TIGSource Forums

I have noticed that a lot more games are being simplified in terms of their concepts these days, especially due to the "need" to attract casual gamers into existing franchises. Whenever you compare a game like Planescape with something like Mass Effect or Dragon Age: Origins, you see that the former had a lot more dialogue options than the latter. Likewise, Splinter Cell: Conviction took what made the SC franchise so great and threw out so many of those features, instead opting for a faster paced stealth game.

Is streamlining hurting many existing franchises or perhaps even preventing enough innovation from pouring itself into the gaming industry? When do you find it necessary to simply a game and why? Why are other times not generally acceptable for offering dumbed down gameplay?

I think there's a clear line between streamlining and simplifying.


Making games accessible is generally important, and that's what streamlining should contribute towards.(keyword: contribute)

Simplifying removes elements from the game to make it more accessible.(keyword: remove)

I think a game should be what it intends to be. If a game meant to be easy to play and accessible starts becoming complex, it needs to be streamlined or simplified to maintain track on it's original vision. But not all games are given the same intention, such as most MMORPG's around today, which give preference to complexities and forgo the ease of entry for a deeper experience once the player has attuned themselves to the many complexities which the game offers.

[EDIT]
For categorization's sake, I think this belongs in the Design section haha. *shrug*

I agree there is a difference between streamlining and simplifying, but I think the difference is simplifying makes something easier where as streamlining reduces the time spent on boring parts.

As an example, Vindictus and the new final fantasy game have streamlined gameplay experiences, where you don't spend too much time walking and grinding. Dora the explorer in simpleland with puzzles chimps can solve would be a gameplay simplification.

I think streamlining is a good thing, for example I think 4x games will eventually become popular when they are properly streamlined without over simplifying.

you're comparing very popular games like dragon age with niche classics like planescape -- that isn't really fair because niche games have always been more complex and less casual than mainstream games. by comparison, planescape sold about 50,000 copies, dragon age sold about 5 million copies -- that's an order of magnitude of *100*. there are still complex niche games today, and there were streamlined mainstream games back then, it's just that the more complex games don't tend to sell as well as the more streamlined games

streamlining is good but the problem is that everyone's streamlining too far

it's the same thing with every other problem games are having lately

Left 4 Dead 2 and Batman H.A. had a very nice balance between casual play and hardcore play. But if you want hardcore and complex play, you can play games like Arma 2, I play it mostly on weekend :D

Of course, there are not so many complex niche games, the ones that make money are the casual ones, those are the focus of most companies because they make most of the money of the industry.

streamlining != simplifying != dumbing down

Streamlining = Removing the fat
For exemple you have a game and all gun do the same thing except with different damage and the player always keep the most damaging weapon. All other gun are garbage.

Simplifying = accessibility
Before you had to pause the game, open the inventory, navigate category of object to pick the heal potion. Now you have a quick inventory for most used or critical items accessible with a shortcut key.

Dumbing down = make it for dum!
Before you had to think if you want to use the nuke because it leaves you vulnerable for a long time after its use, misuse it and you are open to retaliation. Now who had the most nuke and use it first win.

I have to hand it to you, everyone here has made some really good points. Yes, there is a clear distinction between simplifying, streamlining, and dumbing down. Unfortunately, as Zecks pointed out, many game developers are going too far with either of these three forms of game design. They may remove more features than whatever is necessary, oversimplify a game's menu(s), or even assume that gamers are way too dumb to play a certain type of game (SCC).

In Splinter Cell: Conviction, Ubisoft Montreal didn't need to go so far as to making the action that fast-paced, where you can almost instantaneously kill off your opponents, without really putting in any effort with your aiming and shooting. And did this gimmick, Mark-and-Execute (MKE) actually attract a much greater degree of fans, or did it alienate more of its longtime followers?

Likewise, did removing so many of the tactical options that were found in the early Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six games bring justice to those franchises, when the latest games are nothing more but run-and-gun shooters, like most of the FPSs that are available? Would any Vegas fans leave the franchise if it suddenly went back to its roots (a la Raven Shield and its predecessors)?

Actually, when you think about it, sometimes, streamlining, simplifying, and dumbing down all overlap each other. They can usually be found simultaneously in a game.

I don't know about mark and execute, while it's dumbing down stealth for instant action in SC, it's also not new, was that just the old locking+heat missile in shooter?

