on the movie which means an original good story wasn't made. Kinda like games using the same mechanics and play style.
B Bergemann For Scott Pilgrim maybe. Saying any of the general superhero movies function like that isn't correct. I'm not saying they're good by and large but they don't' function like that. Also ya movies cost more to make than a comic book. You could say that more accurately about novel adaptations, bibliographical stories, or many others. I see your point but I'm of a mindset that the problems of narrative and mechanics are worlds apart.
Bloodborne restored my faith in AAA gaming a bit, here's hoping more devs will take the risk of innovative game design over trying to hit all the generic check boxes of modern gaming.
By extension I also meant the Souls series, I just mention BB becuz it just came out and sold like hot cakes, selling faster than all Souls games in just 10 days. And saying BB is the same as Souls is just as retarded as saying CS is the same as COD cuz both are shooters.
Its not just the stealth action genre that has these trends that carry over from game to game, its a lot of different genres like third person open world games with billions of collectibles or linear first person shooters that pretty much all follow the same structure. I completely agree with this video and I just hope that there at least a few games out this year that break some of the trends or conventions of these genres. Or maybe even one would be nice.
Interesting points raised here, and I agree mostly. You present them intelligently and your voice is good to listen to, I'm sure your channel will continue to grow.
I was thinking about what you said about controls and physics being increasingly indistinguishable across the board, and then I realized the most anchoring factor: the need for realism. All physics in high-tech, 3D titles has to be "realistic", meaning anthropomorphic characters and everyday objects are subject to the real world's constraints in terms of movement and scale. It's why you have such wildly different physics and control responses in archaic 2D platformers as opposed to your interchangeable 7th-gen front-facing shooter. And that's because said archaic technology provides an aesthetic where realism is not expected. Imagine a game like Gears of War having Mario-style jumps or Sonic-style sprinting. It's possible, but you would have to work a lot harder to suspend enough disbelief for most players. So none of those wild and wacky jumps of yore; you're stuck with knee-height. Obviously the majority of video games are still light years of way from legitimate realism, regardless of how graphics and physics technology may resemble the real world. You need to make some compromises in order to make the game playable to a wide audience. Simulators like the Arma series shows just how inaccessible, complicated and even in some ways _deep_ games become when you really do pull out all the stops to recreate the "real thing". Which is why you have shooters where all manner of critical wounds become miraculously healed upon touching boxes with red crosses on them, or by just spending a few seconds in a space where the source of said wounds are not in consistent contact with your physical self. Yet, despite the fact that your character's movement is but a crawl compared to the Build and Quake I engine games of old, it _still_ beats that of your average marathon runner. Because realistic movement would be boring, while on the other hand going faster (or going full-speed for more than a brief moment) would be "unrealistic", so you're left with a "ideal compromise" that limits you to a de facto standard squandered by opposing demands. This isn't to say that old styles and genres were simply better, either. After all, there were quite a few 2D platformers that built themselves on realism, too. The kind that hailed advanced animation styles like rotoscoping, motion capture or 3D modeling, such as _Prince of Persia_, _Flashback_, _Another World_ and _Blackthorne_ just to name the more successful ones. Like today's action games, they narrowed their design to replicating the realistic actions and physics of modern action games, just in a 2D platforming environment. No doubt if 2D platforming had remained the mainstream genre of choice during the turn of the millennium when photorealistic aesthetics became commonplace, we would see the genre that once had great disparity ranging from _Castlevania_ to _Metroid_ be restricted to the realism-focused restraints found in the games aforementioned. I do think that this "realism rut" that's led to a lot of the recent homogenization of game mechanic and aesthetic design is finally starting to give way, thanks to the rising success of titles-often of the indie sort where resourse abuse _isnt'_ top priority-that shy away from "realstic" design and this allow themselves more freedom in the way their games look and function. Chances are it could catch in genres where it was once inconceivable or forgotten; imagine getting to play a first person shooter with a completely twisted art and animation style where you ran like in _DOOM_ and jumped like in _Borderlands_.
8 years on and still relevant. Thank god we get the occasional gem like Hi-Fi Rush.
lol
@@BurgerKingNationalistlmao even
I find that all these action/shooter games have all been implementing a degree of stealth. But it's a stealth that can be best described as "murder stealth". It's not like MGS or Splinter Cell, where the game encourages you to avoid combat completely (With Splinter Cell even having certain missions where you cannot kill anyone or it's game over.) Murder Stealth encourages murdering every enemy in the room without being spotted, and the only consequence of getting caught is that the enemies will attack you all at once. But since it's an action game that's not really a punishment since you're character is always equipped to get in massive firefights regardless.
I don't know, I just think that for some reason companies feel the need to implement a degree of "stealth" in their action games, and it's more or less getting bland and just unneeded.
The reason is quite obvious, they think it will draw in a bigger audience when all it really does is watering down the game's main focus. They are following the same formula Hollywood has been following for years and they are now starting to experience the same backlash: too big to fail syndrome and talents hemorrhage.
Someone should make a puzzle game where you do some random puzzle and there are awkward and weird moments when you have to do stealth stuff, although it’s completely unnecessary.
I really hate how every game needs stealth for some reason.
Why make a game with pointless stealth when you can make a stealth master piece like MGS? We need more stuff like that.
@@peppinoandweskerfriendsfor3450 Tbf, I think stealth might have more in common with puzzle games than action.
I mean, Stealth games are basically puzzles in which a lot of the fun is figuring out HOW will you reach your objetive without being noticed.
(Do I creep behind the enemy and hold them at gunpoint? Do I shot them from a distance? Do I shoot the lights to create a distraction while I take advantage of the cover of darkness? Do I thow a poisonous snake at them? And will any of the other enemies in the area notice their bodies if I just leave them behind? Where can I hide them? Is it worth trying to get some information out of them before knocking them out? Or maybe it would be better to avoid combat entirely... Could I disguise myself and blend in? Maybe a carboard box would work....)
I just realized that the UBI in Ubisoft stands for Ubiquitous.
It's actually short for "Union des Bretons Indépendants".
+GandWuser I thought UBI was short for "Union des Bitches Inutiles".
Im 14 and this is deep
@@villecor8765 so how's being 15?
@@villecor8765Finally 18 🎉🎉
Sad thing is when I first saw him show all the different games next to each other, I thought they were all just different levels from The Evil Within.
+777boman Same here.
+777boman
Same here
same here
the evil within was a great game tbh
I never even realized they aren't
Georges' cynicism for video games embellishing popular trends is EXACTLY how I feel about recent films of the past decade.
+Jack Heathen What are you talking about. Are you telling me you didn't like superheromovie #138 or reboot #203???
FeastyBacon Don't forget the #1,949 oscar bait film that panders only to the heterosexual white male audience. Yeah, I never get sick of those.
+Jack Heathen
Jesus Christ get a load of this guy.
How about watch better films. Watch lesbian and gay pandering films of you want. Watch foreign or independents films. Go on the criterion collection.
thatsnotchocolat Jesus Christ calm down? I was joking around. I wasn't wanting help looking for "better movies". I'm not a lesbian or gay, so how could I relate with those films? Foreign and independent films are becoming just as dumb as the Blockbusters, seen most of the good ones. And the Criterion Collection are you serious? Seen the ones worth watching, most are overrated.
Jack Heathen
Lol, im starting to wonder what the hell films you actually like. You really don't like any film that came out in the past 5 years? Are you expecting a masterpiece of filmmaking at every turn? Do you even enjoy film as a medium
welcome to the mainstream side of every medium out there.
Agreed. As a kid, I used to love romantic comedy movies, but as I grow older, I just see all of them going through the same pattern, no matter how hard they have to stretch the story for it to work. The "Liar revealed, get in a fight, dramatic set-piece, make up and make love" trope is especially why romantic comedies is one of my most hated genres for films these days.
shajita 9 times out of 10, the liar revealed will be the male partner. And in the remaining one, it will still be the male's fault, for not being "understanding" enough about the female's particular situation that led her to lie.
I don't know if this has anything to do with games, but I like pointing out cliches =)
karottenkoenig Totally. Like how every games commentator has to use the phrases "ubiquitous", "law of diminishing returns" and "ironically".
I guess It's easy to be cynical about it while looking in, but much more difficult to forge a whole career of repeated groundbreaking successes.
to be fair, the mainstream part of games, movies or musical genres, often is the first and easiest way for us to discover new styles, we then like to discover more and dig deeper into. so even if it gets annoying, once a special taste is formed, it often led to looking into a particular genre in the first place
These same trends plague indieshit too. Remember survival crafting? How are you enjoying the endless flood of mediocre metroidvanias?
This isn't just nostalgia either. You look at games of the 6th generation and all the genres play differently. A splinter cell game doesnt play like a Silent Hill game and Halo didn't play like devil may cry. But now every single game from Tomb Raider to resident evil to splinter cell boils down to shooting tons of dudes.
Homogenization is killing games.
