Modern game design and lack of gameplay variety

So my response to a SW thead kinda went into left field a bit and I thought maybe it would be best to make a separate thread on the topic. This isn't some new insight or anything but basically I feel like modern AAA game design is really stale on a most fundamental level. For reference and because I'm too fucking lazy to type a similar paragraph here is that post:

"Well I've never played a ME game (my brother calls me a dirty sinner all of the time for this) but this one looks quite ambitious. However, that ambition can lead to a lack of focus and with that said I feel like the combat in the game looks...wonky. Something about the stiff animations or the common trope of a way overpowered character is just really off-putting. Why do I always have to play as an ultra-mega-badass in every game? And, I'm jumping to conclusions here, do devs tend to over look things as basic as movement and the feel of combat? Story, setting, art, characters shouldn't even be in consideration until moving your character around a generic space feels right, feels fun and feels satisfying even while doing very basic things. Not to go off on too much of a tangent but, yeah, it seems ME:A might fall victim to this clutter-the-gameworld-with-a-bunch-shit-and-skill-trees-and-customization-but-basic-gameplay-is-uninspired-and-leaves-the-game-somehow-feeling-dense-but-shallow trap.

Yeah, I'll STFU now but the focus on content/immersion over the basics is an irritating trend in modern gaming. Muh immersions!"

So if you can't infer what I'm getting at from the above my problem is with the most basic of gameplay/design and player-control (if such a term makes sense). It seems like nearly every game contains the same control layout (which, yeah can sometimes be customized but that's besides the point) within genres and often times across genres. Shooting mechanics in FPS/TPS very often feel the same, cover mechanics feel the same, aiming is boiled down to just L-trigger, R-trigger, repeat...I think you get the idea. Where is the variety? Where is the concern for the most nuanced of gameplay: movement, aiming, interacting with the environment, level design etc?

Don't get me wrong, these complaints don't render games unplayable for me. Hell, I loved RDR even with it's puddle-deep gameplay (I know, I know, hypocrite much?). But I didn't really love it as a game as much as I enjoyed it as an experience. The setting, story, likable main character etc went a long way for me. The problem is when all of those things fail to click and I'm left with the core gameplay. And Rockstar's simple style just doesn't cut it when you fail to be charmed by all of the tertiary factors in the game and to make matters worse all of their games follow the same mold. A lot of devs seem to think cluttering games with repetitive shit to do somehow compensates for a lack of quality design.

A good comparison of two games having a distinct feel and player-control from one another is MGS2 v gen 6 Splinter Cell. Both cinematic, stealth/ action games that share some concepts but the core gameplay and level design/philosophy between the two are worlds apart. We just don't see that kind of variety these days. Yeah taking risks on game design effects the business side. Some gamers are much more "casual" nowadays. Still, can I get some new shit, please? Can I have like a straight forward action game sans a fucking skill-tree, leveling system? Can a dev design a game with a difficulty curve that requires me, the player, to actually improve in skill as the game progresses?

Does this bother anyone else? BTW most of the mainstream entertainment industries have the same problems.

TL:DR Pfft, read the small amount of text above, lazy.

Either SW doesn't give a shit, I'm arguing platitudes or this place is dead. Oh, it's also 2AM....


C'mon, SW, I rarely make topics and I'm bored right now.

Input. MOAR INPUT.

I know the feeling you are going through. My advice would be to branch out and try new games. The big blockbusters are going to be a little safer and follow design patterns that have worked in the past because it's the safest bet. Those blockbusters cost money. There are elements of the core game design that can be discussed too like some games feeling the need to be open world because that's what is popular, but not succeeding in designing a compelling game-play loop around that open world, or designing a video game around other elements such as the story or graphics but making the interactive experience simpler to get through so that people see the end of the plot. I wouldn't say this is necessarily bad. Maybe it doesn't quite succeed in the traditional sense of a game but modern video games are still enjoyable entertainment, just for different reasons.

There is still a wealth of video games that are designed in the style you are after though but it just might not be what the general consumer is after.

I think they just dont focus on gameplay and usual work on it last. This causes the gameplay to not complement the game very well. Take Nintendo for example, they focus on the gameplay first and then build the game around it. This usually leads to very unique experiences.

@jumpaction: I was talking specifically about AAA game design. I try my best to find games outside of the mainstream I just wish all of the time, effort and money spent on a high budget title had some risk takers/careful hands pulling the strings. Kojima gave us a great game in TPP but even that was left incomplete because of Konami's bullshit. It's just so few and far between that a modern AAA game hits that sweet spot for me as a game. And, you're right, that's the problem: AAA games are (have been for a while actually) "experiences" now. It just frustrates me when games like TW3 have so many well done elements but are dragged down by trash, yes, TRASH tier combat. I mean, what goes through a devs mind? It's like Da Vinci penciling in a mustache on the Mona Lisa: an otherwise beautiful work is marred by some bullshit decision. They're priorities are totally misplaced.