Can't think of any game that was ruined by streamlining, but I can think of a game that desperately need it - Football Manager 2011.

I think a lot of modern developers devote undue attention to "accessibility" and make too many compromises for its sake. The result is a large number of polished but ultimately bland and generic games.

One thing in particular that gets overlooked a lot is the relationship between difficulty and depth. What's the point of having all kinds of intricate game mechanics if the player can just get away with mashing buttons mindlessly? So yeah, I think making games easier often dumbs them down as well.

Well, there is no point.  Which is why I hate when they do that.  :(

A game can be plenty simple and streamlined, but without being dumbed down. For instance, play Spelunker HD. Very simple. Pretty streamlined, too. ;)

But there does come a point where for the sake of 6-year-old accessibility, some games are just made to be easily beaten. And when that hits a pre-existing franchise that already has a following, it completely sucks. Compare the coolness factors between MegaMan X5/X6. X6 is effin' HARDCORE. (But admittedly, X5 is a good, approachable title for players on whatever level, if a bit on the easy side.)

I wanna be the guy is simple and streamline but it's not for dumb mashing.

@CAsinclair
Most designer look at accessibility the totally "wrong" way. More than often that mean dumb down and give bad rep to accessibility. And morte than once intricate game mechanics are just fat, they don't even know how to expend a variety of situation from the intricacy, when they does they do it for over nerd that can support a bit of imbalance and unfairness, I notice that hardcore gamer like the pointlessly obfuscating interface because that made them feel more intelligent and superior. Sometimes going around the obfuscation IS the game for them, not the game mechanics ... It used to happen when game had 100 million useless items like dead squirrels that only clutter the inventory and make the player always question if that will have a use latter (dead squirels never had a used :'( ). Now items are too expensive so they are forced to streamline to save money.

easy to learn hard to master should be the rules

I think it's possible for streamlining to be bad.

To a person who thought the platforming sections of Actraiser 1 were phenomenal, Actraiser 2 (which eliminated the Godmode segments in between) was streamlining the good stuff.

If you thought the Godmode sections were what made Actraiser unique and fun, Actraiser 2 was a waste of an IP. Might as well have not used the Actraiser name. Streamlining removed what was worth playing.

FF13 suffers from this as well. If beautiful locations and cinematics are what you're after, FF13 was crisp and to the point, without the menu full of pointless spells you ignored to cast Ultima and spam attack and the complicated level-up trees that bore little effect on your utility in combat. To the rest, the meandering and collecting and tweaking of your character was what provided a cool-down from the endless string of battles.

The same action of streamlining can be good or bad simply by who you ask.

So you're saying all flightsims are bad?

Sometimes what you're referring to as "fat" can be important to a game. Let me explain:
I didn't like FF13 for exactly that reason. I don't think RPGs are about being as tight and streamlined as possible. They're about getting the player immersed in their story, atmosphere and world, and things like "pointless" items or towns (which could be, in theory, reduced to menus) help that immersion. Even if these things are pointless or "timesinks" from a pure gameplay standpoint, they often tell you something about the world the game is set in.

I also like obfuscation not because I want to feel "superior" or whatever, but for another reason. If I had to explain that though, I'd have to open a whole different can of worms and I'm not sure if this the right time and place for that.
;)

I thought I liked complex games, but lately I have been thinking that maybe complexity is not the thing that attracts me.

For example, the other day they kicked me from a server for not playing as good as others, they even insulted me, I mean, there are people who really really get into these kinds of games to extreme points, and I am not even near that level of involvement in the game, thankfully they are a minority.

There is a level of depth I enjoy though, I enjoy growing in the game and getting better at it, but I guess it should be a natural and fun evolution, from simple and easy things to more complex. Other people treat games as if they where a job, or a thing of such great importance, it's ridiculous.

It's like the game can be played at your own pace, but these people, since they know the all the complexities of the game, they make it harder for you since they intend you to know all the complexities of the game as they do. Some other games which are not multiplayer also pretend you to know it's complexities to a ridiculous level, and they offer you no choice, they don't let you play and have fun at your own pace.

The time is now, the place is here, bring it on

You asked for it, brah.