Just look at The Last of Us: hailed as an innovative masterpiece all because it combined all of the gameplay tropes for the past decade or so into one package: shallow stealth, quick time events, third person pop and cover shooter, and all the other things George listed here. But, I didn't HATE TLoU. It was pretty well made. But best game ever? I can't see how.
All games are nowadays are "jack of all trades, master of none" releases.
Agreed.
A game isn't just gameplay nowdays. It also has storytelling, music ... etc. TLOU is an evolution to a better storytelling by not failing at any of those aspects. When nothing seems out of place, you kinda feel like you are in that world you play. The best feature TLOU had was IMMERSION. It perfomed almost perfectly at graphics,gameplay,music,story and the only place that failed a bit to deliver was AI, only when you forced some weird situations.
Andrei Voiculescu I don't know about you, but when Ellie straight up stomps right by a Clicker with no caution whatsoever during gameplay, it pretty much breaks all immersion for me.
I don't recall anyone saying that The Last of Us was innovating in its gameplay department. The game in its core was a 3rd person shooter and no one said the opposite. What the game succeded in doing was delivering great storytelling and character development.
can you link me to a review where they claim TLOU is innovative
2022 and things haven't changed....it's worrying.
Also, map revealing towers in open world games.
Quit that shit, devs.
Seriously.
Agreed on that, though that's mostly a Ubisoft thing.
Ubisoft games in general.
***** In Assassins creed games you would scale large buildings and after reaching the top, a portion of the map becomes viewable to the player. Shadow of Mordor did the same thing as I'm sure other games have as well.
+Alex Olinkiewicz (olinkalex) But that Ubisoft thing is acutally also seen in WB games.
And +Super Bunnyhop himself said that the Witcher 3 had a similar thing going on.
+PyramiDie I'm getting sick of grenade indicators, hit-markers and death cams in games. I liked it better when I could keep my enemy on his toes if he didn't know he didn't kill me, and how the hell am I going to get someone with a grenade if they know where it is at all times!? Lastly, I'm sick and tired of seeing games with a number greater than 4 at the end of their titles. Just saying... because... there's a lot of them now. Make something new devs, and quit relying on the indie developers to make stuff.
Best example; Duke Nukem Forever. That game was literally just a collection of design trends from the late 90's to the mid 00's, to the point where it was barely even a a shooter anymore.
"Hey, you wanna kick ass and maybe chew some bubble gum later? Great! but first, you have to check out our museum of passing design fads, such as:
* Long platforming sections with no enemies!
* Bloody screen!
* Regenerating health!
* Vehicle sections!
* Long walks from point A to point B with no obstacles!
And much, much more."
+CaptainTinTyrant Man, DNF was such a clusterfuck.
The DLC campaign was actually pretty good from what I hear.
Thats becouse that game was suposed to come out in the 90s they scraped it and tried to rebuild it so many times it became a mish-mash of so many games
That's why the PS2 era was the best. Games were actually different from each other back then.
When everything is streamlined to be accessible to everyone, everything ends up being the same.
+MegaPhilX This was bound to happen anyways, when allot of money is involved, it's no surprise publishers would rather go the safe route, rather than the experimental route.
+triedge763 Which is sad, because many interesting game genres/franchises were created through experiments. This copy-cating might lead to another video game market crash, unless people will continue to buy clones endlessly.
+MegaPhilX
Yeah, and when people try new stuff *cough* FF13 *cough*, everyone just whines and complains even though it's a great game.
+Crap Com Eh, scratch the previous comment, but still FF13 doing new stuff is not the game's major criticisms, it is how the the game's new stuff was implemented that's the problem. Granted, I haven't played 13 so I have no real opinion on it, but still.
+ZeroZXDev You're right. The execution of that new stuff is also important. It's also important to avoid making choices that will alienate your fan base.
The point is back then for example, a Resident Evil game was a Resident Evil game. Now and since the PS3/X360, Resident Evil has to be something that it's not (has to have auto-save and big action set pieces). Completely forgot its horror roots.
I agree and disagree. I think that using trends and tropes just for the sake of having them can hurt the game. Not every game needs crafting system or RPG elements. Focus in game design is something quite rare in modern AAA games. They try to be the jack of all trades and often prefer quantity over quality.
On the other hand, I disagree with your criticism of similar controls. Controls should allow you comfortable and easy gameplay. Try to play some games from the 90's and early 2000's and most of the time you won't believe how awkward and nonsensical the controls are. Controls became more similar because most games have similar actions and developers have finally found the most comfortable layout and gameplay mechanics.
To use your own example, MGS3 had a very complicated and unintuitive CQC mechanics that were only described in the manual. It gave you maybe 10 possible actions, all very different, activated by button combinations, button pressure recognition, slight movement and so on. The difference between knocking someone out and slitting his throat was a slightly harder push of a button, which easily caused frustration. Ground Zeroes, on the other hand, assigns important actions to different buttons and gives you a well-arranged context menu where you can see every possible action. It lowers the learning curve and means that if you do get in trouble, it's your own fault, not something caused by bad layout or nonsensical mechanics.
As you both agreed and disagreed with SBH I will now do the same to you comment :D
I agree that controls should be intuitive and that in a lot of genres familiar controls are something that lets the game focus on other things (like story or other mechanics as the obstacles in your way). I agree that I much rather take tested and similiar controls over some of the antiquated and straight up impossible controls of the past.
On the other hand, I have to say that of new mechanics to put in a game the control scheme is the first the player usually is presented with and the one that probably differenciates the game the most from other games. There are sooo many intreresting mechanics out there left unexplored because of fear of changing the controls. A lot of these mechanics are beeing swooped up by indie developers but some could really use some AAA touch to polish them. When I try to design a game it in most cases is that I try to think of new control schemes to represent a action. By designing in this way you shift some of the focus of the game from trying to overcome the challanges the game creates in itself to the player trying to overcome the challenges of the controls. When I write it like that maybe it doesn't sound that good.... Let me put it this way: to learn to handle intruments and master them is something inherent in beeing a human. I like the thought of how fantastic our brain is at learning new tools. How it after a while gets stuck in muscle memory.
Oh well. Maybe that way of putting it only made it sound pretentious. Once again I don't advecate for horrible controls no one ever will understand. Only more ways (maybe more elegant ways) to model the control of things onto a controller.
Sadly I can understand why the AAA's dont wanna try new controls. I mean it has almost gotten to the point that they don't even have to playtest these kind of things. And a new control scheme is something that really can take up developement time as well as playtest-time. And as games of today are so horribly bad at tutorials maybe it is a good thing for us that we can skip most of them and don't have to live through one for every new game realeased.
Honestly, I feel a lot of the problems you're pointing out is primarily due to how we classify games in comparison to other media. Other media (books, movies, plays) are all defined by their content, and not by the techniques inherent to their construction. Games on the other hand are exclusively defined by their mechanics; I mean you yourself bring up "RPG Mechanics" in games, but when you look at what Role Playing Games are designed to do, the phrase becomes nonsensical and ludicrous. Mechanics in RPGs exist to cause failure to make success more engaging, because a single failure doesn't require restarting the session, or to create tension when you're confronted with the dissonance between what you as a player want and what you've designed your character to want. None of that is present video game RPGs, much less on the list of "RPG elements", it's only the progression system that's used to show character growth (Does your Shadowrun Decker finally beat his addiction? Does your heroic fighter finally master that elusive technique?) that gets poorly ported over.
Controls are an extension of this issue, how you interact with the mechanics is just as important as the mechanics themselves. Yeah, having to learn an entirely new control scheme is annoying, but often times it's deliberate to disincentivize certain actions. You bring up CQC in MGS3 as an example of "bad" controls, but looking at what you actually post it's an example of controls that are deliberately designed to make CQC something you the player _do not_ want to do, fitting with both how real life combat works and how a stealth game is supposed to work. You aren't supposed to be fighting, so the combat can be designed to require a lot of involvement and precision on the player's part to be effective. In fitting with the homogenization of gaming this is removed and you get "stealth" games where the "stealth" only exists because it affect some score at the end of the level or you're shot down in a hail of gunfire and have to reload from the last checkpoint.
It can't be both ways. If a game is to have "focus" and quality design, then the control scheme needs to reflect that, and thus be more intrusive into you learning to play. If the game is supposed to be a homogeneous jack of all trades, then the control scheme should be incidental to the play itself.
I agree with you. I tried Metal Gear Solid 4, but I just had such a hard time doing basic manouvering that it felt offputting. In my opinion, a games controls should be as simple as possible without diminishing the complexity of the gameplay. In a game you shouldn't have to stop and think about witch button to press, you sould just press the right one without thinking. Sure many games share controls and mechanics but that's just because people like them and are familliar to them.
That is why I don't like fighting games. Sure you have basic punch,kick, heavy, light. But no way in hell I'll learn all those combomoves! I'l stick to smashbrothers because those controls make sense to me.
