Are first party games less risk-averse creatively than third party games?

AAA games these days are known for being very risk averse. The sheer costs it takes to make today's high-end games means that Publishers have turned to relying on safe-bet franchises over everything else. If there is a New IP being made, it's usually cut from the same Live-service, Open-world mold as those are what's hot right now apparently. In a sea of franchises and Copy-Cats, The 3 platform holders, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft don't seem to fall into this trap nearly as much. In fact, first party games from these three, also happen to be the most original and unique games of this generation, some even surpassing a lot of today's third party blockbusters.

Sony Interactive Entertainment, has been gaining critical and commercial acclaim unlike anything its ever seen with its PS4 output. Games like Horizon Zero Dawn, Astro Bot, God of War, Spider-Man, Until Dawn, Dreams, and upcoming games like Ghosts of Tsushima have captured caught the industry's attention for their scope, ambition, and overall quality. I know it's become sort of a meme to label Sony's recent titles as the same Cinematic third-person, action game. And while it's true a lot of first party games on the PS4 feel like that, not many publishers these days would even bother releasing something like Gravity Rush 2 or Concrete Genie. Even in the "Cinematic" games, there's often stories and content most third party games of similar production would avoid like the plague. So while it's true, most of Sony's games tend to be somewhat formulaic, they still bring something interesting to the table.

Microsoft's Xbox Game Studios has struggled the past few years. Many of its studios have closed, Games were tragically cancelled, and the Big 3 Xbox franchises have long since overstayed their welcome. It's easy to argue they've been the weakest of the three first party wise this gen, but lately Microsoft's been trying to fix that. They've acquired several studios over the past year or so, and not only that, they're promising to give them an unlimited budget, and large degree of creative independence. Considering the length of Game Development, we'll have to wait until next generation to see where this goes, but even ignoring that, Microsoft was still able to finance some interesting titles this generation. Insomniac Games' Sunset Overdrive was well received, Rare's Sea of Theives had a less than stellar launch, but from what I've heard, has gotten better with each update. And Ori and the Blind Forest is considered one of the best games on the system, and its sequel is arriving very soon. There's also Ninja Theory's upcoming Bleeding Edge, which seems like an interesting take on the Overwatch style multiplayer game.

Finally, there's Nintendo, Co. Ltd. Of the three, Nintendo is the most dependent on its IP and homemade software. They're the "Sanrio" of gaming, using its iconic Mascots like Mario, Kirby, Pokemon, Link, Yoshi, DK, and more to fuel often critically acclaimed Software, along with licensed merchandise and media. But even with it's IP-driven business model, Nintendo is still committed to games and ideas that nobody really has seen before. There's Splatoon, a multiplayer shooter that focuses on ink and territory control with a distinct style all its own. ARMS, a 3D arena fighter where you play as combatants with Stretchy ARMS. Nintendo Labo, a series of Cardboard based Construction Toys using the Switch and its Joy-Con in new ways. And their newest creation, Ring-Fit Adventure an RPG played entirely using a Pilates Ring and Leg Strap to do fitness moves and actions. There's also smaller titles like Snipperclips, 1-2 Switch, Astral Chain, Sushi Striker, and even Brain Age that very few, if any publishers have a recent equivalent to. Even in established franchises, Nintendo games often ooze with ideas and creativity. Even when you play a game in a long running series like Luigi's Mansion 3, you feel like you're playing a game that the developers wanted to make, not a game that was simply made because of corporate mandates.

I think the reason the Platform holders aren't as creatively stagnant as most big third party publishers is their need to make their consoles stand out, as game development and hardware gets more and more standardized, there's more preasure on the platform holders to try and make games that make their console stand out, and that means touching games and ideas that other publishers wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.

The bigger ones play it safe for sure, but remember Concrete Genie? neither does Sony, they pretty much sent it out to die. Hardly anyone even remember's Gravity Rush 2, while I personally didn't like either of the Gravity Rush games, they were at least somewhat different. If you want unique first party games you look for Nintendo.

I think they are just as risk averse and deal with trying to differentiate themselves in different ways to be honest.

Nintendo rely on tried and tested IP but tend to play around mechanically with their games. they can't really razzle dazzle with tech (at least in the console space: handheld wise the switch is pretty epic) so they focus on trying to attract people to their platform in different (and generally cost effective) ways. Leaving the hardware race has also helped keep costs under control and means that a dud is not the end of the world for them.