OK, let me start with a music analogy (not enough of these in gaming discussions): One of my favorite bands is My Bloody Valentine. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiomcuNlVjk&feature=related) Basically, these guys'n'gals play jangly, melodic guitar pop, except they play it with HUGE FUCKING AMP STACKS TURNED UP TO 11 and guitars processed through gazillions of effects pedals, obfuscating their poppy melodies through a dense fog of noise. Could MBV just "cut the fat" and "streamline" their music into regular janglepop? Sure they could. Would it take away a lot of makes them good? Probably.

Or if you need a visual art analogy, take the impressionists for example. Could Monet have painted this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Claude_Monet%2C_Impression%2C_soleil_levant.jpg) as a regular "realistic" harbor scene increasing its "readability?" etc. etc.

The bottom line is that if we're really supposed to see games as art as opposed to simply commercial products (that's the can of worms I was talking about), we can't think in terms of accessibility. We have to realize that mechanics are an integral part of the aesthetics of a game and that they can serve purposes other than providing the smoothest and most balanced experience for the player. I don't have any clear, dry-cut standards for judging games but I don't believe that the best game is necessarly the most polished.
:noir:

I guess I need to introduce "focus" as a parameter to understand what i mean by "obfuscation" and "accessibility". Focus goes in pair with identity.

Let's take steel batalion: Steel battalion have a clear focus on control and a feeling of fantasy fulfilment "realism". Therefore I can't say the control need to be streamline.

Game like dwarf fortress have a focus on complex simulation, you can't streamline that if you go against that principle, it's the identity of dwarf fortress, actually streamlining dwarf fortress might be about increasing the complexity of the simulation!

Streamlining for me mean "to the point", it's about what is the focus, when you streamline you increase the coherence. Adding things might be streamlinging if it can increase coherence!

Bad thing happen when the dev focus is not the audience focus, FFXIII have a focus on narrative in a cinematic sense, it happen that gamer like the narrative explorative aesthetics, the bloat FF7 full of mini games and short description is more streamline for the player focus than FF13, because all those addition actually add to the point in the game, the game was focused.

Bioshock is a dumb down system shock, it also have a new focus and a new name that helpt create a new expectation. Bioshock is streamline for a bioshock focus but not in a system shock focus. Modern sonic is another example, they have streamline everything for speed, while the classic series streamline itself for momentum with increasing path complexity, element like spindashing, insta shield, new character, shield item, all participate to increase the focus of classic sonic.

Therefore it's about identifying what is the real focus and sticking to it. That's where I think most designer are lazy, they use general focus that goes against the identity of the game, identifying the focus of the game and design around it is difficult.

Nintendo is a good exemple of keeping focus while evolving a series, zelda 3 to OOT or mario world to mario world 2 to mario 64 are brillant and yet totally different! Their focus remain the same. Even across spin off, mario kart and smash bros still feel coherent with the series they originate. That's streamlining for me.

Interesting thoughts and I agree for the most part. Looks like we had a fundamental semantic misunderstanding.  ;)

It doesn't help that I extend and tailor semantics for my thought too  :whome:
At least I'm self consistent.  :shrug2:

I think games should be accessible. Having to spend hours to figure out how to play the game is often not fun. Not because the rules are so complex, but because design itself is not allowing noobs to get into the game. That said, no complexity is an excuse for poor accessibility.

There is no excuse for FM11 to have all of the interface options unlocked at the beginning of the game. They could have made the game unfold options as you make progress for example. Quite simple trick. If this annoyed hardcore fans, they could have made a separate mode for them. But they didn't; they simply didn't care about accessibility.

I don't necessarily find complex games bad; it's the fault of game developers, publishers, and manufacturers for not finding good ways to market these kinds of games on consoles. Once they can do that with simulators and strategy games, I can assure you that tons of gamers will be flocking towards them, instead of always relying only on FPSs, RPGs, action-adventure games, or sports games.

If I'm not mistaken, before FPSs became the dominant video game genre (in terms of popularity, of course), platformers were the most played games. It's only a matter of time (maybe 5 years, 10 years, or 15 years) before another genre takes its place. This could be something like the RPG, or even, out of nowhere, the strategy genre (a niche type of game) can suddenly storm the market. You never know what's coming our way because the free market is always unpredictable.

Music rhythm games were really popular, and it came out of nowhere with Guitar Hero. Now, that genre is not doing as well sales-wise anymore.

As Cliffy B. once said, the RPG may be the future for shooters, and not just with XP points being found in online multiplayer modes, but even in the single-player portions of these games. Whether you like it or not, games are going to mix together genres more and more, in order to remain distinct from one another, due to the fact that innovating in one genre alone is becoming increasingly hard, to the point where it's nearly impossible to do so.