Max Payne I also disagree about the controls, but in terms of the 'player feel' aspect of controls, I do dislike how just about all third person games feel like I'm playing as Nathan Drake. There is a trend towards hyper-sensitivity to momentum. I played The Evil Within from start to finish and by the time I was in full control of Seb, I was already unhappy with the fact he didn't move more like Leon.
Zeful 1. RPG elements today are often very shallow mechanics translated in a way that has little to do with their original function, and you could even argue that skills and levels aren't the main signature of RPGs, since they can be used in linear games with little possibility for actual role playing. I used the term simply because they're usually called that way.
2. Making unnecessarily complicated and confusing controls is a lazy way to increase difficulty. MGS3 had many possibilities to make combat harder. Snake can survive a full clip sprayed at him, you can easily get access to M60 and other powerful weapons, silencers are rarely hard to come by, shooting through an entire location has minor consequences and with 90% camouflage, enemies can walk 2m from you and not see a thing. They could've changed the game design or the AI to increase the difficulty, so my guess is that it's simply an unfortunate design. Besides, what's the point of creating a new, complex game mechanic, only to make it so hard to use that it makes the tranq+vault technique seem like a total overkill?
Man that sounded cynical, George. You may even beat Yahtzee in the next cynicism competition. Perhaps you need a rest from AAA and check some of the more varied indie stuff (not counting the 400 early access zombie survival crafting simulators)
Alex Highwind yeah zombie surivival getting out hand so i stay away from it
it's not cynicism at all. it's just frustration with how things are going right now. Cynicism would be making an attack against the character of the industry, likely by saying that nobody in it cares about consumers.
Yeah, he should play some Indie horror ga-...wait, i forgot, most of them are just trying to be Outlast/Amnesia/Slender/Jumpscare/Pewdiepiebait-clusterfucks... nevemind then -_-
Oh god yes! Finally I see someone else mention this somewhere. Are there not already more than enough open-world, zombie survival, crafting games to last us a lifetime? Right now as I type this there are probably about 100 more being worked on and will be released on Steam next month.. early access of course. Enough, you guys killed the zombie.
***** I'd also recommend trying out some free stuff, its rare and really hard to find but there is some pretty good and completely free games out there, such as.. Lost Alpha or even got replay a some old games you haven't touch in a year or longer and look around for mods, that's always a welcome change for me whenever I get bored of everything else.
I remember playing Splatoon for the first time. The control scheme was super weird, I loved it.
It really takes me back and makes me feel like a kid now. Or a squid now?
and yet people pan games like Splatoon and Star Fox Zero for having these weird and outlandish control schemes. People don't wanna spend time "gitting gud" at a game and learning it's "weird" control scheme. They'd rather stick to what they know and that's why most games don't even try anymore. They'd rather hook people in with nice look set pieces and use what everyone else has been using for 10 years instead of making a unique game
People don't like wonky gyro controls that make you spend half your time pressing the recenter button trying to aim.
Tijn te Molder They just want Nintendo to die & all their employees to burn in the fiery pits of hell apparently.
im waiting to get a job to play that game
I agree, I hate design fads, and the last couple of years have been dreadful. Far worse than "lack of new IP", I want new creative mechanics, not just new characters and settings.
It's actually why I am a bit concerned about the new Zelda, with all the talk of "open world game". I want innovative controls like Z-targeting in OoT, or new ways of streamlining gameplay like replacing ammo with an energy bar in ALBW. Zeldas are rarely derivative (except of other Zeldas), but I'm definitely worried it might end up being Skyrim with worse graphics and a Triforce.
Well we have this fortunately www.zeldainformer.com/news/aonuma-there-was-no-inspiration-taken-from-skyrim-for-zelda-u#.VNOUc52sX3Q
I worry about the now-common use of the word 'content', as if content somehow makes everything better. No amount of content can make up for poor gameplay, or a poor setting or story.
zelda is the wrong franchise to look for something new.
I'm not to familiar with them, but aren't most Zelda games kinda open world anyway?
LuxsDeluxe
Wrong, they're kicking all of the old conventions out in this one.
It's a new start for 3D Zelda but in no negative sense at all.
I was just thinking about how RE4 changed the gaming landscape so drastically and then this video comes along. RE4 was a game that was so influential that even it's sequel couldn't stop ripping it off. Another thing, that just feels extremely over done in today's games is the overuse of "see through" vision. I really miss the days of hearing footsteps and using meters to see how far you were.
*****
Basically, in the mind of the devs, appeal to people with the mindset of DSPGaming. I'm pretty sure even deaf people can listen to those footsteps. They are loud.
Thank god in most games this shit is an upgrade or an option, and not default. Games like Dishonored and Deus Ex HR made so much better with optional hud markers and other clutter turned off.
*****
I notice that games based off old PC franchises tend to do this. One thing that really annoyed me about the new Thief that it held your hand even with hints off. I always did laugh at games that had optional stuff turned off on higher difficulties.
*****
You missed the point but okay.
Hahah, just today, eight years later, I saw apparent discourse on Twitter about how the RE4 remake overuses icons for the breakable boxes, and this RUclipsr gamedev had the interesting take that she'll take those over the see-through vision any day lol
The Halo series suffers from this. Recent games have tried adding ordnance drops (kill streak rewards), loadouts, instant respawn, sprinting, etc, etc. All of these thing detract from the simple arena FPS gameplay that made Halo so popular in the first place.
Putting Halo 5 and CoD: Advanced Warfare side by side is hard to see the difference, whereas comparing Halo 3 to Modern Warfare the differences were immediately obvious.
A real shame really. The arena FPS that were popular in the late 90's and mid 2000's now only have tiny niche audiences.
A lot of developers are also taking the Ubisoft approach to game padding which is basically a bunch of useless time wasting quests (climb a tower to reveal the map) that aren't really fun and are really only in the game to distract from the fact that the main game can be finished in 6 hours.
I also hate how mainstream media is hurting game development, some devs are afraid to implement some idea into a game just because someone out there might dislike and criticize it.
Fear of criticism leads to "safe" and bland products.
SidheKnight Exactly.
Can you blame them when games cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce and the profit margin is ridiculously thin? Derivation, cliche, adaptation, sequels, and rote features happen because those are proven entities that usually return an acceptable profit. Big companies are naturally risk-averse. It's the same reason why Hollywood has been so creatively bankrupt for so long.
Except i'd argue it's not the fault of mainstream media this time - it's the fault of the consumer. The consumer practically wants games that play the same. I've noticed what Bunnyhop has been saying for years, but no one else is complaining about it - no consumers, no RUclipsrs, no reviewers. Nobody. Businesses do what they have to do because they have to make money and I respect that. If you want trends to change, only the consumer can demand change. If the consumer has no problem with a product, then there will be no change.
Game james they didn't, actually, sure you climb three radio towers, but it's part of the story, relevant, and fun. It's nothing like in the ubisoft games where it is done to gain map vision.
Sounds a bit more to me like "How Design Trends Ruin AAA Games".
Fancy seeing you here!
I agree in one sense, but you said it yourself. All these games have systems that work. Technology has gotten to a point where games can copy mechanics from each other in a way that wasn't possible earlier, and the fact that every game in AAA is touched by 100 people or more dilutes any unique identity even further.
That being said, I'd never want to go back to a time when controls weren't standardized across their genres. I don't have the time anymore to learn a game's insane control scheme unless it's something really special, and trigger buttons just feel right for run and gun shooting.
I agree. I like the somewhat standardizations of control schemes. I don't miss clunky controls, crappy camera systems or the like. I've been gaming for almost 30 years and regardless of what hipsters say these days I remember how clearly stuff used to suck and don't have nostalgia goggles. Well maybe except for rpgs in some form.
Agreed. As much as I hate bland generic games, I'm glad we now have found things that work really well and standardized them. I remember the dawn of FPSes in the '90s, some of them had really weird controls (*cough*SystemShock1*cough*cough*).
SidheKnight You can't innovate without breaking a few eggs, and besides tastes change Doom (or was it Doom 2) had move mouse up = walk forward.
I don't know. I agree that standardized controls are great for use gamers, but, I can't say that it's great for EVERY AAA action game. How great would the 2013 Tomb Raider would have been if the the control scheme wasn't standardized, at least in the beginning of the game. The level up system in these games aren't enough to make most gamers feel... weak. Creating ludonarrative dissonance that kills any sense of immersion the game could and should have.
I don't think all games needs to break away from standardize mechanics, but it would be cool if some did.
Game james
Exactly, that's an INSANE story. You can't design a world with believable complexity without knowing about basic game mechanics.
This is a HUGE part of why I'm getting bored of video games. They have been starting to feel too close to the same. Hell, pretty much this whole gen has had this problem and some of last gen too.
There are still unconventional games with unique, sometimes to a fault, controls. Take for example a game called DUSKERS, you control a team of AI bots in a top-down grid-based computer simulation and you must type out orders in a survival horror roguelite experience.