Sony are kind of the opposite: lots of new IP that ties back to tried and tested game mechanics. Sony invest a lot in visual tech and things like motion capture and the visual performance. but mechanically they don't really do anything that interesting in their games (at least their big headline grabbing games). they can still be very enjoyable of course but, like everyone, Sony is still very much managing the risks. I suspect that, internally, they have also put a cap of 40-45 million on the budget for each of their games and they may not raise that much. it's very hard to try and justify 100-200 million budgets while just tying it to one platform in todays gaming market. or they may but they may take a punt at releasing 1 "masterpiece" sony game with a $100-120 price tag every couple of years to try and attract people to playstation...maybe.

MS: hard to say. it became very clear earlier on this gen that MS didnt want to make games any more. they wanted to sell consoles and sell services on that console and let third parties make the games. That hasn't worked and they are now rebuilding a first party. They may need to suck it up and be very risky for the next few years as they figure out what works and what doesn't. But they will still manage the risk. I think they will continue to release their games on xbox and windows for the forseeable future at the very least just to mitigate the risk.

it's going to be interesting to see how risk is managed next gen. the dev costs for the PS5/X2 are going to be a bit stupid. I suspect we are going to see game prices for AAA games go up. i hope the MTX side doesn't get worse but some AAA publishers seem hell bent on them. Then there is the whole games as a service model which could lead to a lot of spectacular look but utterly rubbish game.

But the new tech could also lead to some wonderful stuff too. Setting aside all the drama around star citizen/SQ42 for example: if you just stand back and look at what it's trying to do mechanically and graphically....thats spectacular and there is nothing to suggest the PS5/X2 wont be able to do something like that.

But even still, Nintendo has made plenty of New IP on the Switch. You have ARMS, Nintendo Labo, 1-2 Switch, Astral Chain, and Ring Fit Adventure to name a few. All of them are built on gameplay and ideas that wouldn't have been approved under a third party publisher.

While Sony's biggest games do tend to share the same gameplay template. The overall stories, themes, and aesthetics are still far more creatively risky than most third party games. They're one of the few Publishers who still regularly puts out AAA single player games. In an era where third parties are moving away from that in favor of loot-box, live-service, multiplayer games, that's pretty bold.

While the Platform holders do have their share of safe bets, they don't exclusively rely on them the way Third party publishers do. That's the point. Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft can afford to put out games that wouldn't see the light of day under companies like EA or Activision because they need to draw attention to their platforms, and the best way to do that is to produce creatively risky games that grab attention. It also helps that the Platform holders have more revenue streams from Hardware sales, subscription services, and Third party royalty fees, all to help fund first party game development.

Good points!

I also think first party games are less predatory in their nature and that may affect their overall design too. It's not as important for first party games to push the profitability of the individual game to the max. They mainly exist to make people buy the platform. Therefore first party studios are a bit more free when it comes to design and can focus on maximum fun. If people move on to play something else on the platform, that's not a problem.

Compare to something like Ubisoft's flagship title Assassin's Creed. Ubisoft basically want people to keep playing and investing until the next release. Hence the ridiculously bloated design.

But it seems like Gaas is slowing down a bit (Ubisoft dropped like 30 % for example). Market is getting saturated. So perhaps third party will again start to produce more games with a smaller scope, which would be sooo amazing!

They are generally more unique than the typical third party offerings like Call of Duty or Ghost Recon Breakpoint

@howmakewood: I beat it, great game. There was no marketing push for it though and I read sales were bad.

Same with MediEvil....no marketing at all.

3rd party games exist only to make money.

1st party games can exist to push a system's sales, hype and reputation. Similar to "critical darlings" or "prestige" projects in film and TV, they may lose money (even a LOT of money) but still be considered a success by the system maker.

In general, I find first party games often more creative and innovative than third party ones. However, AAA budgets are still AAA budgets, so it's not like you're getting wildly creative indies or anything.

Did the TC made a post that is in contrast to the title? Based on the post, don't remember any unique or original games made by Sony or MS. The only console manufacturer that does bring unique and risky gameplay experiences is Nintendo.

@howmakewood: I love most of Nintendo's exclusives but to call them unique is laugable. Outside BotW they have not innovated in any of their genres in nearly 20 years.

Splatoon is an innovative take on the online shooter. ARMS is an innovative take on the arena fighting game. Super Mario Odyssey is the most innovative 3D Mario since Galaxy. To say Nintendo hasn't been innovating in IPs and genres makes no sense when you actually look at their games.