It's the Hollywood-ization of video games: big budgets, narrow-vision, familiar tropes, big marketing etc. Homogenization.

TL:DR.

Try out indie games.

@so_hai: Yeah, like I said, nothing I've said is particularly insightful. It's just that I've only recently gotten back into gaming after a very long hiatus and these issues are quite bothersome. It all makes me very nostalgic for the glory of 6th gen gaming. So many quality titles with unique ideas everywhere.

@n64dd: Uhh, like I've said already, I'm talking specifically about AAA games. I'm aware of indie games.

@22Toothpicks: There are AAA indie games.

Get Divinity 2 when it comes out.

Okay, so I read through that, and I definitely understand, and empathize with, your problem. That said, I do want to argue your entire stance seems to be a bit reductionist. Then, too, you are arguing against games being shallow, but you also seem to be conflating shallowness with repetition, which is the part that's confusing me. The two are not always the same.

In response to the questions raised by you, I would recommend games like Bloodborne, Dark Souls 3, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt- these are games with actual depth and nuance to their design. There is also Dishonored 2, Titanfall 2, Overwatch, Rainbow Six Siege, and The Last Guardian- all fundamentally experimental within the AAA space.

And if you just want something that can give you a broader range of gameplay experiences within the same game, Bethesda's games might be the way to go- although each individual element is undercooked, the overall end result is one with a dizzying array of things to do.

That apart, there are always Nintendo games to fall back on, plus of course, upcoming Japanese fare like Persona 5, which honestly looks like it might be up your alley.

EDIT: Definitely get, and play, Hitman. That should be some of what you're looking for.

This is why I'm playing indie games more and more.

@hrt_rulz01: Same here. Im becoming more diverse.

@charizard1605: Perhaps I am oversimplifying the issue but I still think I have a point about the lack of variety in fundamental gameplay. And to be clear I don't have a problem with simple controls/mechanics in general (I thought I'd made that clear with my RDR reference; perhaps it was poorly presented), I have a problem with the "me too!" syndrome from which devs seem to be suffering. I get it, some things just work with the basic input of a controller but it's almost like gameplay is an auto-fill portion of development especially for certain genres. A good example of unique input design is MGS3. Aiming your weapon while prone in first person was kind of a complex series of button presses. Interesting, unique, and just plain different. Does that mean I want every game to have such complexity? No. I would just appreciate some different ideas. In the case of Snake Eater I thought the controls made sense because it sort of mimicked the difficulty of maintaining that position IRL (maybe I'm crazy with that?)

I'm not sure why you would be confused with my argument about repetition and depth. You said it yourself, "The two not always the same." They certainly can be in many cases. In fact I would argue that a certain level of variety is crucial to depth. Pardon the cliche but having a steak every night will eventually diminish my enthusiasm for steak.

While I appreciate the suggestions I am actually quite surprised you would recommend TW3. Part of my problem with many games is the lack of focus on gameplay and the resulting favoritism in other areas like immersion (which, of course, is still important for many games). I've played a bit of TW3 and I find it's combat to be simply awful. Beautiful, expansive world with some very well crafted details and shit for combat. Yeah, I've said that sometimes a game's charm (story, characters, world etc) can make up for poor gameplay but it doesn't seem to be the case with TW3. I'll have to give it more time but it didn't strike a chord with me initially.

Yeah, Persona does look like I would love it. Certainly gonna keep an eye on that one.

@22Toothpicks:

While personally, I didn't enjoy The Phantom Pain, I do understand where you are coming from. I think that publishers want their developers to make the games that the general consumer wants to play but I think with successful titles like Overwatch, perhaps this landscape is going to change.

Particularly this year - I would recommend Overwatch and Dishonored 2 as two first person games that offer carefully thought out and deep game-play mechanics (Overwatch) and excellent level design (Dishonored 2).

I think @charizard1605 had a great post there. Like he said, if all else fails, try Nintendo. Unique titles like Pikmin 3, Smash Bros. and Bayonetta are given a big presence on their systems.

HOLY SHIT LOOK AT ALL THOSE MEDIUM-HEIGHT WALLS THAT ARE STRATEGICALLY PLACED. I'M SURE THERE ISN'T A COVER-BASED SCRIPTED COMBAT SCENARIO COMING

@jumpaction: Trust me, I get in plenty of Nintendo game time. I would have bought a Wii U by now if it were closer to ~$150 and my brother didn't have one which I can access whenever I want.