As much as I admit some formulas are becoming more predictable, I am happy to see that some games are branching out with improving other areas of their content like the story and player choices for a strategy campaign in Divinity: Dragon Commander.
Maybe spend a year or so playing some indie games casually. Or a genre that you typically wouldn't play. Or maybe some really esoteric Japanese game. Mix it up!
That's why you want to be a pc gamer. Most of the interesting games I played in the last 5 years were indie games, fan made mods and games I missed when they were released some time in the last 25 years for any system (pc is eventually backwards compatible with them all through emulation)..
That's why portal works so well
Alex Romo already mentioned it, but you should take up Indie gaming on PC if you haven't already
You know which design trend is even MORE overplayed than these design trends? The fact almost ALL games that are set in medieval or ancient times seem to be set in a real or fantasy version of ENGLAND, GREECE or ROME . Very few are set in Asia and NONE are set in the pre-colombian Americas or AFRICA. Think of all folklore and other story telling opportunities that are being overlooked. From stategy to MMORPGs to third person games its all the same. Orcs, elves, warriors, wizards and thieves in the fantasy setting and knights, men-at-arms and longbowmen in realistic settings. Its so dull.
Go play Far Cry if you want those settings since they already have an Africa and Asia.
You don't understand what I am saying. Im am specifically referring to medieval and medieval fantasy games, not modern era games.
Ah, that makes more sense. Yeah that would be much more interesting. An old game I loved was Tenchu Z that did a pretty good job of old Asia for the time, but yeah games should use those different settings for those type of games.
The Prince of Persia games were pretty big hits. Kind of strange how their particular setting didn't catch on.
I agree that is strange. The closest thing to medieval middle eastern setting after that is the first Assasin's creed only to then go to Europe and America in the sequels.
That does seem to be the problem these days. Most developers have chosen graphical fidelity over innovation and mechanics. Back in the 8 and 16-bit days it was always about "look at all the new game mechanics we made, look at all the new things you can do we spent months trying to redefine the way you play this game, and oh yeah the graphics are nice too".
Now its "look how beautiful this game is, look at the colors, and how high def everything is, we spent months with a team of artists to make sure every drop of sweat coming off generic space marine #268's forehead looked as real as possible, and oh yeah the gameplay is the same as the last three games." For something called a video game the actual gameplay aspect of it seems to have become an after thought
+David Maglioli i think it comes down to the more expensive development is, the less risk that shall be taken, which is well noted even today, but only time will tell when we reach a mid point where creative development and astounding AAA capabilities will blend
+David Maglioli there was tons of that back in the day too. nearly every action game claimed to have "realistic graphics". youre right to an extend though. watching the old DKC commercial video tape for example includes a lot of boasting about the incredible graphics, the 3d models and the advanced computers required to make them, but other bullet points include things like "so many levels and areas!" and "look at all these moves DK has!". ...witch is still said today about new elder scrolls and gtas, but today its usually "the map is bigger than azeroth/skyrim/gta X" or "over X00 hours of gameplay!".
+David Maglioli I disagree--the difference between then and now is that we have games with great controls that the audience has determined to be the industry standard and should be re-used everywhere. In the "good old days" there were no rules, and the controller limitations dictated game design. Today we are on the 2nd consecutive console generation where the "pro" controllers have the same layouts as each other (and can be seen as variations of the DualShock), so most gamers expect to push the left trigger to aim and click in the left stick to sprint. Action games in the NES era also copied great ideas--how many platformers used B for run/action and A for Jump because of Mario? And how weird it is when those buttons are swapped, or worse they used D-Up for Jump?
We still like to complain that some games have terrible controls and should be more like this AAA game, even after complaining that everything is so refined that no one wants to take a chance and use left trigger to shoot.
+David Maglioli Not so sure I agree there. I was around in the 8 and 16-bit days. The 8 bit (and much of the 16 bit) days was awash with cookie-cutter platformers, where you either punched things, jumped on things, or shot things. Then later in the 16-bit era we were treated to Street Fighter 2 clones; up to jump, weak attack, medium attack, strong attack. Or high attack, low attack.
At the end of the day there are only so many buttons on a controller - unless its an Atari Jaguar controller - in which case it has ALL the buttons!
Kj16V Yeah, I was around near the end of the 16 bit era just before the rise of 3D, You're right, that there were a lot of cookie cutter games but at least they were copying good games XD. Also something I often forget about these new games. They are so complex now, and far more expensive to make. When I was a kid I remember so many niche games that would never see the light of day on a console these days, and if it does it would be digital only unless its something uber successful like Minecraft or Shovel Knight. I'm really getting burnt out with shooter after shooter, and third person action game after third person action game. Anything new or exciting (to me at least) either comes from Nintendo or the indie scene. Playstation and Xbox have pretty much lost me.
and the new Rise of the Tomb Raider becomes a survival game with an expanded crafting system. Because it's trending. And it's not what millions of fans wanted after the 2013 reboot.
"What? Did you really think we would let you raid some tombs in Tomb Raider?!? Hahahaha!"
Suwat Saksri I'm sure there will be a bit more because of all the complaint. I just don't have high hopes...
I really don't like trends. Having a bow in a 1st or 3rd person action shooter kind of game was another one in the past few years. But I'm sure it's just my personal taste that doesn't fit in with the masses. Bows and zombies. I want them gone.
balázs gyurka nah, i know what you mean, i am with you on that, i expected a puzzle and plattformer focused TR but instead got
"Gears of Uncharted Duty" that people praises for having a female character looking normal? Because the game, its characters and story sure as hell arent belivable and all those scripted sequences are so blown out and over the top, it was downright insulting if the game has to constantly do that to try and entertain me
Depressingly accurate.... I commend you for your honesty... Too many people either catering to heavily to popularity and viewer choice or purposely stirring up controversy... Hopefully you will find many great games to enjoy this year
I find it quite fascinating how this issue, sort of, matters in video games, as opposed to say, movies or books. You will probably never hear people talk about how movies are a set of the same shots, made with same lighting, etc. or how books are made with mostly the same words, and sentences etc. In them, it seems to me, differences are appreciated more than in video games. And that reminds me of a scene in Singing in the Rain, where the girl argues that all the movies are basically the same, which I understood as reflecting sentiment at the time some people held, though I might be wrong. Now, it is rarely the case that a film is made that looks completely unique, many tricks are standardized so to say, but what keeps them from tiring you is the sheer number of standards. So movies with same tricks are usually not what you see consequently. Same with books. Overall, kind of a point I'm trying to make is, standardization of tricks in a media is inevitable, in a way it might be what makes the media grow. However in order for things to not feel so repetitive we would need a variety of standards, which itself would probably require things like wider paying audience, something that would assure the big publishers that at any given time there are substantial amount of people who at any point of time who will be willing to pay for game of any genre that was popular at some point in time.
TL;DR: Standardization of Tricks in a genre is good for developing a medium. What we have to avoid is domination of one genre in a period of time.
PS. Now that I think about it, there are kind of the same arguments posed against teen-romance genre domination
Is it really any different to the onslaught of mascot platfomers that plagued the 16 bit era etc.
People should just do a bit of research into what they're spending their money on rather than complain about getting shit games and then continuing to blindly throw cash at dog shit.
Haha yes. There are brilliant games out there. Just like there's brilliant music out there, and art, and films. But you gotta search for it.
If you stick with the mainstream for too long it's gonna become repetitive and boring.
At least they all played differently. At least Sonic and Mario did. All the others that just tried to do a copy of one or the other are forgotten just like most games today will be.
Thanatos388 So, there were two, maybe three or four different platformers. The rest were an iteration/re-skin of the popular ones?
TrueMizu Exactly. The first half of the problem is people are too rich. And entitled. They throw money basically at anything that is new (or re-released or rebooted or whatever). The second half is that people are lazy. There are good games out there! Find them.
SidheKnight ..............sure? I don't know what you are asking.
Just how hard is it to make an actual noisemaker?
Invite a human of the opposite sex into your bed and wait 9 months.
shajita
Instructions unclear; gave birth to a ceiling fan with my dick.
Very.
ask Agent 47 and his coin.
its soft
My question is: where do we draw the line between accessibility and ubiquity?
This sentiment is understandable and relevant still 8 years later, but using TEW as the catalyst for this was pretty bad considering how unique the game is in a lot of other aspects. The game had a large focus on instakills and traps, with instant kill AoE trinkets which can be activated only on a downed enemy, strong focus on traps (which are usually cliché but they are rarely used to degree they were in this game), freezing, instant kill critical shots, instant kill melee when an enemy was flashed, explosive bolts (and the Agony Crossbow which was basically the best gun of the generation). Not only this but the game also had great weapons (the RE4 weapon types all combined, so you had the pistol which had the best features of all the RE4 pistols), great enemy design, good fights and a OHKO Very Hard Mode (which is well done and also pretty unique).