This is the first time I've seen Nintendo compared to Sanrio. Nintendo has always been known as the "Disney of gaming", which is a more appropriate comparison. While all three are known for family-friendly franchises, Sanrio only has a single mega-franchise (Hello Kitty), whereas Disney and Nintendo have multiple family-friendly mega-franchises.

Nintendo's business model is much closer to Sanrio than Disney. Disney is an own-it-all multi-industry conglomerate with subsidiaries and divisions that manage different industries from TV, Film, Parks, Comics, etc. Sanrio meanwhile, is a much smaller, but still rather big IP-driven company that instead focuses on licensing characters to multi-media partners rather than having multi-media themselves.

Nintendo is similar, rather than having divisions for theme parks, movies, music, etc. They instead license those rights out to a third party while they oversee it. So while Disney has an entire division dedicated to large scale theme parks. Nintendo simply licensed their characters to NBCUniversal for a smaller "Super Nintendo World" section in the general Universal Studios parks. Nintendo deliberately avoids too much growth in terms of divisions and the industries they're in, preferring to keep a manageable size as it's both less costly to operate, and preserves the image of a playful, innovative company that focuses on Fun and not just profits (Well, they focus on that too, but you get the idea).

@TheMisterManGuy: Disney's business model has changed over the past decade or so, after the buyout of Marvel and Lucas transformed Disney. Nintendo is more like classic Disney, rather than modern Disney. It's also worth noting that Nintendo has technically branched out to other media, merchandise and theme parks via The Pokemon Company.

Sanrio is an odd comparison in several ways. While Hello Kitty is a household name, Sanrio itself isn't. It's also more of a merchandise company than a media company. It also depends heavily on a single IP, Hello Kitty. Its target demographic is also geared heavily towards young girls (which has proven to be a lucrative market), whereas Disney and Nintendo target all demographics across ages and genders.

Sanrio is an interesting comparison, nevertheless. But I wouldn't go as far as calling Nintendo the "Sanrio of gaming".

Classic Disney is a fair comparison too. The Pokemon Company is technically a joint-venture, and only exists because Pokemon is so expansive as an IP. Regardless, Nintendo will license their characters to third parties for merchandise and other media projects. But they'll never build divisions to do that stuff internally. Nintendo's not interested in being a conglomerate, they prefer to maintain the appearance of a company run by game developers for people who play games. That means keeping the company at a reasonable size in terms of how many places they have their hands in.

Its funny when people mentions Nintendo has being unique and innovative yet they best known for the same games they have been making for the almost three decades. LOL

Which even those regularly have new ideas and innovation. Breath of the Wild plays nothing like Ocarina of Time. Super Mario Odyssey plays nothing like Galaxy. Animal Crossing New Horizons plays nothing like Wild World. You get the idea.

I can see value in all three approaches.

I'm a Sony guy. Even though they abide a more formulaic approach to their craft, they pay attention to things in gaming that I value just as much (if not more so) than simple mechanical ingenuity. Aspects like entirely new worlds, new characters, music, lore, narratives, a very liberal approach to presentation, and the embracement and utilization of the newest cutting edge tech that the medium has to offer in the realization of it. If the fiscal considerations to be able to accomplish that necessitate a more safe and formulaic approach in the creation of their games in the AAA sphere, then so be it. I find the trade off worth it, and frankly, I strongly disagree that every one of Sony's games are mechanically homogeneous as many of their detractors love to paint.

Nintendo on the other hand values mechanical innovation very highly. While I believe this is largely important in keeping gaming novel, the issue I hold with Nintendo is that gaming is not only an interactive medium driven by mechanics, it is also a creative one. Their strict dogmatic adherence to mechanical innovation I find so uncompromising that creativity in other elements that makes gaming interesting (and equally novel) are being largely marginalized (though I think this not only stems from their design philosophy, but also due to conservatism, and dare I say it, a tad of corporate meekness). Aside their mainstays (with a few others) many of their games come off as shallow, forgettable experiences. Are they novel? Sure, Splatoon is, as is ARMS. But are they going to give me depth of gameplay systems such that Witcher III, RDR2, or MGS 5 can afford me for hours on end? No, as they revolve around one or two ideas.

I'd rather have full-fledged, formulaic gameplay systems whose mechanics operate in a more utilitarian fashion to afford me the evolution of gameplay depth rather than completely innovative ones that, while they may be completely new, are ultimately shallow and superficial and nothing but guinea pigs from Nintendo's creative brainfarts while they also sit there oftentimes belittling other things that make gaming so captivating.