IIRC, the gaming popularity curve went something like:

Pinball
Arcade/Abstract (Pac-Man, etc.)
Platformers (SMB, MegaMan, CV, etc.)
Space-Shooters
Adventure Games
Puzzle Games (GB Tetris/Dr. Mario age)
Re-Emergence of Platformers (think SMB3, CV3, etc.; early 16 bit games)
Beat 'Em Ups (TMNT, Simpsons, X-Men, half of playable GENESIS games)
Space-Shooters (Gradius III, R-TYPE III, StarFox)
** Fighting Games (SF2 explosion)
FPS (DOOM, Duke Nukem 3D, Quake, etc.)
RPGs (16-bit "Golden Era," IMHO: FF6, Chrono Trigger, Illusion of Gaia, Secret of Mana)
More Platformers and Fighters (DKC series, SFA/III/EX series, MK 3, Kirby SNES games)
3D Platformers (Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, Blasto, Sonic Adventure, MegaMan Legends)
Exaggerated/Extreme Sports Games (NFL Blitz and Tony Hawk, primarily)
Musical Gaming (PaRappa, DDR)
MMORPGs (first main spurt)
Fighters (32-bit era/Marvel vs. Capcom/Tekken Tag era, KoF 98-2000)
Driving/Racing Games (Need For Speed UG, Midnight Club, Gran Turismo)
Musical Gaming p2 (FreQuency/Amplitude, Guitaroo Man)
Sandbox Adventure Games (GTAs finally hit their stride)
(somewhere around here) Hardcore FPS games like Half-Life
MMORPG (The Sims and WoW begin their ascent into immortality)
Modern-Day Fighting Games (Guilty Gear comes to mind here, so does KoF Max Impact 2/2006)
Musical Gaming p3 (Guitar Hero 2 really launches the series' popularity)
Roguelike/Adventure games (Spelunky, PokeMon Mystery Dungeon, NetHack/Rogue itself and half a billion nice, recent adaptations thereof)
Casual/Flash games (Bejeweled, Diner Dash, Zuma, Collapse!!, etc.)
Modern-day FPS games (CoD, Halo, etc.)
"Masocore" Platformers (IWBTG, Syoban Accion, Super Mario Frustration and SpeedExploitation hacks, etc.)
Platformer/Exploration games (Now with (or as) level editors! Finally.); although emphasized in the Metroidvania direction mostly, or remakes/demakes (NSMB, MM9-10, etc.).
Aaaand, NOW.

I think there was a RTS surge in there somewhere too, like early GBA releases... but I'm not totally sure where in the chronology that was, because I spent a couple of years here and there totally under the surface. Not that it contributes much to the discussion...


First, years of experiments in game creation led to the structure of a number of distinctively popular genres. Back then, most hackoffs were often judged as wannabes or ripoffs, like back when Capcom believed SF2's popularity meant they "owned" the concept of the fighting game, and where DDR/IIDX made Konami think the same with the 2D-target musical game (among *many* legally dubious decisions across the board; I'm sure you can associate every successful genre-definer with that kind of thing at some point).

And then, many years of crafting has resulted in near-mastery of the design structure within each of these genres. You can easily find 5-10 arguably "masterful" releases of any popular gaming genre nowadays. What I think we're coming to is similar to what art did in the Renaissance period; a systematic pinning down of these art forms with clear principles of "right" and "wrong" things to do with these games, and the experimental phase of combining the aspects of these successful genres into something that kind of attempts to be more all-encompassing; or at least open the appeal of a game that's mostly of one style so it can be related to by players of another.

This kind of complexity naturally needs balancing with simplicity, hence the discussion here about streamlining, and the current state of the strategy genre. And as mentioned there, the "streamlined strategy" genre = the standard-faire RPG; hence why that's always had a crowd behind it, too. Because while playing every kind of game all at once might be really fun, it also be overwhelmingly complex, too!

Music is doing the same kind of things too, btw.

This is exactly the point of my long-term project, btw; and why I have some middle-term projects to test the waters of this kind of thing.


EDIT: And while it's never been as explosive and connected as it is right now, the indie gaming scene is far older than many people here might believe. See that "**" period of Fighters/SF2 explosion up there? That was when I got my first exposure to indie projects, like Street Fighter Remake and Zelda Classic. ;) It's over 15 years ago! Practically half my life.