Crafting, stealth and upgrades are a bit generic, but the rest of the game isn't. If only every AAA game would be like TEW (only a few common elements while having a unique foundation and focus) then the industry wouldn't be in the state it is now.
It's ironic that TEW2 was better received when it was that the generic one (Joel-like protagonist, open world, more focus on stealth, less traps and instakills etc.).
Yeah, thats why you should look elsewhere and i'm not talking only about indies. alot of japanese games have a unique feeling to them - Fatal Frame combat is not like any horror, Resonance of Fate is no like any RPG, Wonderful 101 is no like any other action game. You just have to look, not complain that generic AAA is... generic. Mikami obviously was not given creative freedom - just look at God Hand or Vanquish - thats where he had it.
Great video btw.
Some can argue that the QTEs from Plarinum Games are all so similar BUT the music in MGR Kicks so much ass
underrated post.
Suwat Saksri
I think a QTE (that's humanly possible) can be a good break from action in small portions. Also, the Zandatsu mechanic of MGR was a great ying yang act to the fast action of regular combat
For the most part George really likes most of the japanese games that you have listed and I couldn't agree more with your post. I've stopped completely from playing triple AAA games because they all feel the same and lack any sort of focus or actual identity and creativity. That's one of the big reason why I purchased a wii u over the xbox one or ps4 because I wanted fun games that had variety and creativity but didn't feel all the same.
Yeah this guy gets it. The best thing to do is to just abandon AAA games and find a niche that works for you, even if you need to go outside of your comfort zone at first.
a bit off topic but what i really hate is that thrid person shooters are all over-the-shoulder nowadays. i hate that. why cant the camera be in the center like it used to be with these games? when its over-the-(right)shoulder i always feel like i cant see whats on the left side of my character.
mgs5 did this way better though. you could always change the angle and that was awesome for the stealth gameplay
Sir, you earned a new subscriber. Funny and informative, this is what i was looking for. Thank you.
Just because of your pic, I read this in the Trumpy voice.
Dr. Boris Ivanovich Pyccknn I unsubbed
He's almost as great as CrowbCat
Curious to know what the "funny" part of this video is? :/
The problem is, when you say that games are starting to become Homogenized...you'd have to come up with alternative systems. For example, how would you propose alternatives to the noise maker? A lot of things are derivative simply because they WORK. For example, moving a character with the analog stick rather than the triggers. There's no reason to change that, because the analog stick is simply what works.
Rewatching this after playing some of Revelations 2, I agree on so many levels. It's the number one thing that's holding gaming back these days IMHO. I was playing some smartphone titles in the holidays and I stumbled across a couple of old adventure games from the PC glory days that were rereleased with touch-screen controls instead of Mouse and Keyboard. What took me by surprise was how much they resonated with me despite how... well, passive they were. The thing is, they were different from anything else I had been playing lately at the time, and that goes into what you say in this video. If everything plays the same right down to the control scheme, no matter how much the graphics and "concept" of the game changes it'll just feel like going through the motions.
That's the number one most positive thing about VR right now, but we all just know that whatever killer app VR gets will set a new standard and then the entire industry will milk the shit out of that narrow path where every game is the same, gets one-upped by one game that does the same thing but tighter, or with a new twist and then the next 20 games will follow suit.
At some point I feel like gaming stopped growing, probably somewhere around the middle of last-gen. Perhaps it's partially due to the economic crisis and failing publishers that has made the entire industry play a lot safer to keep a momentum going, but IMO the emphasis on mainstream gaming has been taken too far. Every new game is derivative to some extent and I really just wish it wasn't. I think there's a difference between games adopting the Z-targeting founded by Ocarina of Time for 3D action/adventure titles to games incorporating throwable distractions or crafting systems like TLoU. The former is a foundation for 3D-based controls, the latter is a game-specific feature to be copied by developers that have no creativity.
Needs a thumbs-up just because it's detailed and mentions Zelda's standard-setting with Z-targeting.
It's what happens when you don't take your influences from outside the medium into the gameplay you're making. You can chisel a rich environment with relatable story from any weird and interesting idea stemming from real life experiences, stories or anecdotes, but using those same influences on gameplay requires some serious out-of-the-box thinking.
In the end, a game that has gameplay indistinguishable to another game is basically the same game. That's the exclusive thing in this medium. If a game doesn't feel different in your hands compared to past experiences with games, it isn't a new game.
This is probably one of the biggest reasons that "indie" games have become so popular. Receiver, for example, was made in a 7 day game jam.
This is why I was blown away from PC indie games like Faster than Light and Rimworld. Got tired from the same old shit on my XBOX and PS4.
FTL is friggin awesome. I remember being amazed by the entire idea of Kerbal Space Program being a thing, then the hook it dug into me after managing to get a successful ship into orbit, still pick it up from time to time now. There's definitely a lot interesting niche/indie stuff about, just sometimes so damn hard to find the good stuff over all the crap.
I (we) beat Isolation on the hardest difficulty (insta-death), over the course of a few nights, taking turns with a friend on every death. One of the best video game experiences I've ever had.
I enjoyed the evil withing though, felt exactly like RE4 and it's been a while since I played a game like that
Dead Space series kind of filled the gap for me.
The inventory management in DS was fun and the guns were pretty unique
Suwat Saksri Nothing to do with the topic but what does "Fünens" means ?
Yemeth42pis ops, my autocorrect was set in german, i meant to say *fun, i dont even know what Fünens means, i am sorry for the confusion
Game james the decision to give us universal ammo was retarded
That's why I mainly stick to the indie scene.
Not that indie games are all new and inventive and revolutionary or anything, but they're willing to take risks because that's the only way they're going to get any amount of success at all. I only play a AAA title once in a blue moon, and since I don't get exposed to them all that much (other than through youtube) they can actually still be kind of enjoyable in that lazy entertainment way. Oh, and co-op with a friend makes even the shittiest games kind of fun for me.
This is exactly how I've felt about "modern" gaming since around 2005. It takes a whole lot of something "different" to get me excited anymore.
I've watched a bunch of your videos, but this is the one that sold me on clicking subscribe. A really interesting look at game evolution in a short video.
Really got me thinking about why I always get annoyed be people complaining about odd control schemes, or why I always enjoy a new Metal Gear game, but it takes me a few hours to get to the point I am actually enjoying it.
Differentiation is important, especially when polish is not as key to your games goals.
Are we really arguing in favor of shitty control schemes and frustrating cameras, now? I can definitely agree that gameplay variation is important and designers shouldn't rely too much on old tropes, but control schemes (in particular) are not the place to innovate.
A good control scheme is intuitive and reduces the distance between player and avatar, the perception of the controller falls away and you feel like you are there. By standardizing control and camera schemes across so many games, that happens much more naturally.
Asking for games with "innovative" control schemes is like asking for books to be written with innovative grammar. Sure, it might work for James Joyce, but I don't want to be stumbling through sentences for the sake of flaunting convention. Likewise, I don't want to play with awful control schemes just because the designers didn't want to follow the crowd.
I don't necessarily understand the disdain towards control schemes specifically myself. I suppose what he means that you are given too similar of commands in the game (which is certainly valid) and there is nothing the player can specifically do that is particularly novel. While this fits more into gameplay variation more than anything, that's probably what he meant. To be fair, I never buy AAA titles as I've given up on them, and more-or-less just play roguelikes now. As a result, I don't have much context of what modern AAA titles are like. I watched my brother play games like far cry 4, watch dogs, and a few other AAA's and they look boring s hell.
The gaming industry imo is just too trendy. If some developer gets a formula right, there will inevitable be countless derivatives of that formula for absolutely forever. For example, sandbox titles with basically no content in said sandbox. There are also games now trying to capitalize on the Souls series, such as lords of the fallen. Every time the product is mediocre, yet the company makes profit. Granted, as a company you want to make a profit, but you probably want to gain long-term consumer trust (i.e. "hardcore gamers") opposed to adopting the quick cash grab method every time (i.e. "casual gamers"). Video games are a form of entertainment, and really shouldn't be treated like an assembly line. I don't know, jsut frustrating to see the market largely going down the shitter, and people with literally no standards white knighting in the name of their favorite developers to the death.
TheRationalPi Do you hate Nintendo?
Yeah, why have novels written in different styles like Melville, Faulkner, McCarthy. All we want is every book to be written by Dan Brown, forever.
Metal Gear Solid 2 limits the player's ability to look wherever the game doesn't want him to and shoot whoever the game doesn't want him to with its control scheme and camera angles. That's done not because it's a janky old game but because it makes combat difficult without hindering stealth, thus stealth turns into the more viable strategy. Metal Gear Solid V on the other hand borrows its controls and camera system from every cover shooter/modern "stealth" game on the market and thus there is no focus, the game becomes a mess of sub-par combat and sub-par stealth elements. So yeah, experimentation with control schemes is a good thing.
George,
I'm glad you acknowledged the uniqueness of your perspective on this. As someone who plays a whole lot of games, you have a chance to get tired of things that many have yet to even experience. So often I see critics unequivocally put "more of the same" into the negative column when for many of us with other life commitments - it's still new and enjoyable.