Nintendo's claimed they're a toy company, and much of their output largely reflects that statement. I'm in gaming for experiences, not toys. Mechanics are simply a means to that end for me, not the ends in and of themselves. And that's fine, it's just a difference in taste respective to design philosophy. Nintendo has a place in this industry as much as Sony does, it's simply not to my preference.

@MirkoS77: Splatoon and ARMS actually have quite a bit of depth to their game-play systems. Anyone who plays Splatoon regularly will tell you there's actually a lot of versatility to its deceptively simple mechanics. ARMS also has quite a bit of depth as well. Nintendo's approach doesn't stifle game-play depth because their mechanics are versatile enough to be applied in numerous ways. Take Super Mario Odyssey for example. It's built around one simple mechanic, throwing Cappy. But that mechanic is used in a variety of important ways. Throwing Cappy can be an attack, it can clear obstacles, it can be a platform, and with the capture mechanic, it can give you access to nearly every enemy in the game as well as their abilities. It keeps the game easy to play, but adds a layer of variety and depth for those who dig really deep.

Stacking a bunch of vaguely related mechanics ontop of eachother can add depth. But a lot of times, it leads to over designed, and clunky experiences that don't benefit the core design.

You do realize that Nintendo is a diverse company of developers that have their own views and philosophies regarding game design? Sure, Miyamoto had a large impact on the company-wide creative philosophy. But It's not like the Developers within Nintendo only share a strict homogeneous creative view. Each of the company's team heads and designers all have their method and approach to game development, and views on gaming.

@TheMisterManGuy:

@MirkoS77: Splatoon and ARMS actually have quite a bit of depth to their game-play systems. Anyone who plays Splatoon regularly will tell you there's actually a lot of versatility to its deceptively simple mechanics. ARMS also has quite a bit of depth as well. Nintendo's approach doesn't stifle game-play depth because their mechanics are versatile enough to be applied in numerous ways. Take Super Mario Odyssey for example. It's built around one simple mechanic, throwing Cappy. But that mechanic is used in a variety of important ways. Throwing Cappy can be an attack, it can clear obstacles, it can be a platform, and with the capture mechanic, it can give you access to nearly every enemy in the game as well as their abilities. It keeps the game easy to play, but adds a layer of variety and depth for those who dig really deep.

I disagree, they are as deep as arcade experiences. Even Odyssey's distinguishing mechanic that grants it depth to its gameplay does not mean it doesn't exist within a very superficial framework that holds no long term, consequential impact to interwoven gameplay systems that manifest itself at the end. It exists in the moment, it's temporal, fleeting, interchangeable, it doesn't culminate nor compound. I can't improve Mario's skill set, I'm stuck with it from the beginning to the end.

I'm not arguing that all games need to be Witcher III or an in depth RPG to hold merit, it just speaks to my overall preference in design and what I view as true depth of gameplay. It's the difference between having pieces of Lego you can build, take apart, and build again, and someone who's laying strokes of paint, creating something immutable that I can more and more appreciate and feel that I've had a hand in deciding as it takes form. I can 100% understand those who love the Lego. I want appreciation.

Stacking a bunch of vaguely related mechanics on top of each other can add depth. But a lot of times, it leads to over designed, and clunky experiences that don't benefit the core design.

That's an extremely broad statement that needs to be taken on a case by case basis, and does not lay credit to the opposite approach simply by virtue of a generalization.

You do realize that Nintendo is a diverse company of developers that have their own views and philosophies regarding game design? Sure, Miyamoto had a large impact on the company-wide creative philosophy. But It's not like the Developers within Nintendo only share a strict homogeneous creative view. Each of the company's team heads and designers all have their method and approach to game development, and views on gaming.

That very well may be, but then explain to me where games such as Uncharted, GoW, Spider-Man, and TLoU are?

Don't kid yourself, Nintendo vehemently disagrees with such cinematic game design philosophy across the board that Sony embraces. Let's not pretend that they're not an exceptionally mechanics-focused, idea-driven company from the get go, and that Sony and Nintendo's design philosophies are intrinsically incompatible. The impetus of the latter are mechanics and always has been (much more so after Iwata took over) no matter how much they diverge from Miyamoto statements.

Nintendo's first party output is diverse as there's a lot of leeway that is afforded to them within mechanical novelty, but within that innovation, they are extremely strict and homogeneous in their creative predilections that are beholden to it. Just as much as Sony is with their more formulaic experiences they afford.

A lot of it comes down to people being followers. They swear by scores given to games by strangers.