Yeah I've had Dishonored 2 recommended to me many, many times. It's on my backlog list but that list goes all the way back to the 4th gen and I got a looooooong ways to go lol

Maybe that's why I'm such a picky bitch about games right now. Usually I have a very "along for the ride" king of mentality but playing all of these older games has warped by perception of modern game design. Talk about being conflicted: I've been playing some of the most basic games ever and I'm bitching about simplicity in modern games. xD

@22Toothpicks:

I do that too. I mean, I do buy recently released games but my backlog consists mainly of video games released on previous systems.

Heck, I have purchased almost the entire Professor Layton series and I haven't even started the first game...

But I only play the games I'm interested in, which means the games I don't like don't bother me, really.

@Shmiity: That's the kind of annoyingly brain-dead design I'm talking about. It's like telegraphing the punch line of a joke. If I see what's coming from a mile away the pay off is like a phantom shit: all that pushin' and no visible results.

It's also really out of place in certain RDR scenarios. Love the overall design and detail of the world but sometimes things are a little too convenient.

I just played through Left Behind and for all that game's strengths it's so bad in this regard. As soon as you take one step outside to start exploring (like five minutes in), you're greeted by multiple cover spots saying "yep, you're gonna have to fight your way back through all this garbage at the end. Have fun." The combat itself is still fun but the lack of subtlety with telegraphing where fights are going to take place can shatter the immersion.

Gen 8 isn't good, gaming went super mainstream sometime during the CoD 4/Wii boom and has never been the same since. There is a reason people cling so hard to indies (shitty AAA market) despite them being around last gen on XBL Arcade, nobody gave a f*ck.

The last true gamers gen was Gen 6.

To most people "newer equals better" so good luck getting them to realize that.

Have you tried playing a MOBA like Dota 2 or League of Legends? For me, who spent countless hours playing everything the 6th gen had to offer, came the day I was introduced to Dota 2, it was like nothing I had played before. And essentially spent 3-4 years playing Dota 2 until I was bored. I think if you only play on consoles there is a game called Smite? Just my suggestion.

Well, i think that gaming was never as good as it is now! We have huge AAAs, unique indies, remakes and remasters of the best classics, f2p games for those who can not affoard games, sales and discounts everywhere, monthly 'offers', emulators to play everything from the past gens, etc, etc... Sure, there are greedy practices, there has alwaysbeen, but no one if forced to support them.

I honestly don't understand how can anyone be disappointed with the current state of this industry!?

@hrt_rulz01: Same here. Like i said above, mostly de to indies, there are more diversity this generation than have ever been.

@22Toothpicks: There's a lot of different issues raised in the OP, but it seems to boil down to two main points:

1) AAA games should stop focusing on setting, story, atmosphere, art and so on and instead focus more on core mechanics.

2) AAA Games should take more chances and experiment more.

So..

On point one I fundamentally disagree. First off, it varies greatly from game to game how important the core mechanics are. Mario Galaxy wouldn't be nearly as good if the controls were not as good as they are. But compare it to God of War (for example) the main attraction of GoW is not to have the pest imaginable controls but to set up a game where the player feels like a powerful bad-ass. The goal of Mass Effect is not to be the best third person shooter, but to tell a great story. Personally I think games should focus on what the designers thing is the more important part of the experience, regardless of what that might be. The goal of the game should be to offer the player the most enjoyment in the game, not necessarily the smoothest game play experience (even if the two might often go hand in hand).

On the second point, I'd probably enjoy seeing more experimentation in AAA Games, but then again, I'm not the one who have to play for the games development. The reason why AAA games tend to be careful is the same reason why big budget movies tend to be careful. When there's a lot of money on the line, chance of making back your money is better if you stick with what you know works.

There's a reason why the next marvel movie wont be in black or white. Or why the next StarWars Movie won't be a musical.

The pattern is going to be that the lower the budget the more risks and experimentation you're going to find. The bigger titles and studios then watch the smaller games and pay attention to what lessons are being learned. If a small game some up with a great new mechanics or idea, you'll start seeing it show up in the next generation of AAA titles... or the makers of the small game might be given a budget to make an AAA budget for their next game.

With that said, I think some of the issue might be that you're just a bit burned out on gaming. The OP talks about MGS2 compared to Splinter Cell, but by the same token, compare Hitman to Dishonered 2, both stealth assassination games, and they offer very different game play experiences. Compare the latest Doom with the latest Gears of War and the latest CoD, and all of them offer very different approaches to shooters.

I don't think this a problem with modern gaming. Look at the 8 and 16bit era. Pretty much every game was a platformer or side scrolling beat'em up both of which you could argue have puddle deep depth.