Having your own identifiable point of view is great. Expressing it while still acknowledging alternate perspectives and experiences is even better.
Digibro's "Top 10 RUclips Analysis Videos of 2015" brought me here
one thing a lot of people have to remember is that in order to find good things, you're not gonna find it when you just jump into the format. if you want to find good music, you can't rely on itunes top 10 (although a lot of people do), you have to research, go to concerts and other stuff (but that takes time). you can't rely on the hype crazed games with marketing teams (although a lot of people do), you have to search for new genres, old games, new games, indies, sleepers (but that takes time). all in all, the hardcore of any format of hobby will always be displeased by whats popular because there are less "experts" then there are "amateurs" and that goes for devs as well. most games now a days are more of a product then a game. They're trying to make money in the most clever and cheapest way possible, by bribing (don't even know if i should call it bribing anymore, its more like a shared interest) reviewers and taking no risks at all
Why does every recent game have some sort of half-assed crafting and level-up systems? It's rare to find one that's satisfying; reloading 30% faster isn't all that fun, and clicking on a recipe to craft instead of finding the item in the first place isn't all that rewarding.
The thing that irritates me the most about these level up systems is that the game is then atrociously unbalanced for endgame. In Shadow of Mordor, crowd control starts of being quite difficult, and when you're finally getting the hang of it, capitalising on your opportunities, it throws in Berserkers and Shieldbearers that require completely different tactics.
But a few hours later you already have so many tools (wraith flash, critical counter, more executions) and far too many bow abilities (so many shots, so much focus, Shadow Strike, combat brand for more arrows) that getting rid of them is just a minor five second annoyance, to the point where defeat doesn't feel like being overwhelmed so much as just 'you lost the coin flip in glass cannon v glass cannon'.
PoliteTimesplitter Don't forget all the games that have boring abilities like +10% damage or +1 round of ammo if in the shadows or what nonsense. Not just that but they are often horridly balanced to boot.
This video does a pretty good job of illustrating the trends, but I wish it offered some more suggestions to fresh alternatives.
To suggest that we should have games with deliberately difficult control schemes is pretty odd, making the game frustrating to interact with is just going push people away and perhaps break immersion.
Please make more videos like this and also I need a pair of George socks
aaaaaaannnnd now i´m depressed .... thank you very much george!
one question: do you play RTS games? ... because i don´t see you cover those
Hey, pyramid head!
*camera zooms out to Evil Within protagonist*
Oh. Sure. "Throwback".
I totally agree with that and it's something I've been thinking for a long long time, even had debate with friends where they were saying that 'it's still different".
I know there are always trends, but they seem to last longer and be less interesting now. I used to love stealth game, the first Splinter Cell was amazing and even 2 and 3, but now stealth game are pretty much in every game, but put to it's simplest expression, like in the video. I sued to be tired of shooters a few years ago when Call of Duty was at it's peak and every game tried to be it, still is today, but much less, because 3rd person stealth with action and quick kill is the new trend, it's a more cinematic experience and a good way to reward players for doing awesome stuff, which is simply pressing a button.
One other thing I would like to mention also is the open world trend. We had games for years that didn't have open worlds, but instead some linear and less linear games, but filled with exploration and things to do. Now playing an open world game is doing always the same thing, a huge map with things to collect and some secret here and there. I love Dragon Age Inquisition, but I hate the open world aspect of it. Same with all Ubi games, Far Cry, Assassin's Creed, Watch Dogs, it's a routine now. It's easy to create a big world, but it's more difficult to create good content for it and not some side missions of collecting and killing.
I know trends moves, and sometimes this generation they'll come with the next big thing, maybe more casualisation, maybe not, but for sure it'll be something exploited to death where everyone will be tired of it after a few years.
I've been saying this for some time.
Nowadays, in every single videogame, your character knows how to handle a handgun/rifle almost like a pro.
Remember when headshots weren't always the best option to dispatch an enemy? Remember when using your handgun/rifle wasn't always a good idea because your character wasn't an expert with said weapon?
I know that in Deus Ex 1 it was hard as hell to kill more than one enemy with your weapon if you didn't have enough skill points, I know that in MGS3 aiming was a bit slow and required pressing the buttons softly during a tense situation, but I think that I prefer games in which your character has to look for other options than the classic instakill takedown/headshot or games where the player needs to learn how to handle the weapons and eventually become an excellent marksman. But nowadays your characters is an expert at everything and the control scheme is always the same. Learn to shoot in COD and you know how to shoot like a pro in 90% of today's FPS/TPS.
I liked the point you made about convoluted control schemes and how they serve a purpose. It reminds me about the argument of old-school arcade fighters' button combo mechanics vs. more "modern" easy to access streamlined moves (P4 Arena, SSB etc.). These new game controls (regardless of genre, really) may seem superior for being agile, easy to approach and execute, but as tacky and aged the old control schematics sometimes feel, they demand a sort of understanding or mastery of the overall gameplay and performance as a whole to appreciate.
I don't even think any shoulder shooters today feel or play anywhere close to RE4 (other than RE5, of course).
They feel like RE 4 streamlined. RE 4 had weapon sway, it was tough to line up shots, but many devs considered that a "flaw" and copied the style without understanding weapon sway was fundamental.
RE4 had tank controls. Theats why he said a cross of RE4 and Splinter Cell.
@silentTree I miss marathon. (your avatar)
the sway was rewarded when gonados would hurl axes or you stumbled a rush of 'zombies' with a well placed 180 flinch back step headshot. you had to get used to the laser sight aim over a crosshair. wish I could play it again for a first time.
This is a great video essay. George doin' his meta analysis thing works for me.
Not to argue your idea, but it's interesting to think about the positive sides of this sort of homogenizing. Maybe a somewhat uniform language of very basic controls and mechanics remove some useless barriers so players can more quickly get into what does make each game unique.
I'm all for creativity but I'd hate to ask developers to reinvent the wheel on basic actions - hopefullly letting them focus on brand new mechanics that shake up the standard rather than throw it out completely.
+Karl Nilsson Problem is, we have games that completely throw out standard controls like MGS 2 and 3 and are better for it.
+Karl Nilsson I don't think it's about reinventing the wheel so much as being mechanically unique. The majority of modern AAA games play exactly the same way, which isn't interesting. Innovation isn't everything, but it is something, and if the only mechanical differences between games are the ways in which they space out the same game play, they get boring and stale. They ought to do something to make their gameplay feel different. In the long run, that probably just means moving away from the light stealth shooter default altogether, as it presents a minute scope of gameplay possibilities. Of course, the reason that doesn't often happen is because AAA funding demands reliable results, which demand tried-and-true mechanics, which mean more of the same.
okay yeah but was it necessary to remind me of asuka's death with that music
This video manifests reason why I am subscribed to this channel quite clearly!
wait, in fps & 3rd-shoulder-shooter you shoot with the L & R triggers??
back in ps2 era it was the circle button or r1,
worked in gta 3, lcs, vc, vcs, and sa
I only started watching your videos a few weeks ago but now I think I'm your biggest fan! Great video again George!
About shooting being on the shoulder buttons, where else are they supposed to put it?
Having not played any console shooters in decades, I was shocked and annoyed to find out just about every console game nowadays putting shooting and most other actions on the L&R buttons. The face keys seem to be totally ignored.
At least indie games exist to mix up the monotony
Hold up. The xenomorph actually can get use to your noisemaker though and even make it seem like she is going for it if you rely on it or other options too much. She can even break through the flame of your flamethrower on harder difficulties.
well most people don't play all games....
+Moussmouss Moid Exactly what I was thinking.
+Moussmouss Moid Well most have played enough. It doesn't even take that many to start realising you're doing the same thing over & over. Pick about 3 or 4 games from any genre and you'd have experienced pretty much 60%~70% of what that genre has to offer.
The first thing that came to mind watching this was the term "Don't fix what ain't broken". It's a term I heard Yahtzee Croshaw use in a situation where a game didn't use the same control mechanic as every other game out there and he criticized the game for it. I never have any problems with games having similar controls, but I do agree with you about the other trending mechanics.
The number one trend I'm tired of is playing as Macgyver. I'm sick of crafting home made bombs and other weaponry in games where I don't think they belong, Alien Isolation being the biggest offender on the list atm. Crafting has become almost a Deus Ex machina that explains how the player is able to have nearly infinite amount of weapons in situations where he should have none. Characters can conjure almost anything these days out of seemingly nothing and it just bugs me to no end.