Nah, I played SMG and Odyssey. Im still Mario collecting coins in a weird little world. To say they play nothing alike is an exaggeration.

Even Arcade games can have depth, see every fighting game ever. In any case, Nintendo is heavily rooted in Arcade games, Toys, and Analog games (Cards, Board Games, etc.). So naturally many of their games reflect that. That doesn't mean there isn't depth though. As I mentioned, Splatoon's depth comes from the sheer versatility of its one simple mechanic, Shooting ink. That mechanic is layered on top with multiple uses and ways to shoot ink. Shooting ink covers the ground, therefore it gets you points. But it also slows the enemy down if they walk in it. Shooting ink also takes out enemies. Changing to squid form allows you to hide in your ink, which is good for strategy. But you can also swim fast in your ink for quick traversal, climb up walls in ink, reload your weapon. And the different weapons and items available changes how ink can be sprayed.

All of these actions stem back from that one simple mechanic of shooting ink. It creates a surprisingly strategic game where you have to take terrain into account at all times, while retaining a pick-up and play appeal that even people who hate shooters can grasp.

I'm not denying that the other approach you laid out doesn't have merit, I'm just saying it can easily backfire. Same is true with the Arcade-like approach of Nintendo.

Nintendo has always been about making games different from other companies. They're not interested in just blindly following trends and genres that everyone and their mom is doing in the industry. If Nintendo is presented with a cinematic game idea that does make itself unique from others, they'll probably go through with it. But if somebody pitches them a cinematic game that has no distinct characteristics from it in terms of game-play, design, and story, then they'll more than likely pass. Nintendo wants to make games nobody else is making, and they give their developers free reign on how to go about it.

Nintendo isn't against cinematic or story-driven games, they're against story-driven games that offer nothing that other publishers couldn't offer.

Nintendo can take risks since if you slap Mario or Zelda on something it will sell.

I don't think MS has taken too many risks.

Sony has released some new IPs ( they're pretty standard from a mechanical point of view ) and gambled on VR.

But I guess they above are not as bad as EA/ Ubi / Activision

@TheMisterManGuy:

Even Arcade games can have depth, see every fighting game ever. In any case, Nintendo is heavily rooted in Arcade games, Toys, and Analog games (Cards, Board Games, etc.). So naturally many of their games reflect that. That doesn't mean there isn't depth though. As I mentioned, Splatoon's depth comes from the sheer versatility of its one simple mechanic, Shooting ink. That mechanic is layered on top with multiple uses and ways to shoot ink. Shooting ink covers the ground, therefore it gets you points. But it also slows the enemy down if they walk in it. Shooting ink also takes out enemies. Changing to squid form allows you to hide in your ink, which is good for strategy. But you can also swim fast in your ink for quick traversal, climb up walls in ink, reload your weapon. And the different weapons and items available changes how ink can be sprayed.

All of these actions stem back from that one simple mechanic of shooting ink. It creates a surprisingly strategic game where you have to take terrain into account at all times, while retaining a pick-up and play appeal that even people who hate shooters can grasp.

I don't disagree with that, as I said, mine is an argument of preference. Arcade games are fun, oftentimes innovative, but from my experience.....ultimately forgettable soon after I stop playing. When I was younger I was more into mechanics and gameplay, but as I've grown into middle age, I desire some meaning in what I play. It's just the way I've grown up watching the medium evolve.

I'm not denying that the other approach you laid out doesn't have merit, I'm just saying it can easily backfire. Same is true with the Arcade-like approach of Nintendo.

Fair enough.

Nintendo has always been about making games different from other companies. They're not interested in just blindly following trends and genres that everyone and their mom is doing in the industry. If Nintendo is presented with a cinematic game idea that does make itself unique from others, they'll probably go through with it. But if somebody pitches them a cinematic game that has no distinct characteristics from it in terms of game-play, design, and story, then they'll more than likely pass. Nintendo wants to make games nobody else is making, and they give their developers free reign on how to go about it.

Nintendo isn't against cinematic or story-driven games, they're against story-driven games that offer nothing that other publishers couldn't offer.

This isn't an issue of contrarianism. The structure of cinematic gaming stands starkly antithetical to Nintendo's gameplay-driven, mechanics-first approach. Many elements that cinematic games abide by, depend on, and of which distinguish them (such as setting pacing and atmosphere through forced walking, or an attention to animation detail that strips control from the player's hands to reinforce a more movie-like feel, such as RDR2) are wholly incompatible with Nintendo's game philosophy that places player agency paramount above all else. You cannot pitch a cinematic game idea to Nintendo, as the tenets of its design are fundamentally at odds with their approach to game design. It's everything they as a developer repudiate, and is why their fans are so ardently supportive of them.

Due to this, I view them as being just as much restricted by philosophical design dogmatism as people accuse Sony of being formulaic in enabling a more cinematic feel by theirs. I don't care for the term "video games", I find it outdated, and prefer "interactive entertainment". Nintendo's offerings may far better suit the definition of a game than Sony's do, I'll concede that, but it imprisons them in their creative liberty in a medium that's evolved to be able to offer us more.

Generally speaking, arcade games usually have deeper gameplay than open-world games. The gameplay in most open-world are relatively shallow compared to arcade games. In terms of gameplay depth, arcade-style games like Street Fighter and Devil May Cry wipe the floor with open-world games like Witcher and RDR. The latter may have more quantity, but they lack the quality of the former.

True gameplay depth comes from the gameplay mechanics. If the mechanics are shallow, then the gameplay becomes shallow. You need to start with the basics. Without the basics, there is no foundation. And without a foundation, whatever you try to build will be shaky and flimsy.

That's why arcade-style games like Street Fighter, Splatoon and Overwatch have dedicated professional e-sports competitions, while open-world games like Witcher III and RDR2 don't. The former start with the mechanics and build up from there, while the latter don't bother with the mechanics and thus lack a solid gameplay foundation.

One of the few companies that makes open-world games with actual gameplay depth is, ironically, Nintendo. Games like Metroid and Breath of the Wild are the benchmarks for how to design open-world games with real gameplay depth. Which comes from the core gameplay mechanics. That's where it starts.

The bolded underlined is simply not true. There are games out there with extremely shallow mechanics that are incredibly in depth. RTSes? Games such as Civilization? Simple mouse clicks and key presses, yet it is the synergy of their gameplay systems that afford true depth of gameplay. What about Tetris? That game is insanely deep gameplay wise with respect to strategy with one button to flip the pieces with a d-pad to move them left and right.

The Witcher III has a simple foundation, but as the game progresses and skills are built onto it gameplay depth increases. Different spells can be utilized in combat which are more or less effective against differing foes, potions afford benefits (and drawbacks) in various contexts, various items and armor grant differing characteristics. That's all depth, and BotW is no different. The mechanics are simple, the depth of gameplay comes from the interplay and synergism between the elements it controls. I've never understood the argument that mechanics=depth. Mechanics allow for depth.

Nintendo is game-play-driven generally yes, but that's not to say they outright reject cinematic elements, or games that focus on story. Their main concern is whether the game

* Has the player constantly interacting with something, or someone

* Is both functionally, and aesthetically different from other games on the market

* Ultimately creates a feeling of fun and/or excitement on the end user's part

Nintendo is probably more than happy to welcome that manages to tell a great story as well. They just aren't in passive thrill rides with small bits of gameplay. If Nintendo's going to make a story driven game, they're going to focus on what the player can do to shape the story and the world around them through their actions. Not really on guiding the player through a pre-planned series of set pieces crafted before a single gameplay prototype is made.

I think you misunderstood what I meant by "shallow mechanics". I don't mean "simple mechanics". What I mean are poorly-designed and limited mechanics. Gameplay mechanics that are well-designed and open up various new possibilities are not shallow, but they're deep, even if they may appear simple on the surface.

If anything, you kind of just proved the point that I was making, and TheMisterManGuy's point for that matter. His examples of the ink in Splatoon and cap in Mario Odyssey are more-or-less similar to your examples of the block in Tetris and the click in Civilization and RTS games. These mechanics may appear simple on the surface, but they're very well-designed and open up a great deal of flexibility, leading to greater gameplay depth. That's what I mean about a game having a solid foundation. You need to get the core gameplay mechanics right, and only then can you build deep gameplay around it.

But for a game like Witcher III, it stumbles on the core mechanics. The movement and combat mechanics are clunky and mediocre. And as a result, the exploration and combat systems lack true gameplay depth. There's a limit to how deep the gameplay can go with clunky mediocre mechanics. In contrast, games like BOTW and Souls have well-designed core mechanics as a foundation, which opens up new gameplay possiblities for the exploration and combat, resulting in greater gameplay depth.

Insanely technical mechanics of arcade games =/= DEEP mechanics.

i.e. frame timing, etc.