Seems Super Bunnyhop is only just now figuring out what most gamers have known for about a two or three decades. There is a reason games are broken into "genres", It's because they are essentially the same thing. There was a wonderful period about two decades ago where they started blending genres. Games like citizen kabuto melded FPS and RTS into a single game and it was amusing to see something "fresh". These are no longer fresh, and genre blends are just as common now as everything else. It's quite difficult to think of something NOONE has done before. It's even harder to get someone to risk so much money to bet that new thing will work, especially when they KNOW they can make money off another Call of Duty or Assassin's creed game. The Evil Within was never going to innovate with gameplay. It was about it's creepy story. I did not get far before I lost interest, but then I never cared much for horror games. It was NEVER going to live up to the commercials that made it look so awesome. You need to read between the lines to know what they describe. I... never played the last of us. I assume it's bland gameplay with decent story and very compelling characters. Telltale's The walking dead being better at character and story but far worse at graphics and gameplay.
this hits hard. it's almos at 6 years old video and it still hits...........
Ubiquity starts with the same three letters as Ubisoft. Coincidence?
Something something indie titles.
Less sarcastically, this really does help clarify my own thoughts as to why I don't play a lot of big titles. I think you hit the nail on the head--everything feels same-y these days. The best way to get away from it is to play things that aren't shooters or that aren't big-budget titles--genres and studios that by nature take risks.
Stop playing the AAA titles and go with indie games. I barely buy AAA titles anymore and when I do they're usually a year or so after release. I tend to stick with old school games and indies. Child of Light is absolutely fantastic game that you should really give a try.
My thoughts exactly. I was thinking about trying Child of Light but I haven't yet. I think Transistor is my favorite from last year!
I still think at this day and age games still have to pull from prior franchises because gaming has almost gotten to the point of "no what?" when it comes to innovation. Look at Shovel Knight, it took the best from various franchises but the game still felt fresh and fun to play. Child of Light takes it's cue from Grandia as far as their battle system goes but also adds the fairy to help during battle. I haven/t touch Transistor yet but that is definitely on my "to do" list.
Indie games are also guilty of using lack of budget as an excuse for thousands upon thousands of Slender/Flappy Bird ripoffs
Well for some reason there is this unwritten rule that indie games don't count when examining the industry. It's so weird to see people always talk about each year based on the 3-5 huge AAA releases and determine if it was a good or bad year. Indie games only get a passing mention for some reason even if the critic liked them a lot.
Suwat Saksri
Some of them yes. Perhaps even many of them. Of course many indie games suck, but there's still a lot of good ones that do new things.. who cares about AAA?
And it's the same with movies, and music and any form of art that becames widely popular. But just as with movies and music it doesn't mean the quality isn't there anymore. It's just very well hidden under the crapload of crap.
Something random that stood out about this (as usual very astute) video: I have come to see the word "hate" used very regularly in online discussion and it often serves to undermine the ability to have a successful dialogue since it trivialises a wide range of negative responses into an amped up "purely negative" term. Perhaps it's not always correct to call "strong negative criticism" in such an anodine manner, and sometimes perhaps that feedback does become hateful, but the word should be used with caution when describing gaming community reaction. You can hate a person, and that is a terrible thing to do, but the million lines of code that make up a game doesn't really warrant emotional language in their defense - especially if the game is objectively flawed.
It's similar to how damaging the buzzword "toxic" has become when thrown at something, either in a pro- or anti sense - it moves dialogue from the conversational towards the hysterical. I realise that you didn't use the word in an extreme way, but hey, this comment may be of some vague use because it *is* easy to just generalise the opposition to something perhaps underrated as "hate" - sometimes *too* easy, and feels as though that a straw-man is being invoked not so much through misuse of language but from a deliberately easy to rattle off buzzwords which while successfully underlining points, may serve to make those points appear less well-considered, which brings ups towards the usual unfortunately "them vs. us" polarising screams when discussing gaming. I may be off-base here, however.
Hello, could you let me know where the end music is from?
+Alexander Barnickel Thank you. I must have missed that part at the bottom of the screen.
I was shopping for Rise of The Tomb Raider, The Evil Within and Dying Light. I thought to myself "have I played gameplay like this before in other games"?
Turns out I was right, that I would get more tired of the new games with the same old gameplay formula in 3rd and 1st person shooters and thought to myself that I didn't want to play the same old shit and decided to get Resident Evil 1, 2, 3, Code Veronica X, Remake and 0 to let Capcom know that the classic Resident Evil formula sells REALLY WELL!
I really feel like the AAA games industry is giving up on innovation and the best way to combat this lack of imagination is to simply not buy their stuff.
Maybe I might change my mind on Rise of the Tomb Raider, The Evil Within and Dying Light, but that feeling that I will eventually get tired of those good old gameplay formulas will make me think that I wasted my money IF I decide to buy them.
MGTOW Fantasy Zone Rise Of The Tomb Raider & Dying Light are great games Tbh, the evil within. Not so much
XreckonigX, no, those really, really are not great games.
And this is, I believe, why Indie titles are so successful overall these days. While they still fall into patterns a lot, they tend to offer the kind of diversity and creativity that big, tripe A titles don't touch on.
There is a big discrepancy between design philosophies there. Major publishers are trying to minimize risks and deliver a safe product that will earn them money, whereas more often than not, innovation is the key to success for indie developers. Being different is how they set themselves apart from the crowd.
It is an interesting dynamic. large, successful studios are trying to repeat what worked for them in the past, whereas smaller studios with everything to gain or lose are investing all they have, from money to passion and ideas, into making a good game. And once they've achieved success, they tend to try and change things around for their next title, while keeping the soul of the first intact.
And it is becoming quite telling that playing it entirely safe isn't working so well anymore, as publishers stumble left and right. Smaller publishers like Devolver Digital, who pick games based on innovation and creativity, are growing while the big, traditional companies are giving ground.
Interesting times, I'd say!
There is no loooove here, and there is no paaaiiin
Godammit. A year of being subscribed to you, and only now I learn you have a podcast
One of the things I hated the most about MGSV was that they abandoned the old style with well thought-out maps in exchange for the popular open world crap.
puhfrugherter
That’s why I hate open world games...
When you get an old game and combine it with an open world, it sounds fucking awesome. Think of all the things you could do.
Sadly, open world games fill like a bunch of filler that takes up a lot console/PC memory storage.
Brilliantly put, George.
I've been feeling this way for quite a while now but any time I try to mention it I get called a hater or fanboy.
I'm not one for commenting with regularity, I just wanted to show my support by saying this and to thank you for yet another interesting video.
Playing a new game lately feels like a grind, as they seem full of checklists of things from other games.
This is especially true of Last Gen's Assassin's Creed Rogue. More so than usual.
And this is why I've become disillusioned with gaming in the past 5 or so years, and have started to prefer jumping around in colorful levels as an italian plumber more often than not. Make of that what you will, but after 3 decades at least that's still fun to do.
I noticed this too. Im in my late 30s and have been gaming since my dad and his buddy played Wizardry on the Apple 2e in like 1984. If it wasnt for indies and the occasional unique AAA I probably would have quit gaming. Its like many AAAs its the same game with a different skin.
Pretty much my own tale, word by word. I'm glad that I got into PC gaming so early on, as otherwise I'd been bored to death years ago.
Surprisingly, 2017 ended up being extremely nice year for once when it came to amount of great games. However, now there's pretty much nothing major to look forward to in the near future.
I enjoyed every Assassin's Creed, Gears, Halo, God of War, Resident Evil, Uncharted, etc.
I hope I never become this jaded.
He enjoyed them to the first time around.
Radio Raven I still enjoy them, so who's really having more fun? Not that it's a competition or anything anyways
+Ser D. Hawke The first time I enjoyed all those (except Uncharted).
The first time.
William Lazerdust Not excited for Uncharted 4?
You have no standards and shit taste.
I dind't realize the mind numbing staleness some games were at with regards to some design decisions but you are right. I mean, Alien Isolation had this convoluted ways to open doors and I always felt that those gave a lot of personality to the game eventhough they were just gimmicks meant to play on the player's anxiety while performing simple tasks. But it did feel kind of same-samey despite being a really nice spin to the survival horror genre.
And that got me thinking about the fact that on an environment like this, gimmicks really do stand out.
I can't disagree with this video, I can't disagree with your opinion on the evil within, because you're not wrong, but I don't think some of the things you listed as "design trends" are fair, even subjectively speaking. I rewatched the video before writing this just to make sure this spiel of a comment would be fair, and when you get down to it your criticisms of design trends kind of cultivate into the modernization of control schemes. This for the better, in every situation. I recently replayed MGS 2 and while I love that game, it's controls are a convoluted mess, and mastering them doesn't make them more rewarding, it just means you can auto-pilot the 4+ buttons you have to press when you want to shoot around a corner. You showed MGS 3 on-screen when talking about controls, but I think that MGS 3 has the best controls it could, I mean sure it still has "Shoot" bound to "Square" but many other aspects of the controls have been refined to work with that. There's a reason "Shoot" is bound to RT and "Aim" is bound to LT these days - it works. Playing a game needn't be about spending the first 2 playthroughs learning the buttons anymore, we are far past that point. Similarly to what you said about cameras, I can't remember the last game I struggled with a control scheme (outside MGS 2) and that's for the better, because when a game has poor controls it generally means you won't want to have to struggle through it again. If I can pick up a brand new shooter and know it's controls from the get-go, good, now challenge me with with the game design, surprise me, and THAT'S where the problem with modern game design is, as you said, the games generally won't surprise you, and outside that, a game generally won't challenge you anymore. Sure, you can crank up a difficulty setting, by today "Hard" means "More enemies, more damage" and nothing besides.