Lets face it, since video gaming has blown up to mainstream, most games are easier and more shallow.

But all their games are called Mario, so they all must be the same, LOLzderp.

Always fun when people like Pedro have opinions about things they know nothing about.

You are conflating competence of mechanical execution with the depth that it can provide. One does not automatically determine the other. That the Witcher III's mechanics aren't perfect in execution doesn't at all mean that negates complexity that affords depth to any respective player agency approach. I would agree that within certain genres your position is more applicable (such as fighting games and ones that necessitate more precision where the lack of it would directly impact depth) but games such as the Witcher III are not one of them. It's an unfair and disingenuous comparison.

Many games throughout the history of the medium (and including to this day) are inadequate or are at best mediocre in the mechanics they attempt to tackle towards the overall goal the game is attempting to achieve, yet nevertheless see through it in providing depth through compensation of its shortcomings, again, through the synergy of gameplay systems.

A solid foundation is not necessary for depth, in fact I don't even know what you mean by solid. I'd say as long as it's consistent in its game logic, that constitutes solid, and that is enough. People can adapt to mechanical imperfection as long as it provides them a consistent and dependable feedback loop they can learn and adapt to, and once they do, the same degree of depth you claim is dependent on competence of mechanics can similarly be achieved without it. It may not be the most intuitive or efficient manner of execution to attain what's desired, there is a way to do things better than others, but that's not at all the same as saying it precludes depth.

@TheMisterManGuy:

Well, I've yet to have seen a 3rd party game catch my attention as much as Sony 1st party. If anything, their success proves that their strategy works.

The biggest issue fans have with Xbox exclusives these days is the fact that they're not as good as they used to be. And that has to do with the original development teams leaving the projects. The others failed due to bad direction. Like Fable. Fans would've loved to see Halo and Gears of War go back to their original versions.

But the risk is minimized because they change the gameplay style on well known franchises. Not trying to knock Nintendo, but I don't see them regularly pumping out new gameplay mechanics with brand new, unknown IPs.

ARMS, 1-2 Switch, Astral Chain, Snipperclips, Nintendo Labo, Ring Fit Adventure, Sushi Striker: The Way of Sushido.

@Jag85:

You know you're wasting your time.

Astral Chain - Platinum Games

Snipperclips - SB Games

Sushi Striker: indieszero and Nintendo

4/7 were made solely by Nintendo.

Arms and 1-2 Switch were launch games from 2 years ago.

Next would be Labo last year and Ring Fit this year. Only four titles in the last 2 years if your list is an exhaustive one. I don't consider this a regular thing for Nintendo. This gen, Nintendo only seems to be changing things up with new IPs to sell peripherals, which so far they've been doing once a year since the switch came out.

Doesn't really matter who did the development. Nintendo still produces the game. They pour money into it, the development teams on those projects answer to Nintendo staff. Nintendo owns the trademark and copyright. It's still their game. Next your going to tell me that Until Dawn and Death Stranding don't count as New Playstation IPs because Sony didn't make them. It doesn't matter, the publisher still produces and finances the title.

Astral Chain may be a Platinum Games Creation, but it's Nintendo's game at the end of the day.

Yes, they typically follow a brand pattern.

But what some might not realize is that most of the time for games like Astral Chain, the game has to undergo some development in order to pitch the game. The ideas are already there, the mechanics are roughly drafted, and Nintendo basically just publishes the game when it's done. That's why I don't usually count games like these.

Independent developers usually come to Sony, MS, and Nintendo with demos of games already in some development. They just pour money into it if they think the game will return their investment. It's not like publisher owned studios who get paid for work on projects that may or may not see the light of day and of those only a fraction actually make it out.

Look I'm not trying to say Nintendo doesn't take risks, but most of the times they do, at least recently, have been to sell peripherals or they use an already well known IP to sell that experiment.

Publishing a game usually isn't as simple as slapping your name on it though. Publishers give the development team a budget for the project, they send producers to oversee the game. They give feedback, and suggestions on it. Even design some elements themselves. They're as involved with the development process of a game as the studio who's making it. Astral Chain is developed by Platinum, but Nintendo is the one in charge at the end of the day. Platinum can't do anything with Astral Chain unless Nintendo approves it since they own the copyright. Hell Kirby and Fire Emblem are recognized as Nintendo IP, yet they're developed by outside studios.

If you aren't going to count games made by non-owned studios, then you'll have to toss out many of Sony's games as well like Bloodborne and Until Dawn since those developers aren't owned by Sony either. Hell, Insomniac wasn't a subsidiary until just recently, so does Ratchet and Clank not count either?

Even tossing out Astral Chain and Snipperclips, that's still 5 games created in-house (Sushi Striker was actually Nintendo's idea, indieszero just designed the puzzle mechanics). Game development is a lengthy process, and Nintendo holds its card close to their chest, so you can't always expect them to announce a New IP every minute on the minute.

He's not wasting his time, he's wrong. And so are you. If not, then make an argument instead of a shit drive by that offers nothing.

In the manner which we mean, yes, the certainly do reject cinematic elements wholeheartedly. They don't mind story, but there's a distinction between story and cinema (one is narrative, the other is the manner of its presentation) and that's where they draw the line. As you say yourself, interaction and the end user.

So my point stands. Let's stop laying unearned credit at their feet that they'd embrace something they never would, and have not. Metroid Prime told a great story, I'd qualify that as a game that told one without trespassing on player agency, but it's nowhere near what TLoU offers and does. So hell if I'm going to let Nintendo be attributed with cinematic elements in gaming or even that they would humor it, they are oil and water, and have even come out and made statements against it in not the gentlest of terms.

Because your last sentence is precisely what cinematic gaming does at many points, it describes it close to a T, and is what Nintendo would never do.

There's a reason I replied to him instead of quoting you. I already proved you wrong in the last thread, no matter how much DC you do for Sony. Passive elements don't make a game good, never did, never will.

And every FPS ever made is just you and a gun blasting baddies, Doom, Halo, Stalker, Half Life, Deus Ex, Bioshock, all the same game, apparently.

What is a "passive element"? Cutscenes? Presentation? Everything not gameplay?

If you're referring to the thread with Champ a few months back, you didn't respond to me IIRC, so it's amusing you'd claim you proved me wrong when you tuck tailed and ran. Aside, I never argued passive elements made a game good ITT, only that games that utilized them qualified as much of a game as those that Nintendo produces. Which, had you read the rest of the thread, I eventually conceded this view and changed my mind. But that's not even the point I'm arguing here so I have no idea why you're disagreeing with a position I'm not even making.

I now agree that Nintendo games are better games in what defines a game over what Sony produces, but I'm arguing with Jag over depth. Claiming solid mechanics is necessary for depth isn't an exclusive argument to cinematic gaming.

@MirkoS77: Your argument makes no sense. You're trying to argue that games with poorly-executed gameplay mechanics somehow have more "gameplay depth" than games with well-executed gameplay mechanics. That's not how gameplay works.

Poorly-executed mechanics greatly limit the depth of gameplay, whereas well-executed mechanics allow greater depth of gameplay. The gameplay depth of games like BOTW, Souls, Metroidvania, Street Fighter, DMC, StarCraft, DotA, LoL, Splatoon, Overwatch, etc. come from their mechanics.

The mechanics are the fundamental building blocks of gameplay. Trying to have gameplay depth without solid gameplay mechanics would be like trying to build a skyscraper without knowledge of mechanics or structural engineering. That's not how it works.

This seems more like a Corporate shill thread rather than an actual argument.

Saying that Until Dawn(movie game), Spider-man(basically followed in Batman's footsteps), and Horizon Zero Dawn(open world safe bet, probably the least risk taking of them all) take more risks than 3rd party games is a complete lie. These games are all entirely safe games. God of War might be the only exception, but that's because all of the prequels were fixed camera hack and slash games; however, I must pre-face that thought by saying that it's still a 3rd person hack and slash, so it really didn't take as much of a risk as you think.

Nintendo is probably the only first party company that has truly taken risks this gen.

Game devs that did games like Disco Elysium(lots of reading, and deep thought-provoking lore), Metro Exodus(first person single player games alienate sales, no matter what it seems) and even Control(unconventional 3rd person flight/action) took more risks than most of these first party devs/games(excluding maybe Nintendo). And, that was just this year, not even counting the previous years.

Yes, I was referring to that. I would rather not waste my time on nonsense where passive elements are being touted as 'gameplay innovation'. It's not called tucking tail, some times competing/arguing is an insult. I would rather not bang my head against a wall. The point was made clear by me.

You're in this very thread is arguing a similar thing. That's why I replied to Jag over you. A game has to have solid mechanics to have gameplay depth. It doesn't matter if the mechanics are simple or complex. The gameplays system should have a cohesive design and demands player agency. None of the Sony games have either of what I said.

Anyway, that's the last of my reply. I have already wasted much of my time.