I didn't mean to post such a big, dumb comment. I just wanted to say that developers shouldn't be criticised for using proven control schemes.
There's truth to that. If the control schemes are very convoluted, it's harder to switch between more games too, or if you want to take a break and there are skills (like actual manual control skills) I was supposed to master in the game and have forgotten in the break I took, I'll be unable to get back into the game (since in older games there's often no way to change control settings, review button combos for skills you learnt later, etc.)
You are so refreshing. After such a long time of listening to people with english accents that act strange and play dubstep in the background, I have finally found someone that I WANT and ENJOY listening to. The classical music in the background is a major plus. I love classical. Thank you. Definitely subscribing.
Edit: Think the music may have been part of a game. Unsure.
I agree with what you are saying in general, but you fail to realize the small and awesome things a game like Alien Isolation brought to the table in comparison to the Evil within. I can understand how their gameplay seems similar on many levels but there is a sense of hyper tension and horror constantly permeating in game like Alien Isolation where as games like the evil within and watch dogs there is not. I feel like that is a valuable difference you have over looked. I know I sound like a fanboy and I love Alien so I probably am, but to use another example OoT and Dark Souls are about blocking, dodging, and timing when it comes to the core game play. They are similar in that respect, but they are so different in so many other respects that one does not feel like the other. I am just saying I agree the meat is the same but the condiments are what help make for a different and tastier sandwich if that made any sense.
***** I did actually read your whole reply, and found it rather interesting, but the main difference of why you and super bunny hop felt the way you did was because you were to immersed in the current gaming culture. I was not.
I usually stay back a generation or so because games are cheaper generally. I did buy Alien Isolation when it first came out but I never experienced anything like it. As you said you can see the love the creators put into that game even if it does have ubisoft written all over it.
But then again that is the point of my post. Sure things are formula, but once you get past that part you can enjoy the game for what it is, and I am glad you were able to.
***** @paragraph2 The silent Hill games are near master pieces and it was not something I was expecting of alien isolation. I will admit I was waiting for the alien to come at me in the beginning thinking it was already on the ship, so due to my own naiveté that actually hooked, but I doubt that happened to a lot of people. There was a portion in the game where the alien disappeared for a moment, and during that time the game was much less tense because I understood how the game worked, and if I was to start from the beginning again I am certain I would run into the same problems you were having.
Also I like the example you give but I personally prefer my horror to start slow and build up rather than begin in In medias res. I enjoyed the beginning for what it was though. The ending was terrible and a bit anti climatic and really cliché in all honestly. And if you look at Silent Hill 1, 2,and 3, you know the good ones, their quiet time in the beginning really doesn’t last that long. It was probably better for it, but I think this is more what you meant. Give us a bit of a story start a little slow then hit us with the alien. So a good editor could have probably made it better, but like I said I enjoyed it.
@ paragraph 3.
I think having a system shock sort of element could have helped drive the game in the direction of a silent hill. But there is the problem right there. Silent hill was a master piece of its time and it is doubtful that anything like it on that level will reach there again especially in the realm of gaming. It is a sad truth, but one that I have learned to live with.
I guess the video game industry is just going through a phase as it has been the last year or two. Even considering myself as a heavy gamer I've let many AAA releases pass me by, but perhaps I would feel the same way as you George if I had played all of them. It does seem like the big developers are leaning heavily on the safe side of game design because it sells well.. for now. Nintendo's unique flavor of games is probably also absent for many who, like myself, refuse to choose Wii U over a ps4 or xbox one.
In any case there are still some games that feel new and different like The Talos Principle, which I have been having a great time with. It may not be completely unique(as nothing is) but it is refreshing to play in a time when puzzle games feel nearly extinct, especially on consoles.
Sounds like what /v/ has said for years. Thanks for making a video I can show people to explain this to people. It's almost like Hollywood blockbusters with comic book movies. Both industries refuse to talk about it to.
/v/ will corrode your soul.
I feel this is a different problem than comic book movies. I mean the Batman movie vs Captain America vs Scott Pilgrim are all different things. This problem is more literally playing games with the same mechanics over and over vs a corporate oversight pulling the teeth from the subject matter.
Wednesday's Serial they spend their budgets getting the comic book story and spend millions on the movie which means an original good story wasn't made. Kinda like games using the same mechanics and play style.
BakehousePictures what soul
B Bergemann For Scott Pilgrim maybe. Saying any of the general superhero movies function like that isn't correct. I'm not saying they're good by and large but they don't' function like that. Also ya movies cost more to make than a comic book. You could say that more accurately about novel adaptations, bibliographical stories, or many others.
I see your point but I'm of a mindset that the problems of narrative and mechanics are worlds apart.
Ah man i love your work. I hope you don't quit anytime soon.
Bloodborne restored my faith in AAA gaming a bit, here's hoping more devs will take the risk of innovative game design over trying to hit all the generic check boxes of modern gaming.
By extension I also meant the Souls series, I just mention BB becuz it just came out and sold like hot cakes, selling faster than all Souls games in just 10 days. And saying BB is the same as Souls is just as retarded as saying CS is the same as COD cuz both are shooters.
Blood borne has the best combat in games right now period.
Ryan Long lmao
Ryan Long DS II tho :c
Its not just the stealth action genre that has these trends that carry over from game to game, its a lot of different genres like third person open world games with billions of collectibles or linear first person shooters that pretty much all follow the same structure. I completely agree with this video and I just hope that there at least a few games out this year that break some of the trends or conventions of these genres. Or maybe even one would be nice.
i fucking hated Evil Within. It was so painfully boring and the story was terrible
Interesting points raised here, and I agree mostly. You present them intelligently and your voice is good to listen to, I'm sure your channel will continue to grow.
I don't like video games
I was thinking about what you said about controls and physics being increasingly indistinguishable across the board, and then I realized the most anchoring factor: the need for realism. All physics in high-tech, 3D titles has to be "realistic", meaning anthropomorphic characters and everyday objects are subject to the real world's constraints in terms of movement and scale. It's why you have such wildly different physics and control responses in archaic 2D platformers as opposed to your interchangeable 7th-gen front-facing shooter. And that's because said archaic technology provides an aesthetic where realism is not expected. Imagine a game like Gears of War having Mario-style jumps or Sonic-style sprinting. It's possible, but you would have to work a lot harder to suspend enough disbelief for most players. So none of those wild and wacky jumps of yore; you're stuck with knee-height.
Obviously the majority of video games are still light years of way from legitimate realism, regardless of how graphics and physics technology may resemble the real world. You need to make some compromises in order to make the game playable to a wide audience. Simulators like the Arma series shows just how inaccessible, complicated and even in some ways _deep_ games become when you really do pull out all the stops to recreate the "real thing". Which is why you have shooters where all manner of critical wounds become miraculously healed upon touching boxes with red crosses on them, or by just spending a few seconds in a space where the source of said wounds are not in consistent contact with your physical self. Yet, despite the fact that your character's movement is but a crawl compared to the Build and Quake I engine games of old, it _still_ beats that of your average marathon runner. Because realistic movement would be boring, while on the other hand going faster (or going full-speed for more than a brief moment) would be "unrealistic", so you're left with a "ideal compromise" that limits you to a de facto standard squandered by opposing demands.
This isn't to say that old styles and genres were simply better, either. After all, there were quite a few 2D platformers that built themselves on realism, too. The kind that hailed advanced animation styles like rotoscoping, motion capture or 3D modeling, such as _Prince of Persia_, _Flashback_, _Another World_ and _Blackthorne_ just to name the more successful ones. Like today's action games, they narrowed their design to replicating the realistic actions and physics of modern action games, just in a 2D platforming environment. No doubt if 2D platforming had remained the mainstream genre of choice during the turn of the millennium when photorealistic aesthetics became commonplace, we would see the genre that once had great disparity ranging from _Castlevania_ to _Metroid_ be restricted to the realism-focused restraints found in the games aforementioned.
I do think that this "realism rut" that's led to a lot of the recent homogenization of game mechanic and aesthetic design is finally starting to give way, thanks to the rising success of titles-often of the indie sort where resourse abuse _isnt'_ top priority-that shy away from "realstic" design and this allow themselves more freedom in the way their games look and function. Chances are it could catch in genres where it was once inconceivable or forgotten; imagine getting to play a first person shooter with a completely twisted art and animation style where you ran like in _DOOM_ and jumped like in _Borderlands_.
This video still holds up, now that the disaster a.k.a. Cyberpunk 2077 came out.
Any comment on the Pinsof interview?