Interesting theory, I think FPS is cementing right now, I think a new genre will see a surge soon, maybe new kind of adventure game ...

The -Craftlike.

For the craftlike to succeed, we need at least a new king with a spin on the genre, until them it's a small fad. You need a bunch of king in a genre to be born.

As much as I like the popularity curve that you've listed baconman, I can't completely see how FPSs haven't been dominating the video game industry since the early 2000s. If anything, we'll continue to see this trend with online multiplayer for at least a couple more years. Sure, we are definitely seeing MMOGs grow increasingly popular and maybe other genres like RPGs will be able to go online and be fully functional, as evidenced by games like Demon's Souls, Fable III, and Two Worlds II, which all at least offer co-op or some other form of connecting with other players.

Duke 3D through Quake 3 all gave FPS quite a following, and that was back in '96-'99. I remember that because it distinctly fits my high school years, Around '98-'99 was the next spurt of fighters, which I recall because MvC, SFA3, and KoF '98 were huge inspirations in later SFR development; and it was about the time MUGEN took off (and kinda left SFR in the dust).

They did die out for awhile, particularly during the PS2 lifespan (for some reason). Not that there wasn't good games, mind you - but just that it stuttered a bit until Half-Life 1-2 came along and gave it that nice kick-in-the-ass that it needed at that point.

Minecraft is a T-rex. What we need is a slick and smart velociraptor. Something stylish and fast.

mmmm
Spore + minecraft + magicka?


edit:
+ assassin's creed like movement (see the unreleased game Totems)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyQU2GXJhzU yes the game play really like that
The world in totems is tile based nso it fit minecraft constrain.

Damn it for you to give me idea when I want to stay away from them

I've noticed how a lot of Bioware's games typically remain single-player only, when Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 and others allowed some form of co-op. Is there any good reason why Bioware should remove such features and not reconsider them in the future? I don't think so, and with Diablo 3 offering co-op, you would think that RPGs' sales will be boasted that much more with some form of multiplayer/co-op gameplay.

Would you guys hate it if DA3 and ME3 or ME4 offered co-op? People assume that it will ruin the SP (single player) experience, but if BG1 and BG2 could be so good with the inclusion of co-op, I see it as pessimism on the part of gamers and perhaps even laziness on the part of game developers to not try to socialize genres like RPGs games. Whether you like it or not, the best way to make games go mainstream is to continue pushing towards connecting players together, as opposed to focusing solely on the SP experience.

Co-op is a strange and magical thing, even though it tends to break immersion(bad for RPG's) it is usually really fun, even if its just slapped onto the regular game. (especially with friendly fire  >:D)

I've heard that there are a early first person RPG (I played the DOS version, it was not even 3D, it is a sequence of 2D pictures in perspective, you do not move smoothly, you "teleport" into the tiles), that when you played with 4 players, it always became a deatchmatch instead...

People seemly love to kill each other instead of cooperate :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HFTPGh0_hc

Oh, returning to topic:

I think Ubi montreal has some serious problems with Streamlining... every single game they touch, they break it. :/

Of course, there are exceptions (Sands of Time, AS 2...) but :/

I think the one that annoyed me the most, was what they did to Rainbow Six. Those games were my preferred games, when I was a young kid without money, all my games were pirated, except Rainbow Six, in fact, I bought them all, some of them more than once (I have 3 copies of Rainbow Six 3).

Then as soon Ubi Montreal set to work on it, the first thing they did was remove the whole point of the game, that was the tactics...

R6 series, was called "tactical shooter", in fact, I would call it only "tactical", since sometimes you could win without shooting a single bullet yourself, for example, many entries allowed you to setup the team, go to the tactical map, set the waypoints, prepare everything, and then press a button to only see it in action, without you actually playing, you could just sit and watch as your plan worked or not. Then with Lockdown, (the first entry native for console btw), they removed the tactical map (probably because console has no mouse), and after that they "streamlined" more and more, making the game pure shooter, and removing all the previous simulation that it had.



Or the infamous Prince of Persia where you cannot die, there are a sort of auto-aim/autoturn and got the STORY "streamlined" too (if you saw the ending, you know what I mean).




EDIT: I know a guy that works at Ubi. I once argued with him about that, and he claimed that surely Streamlining was awesome, because it is easier to finish the game, because if the game few people see the ending, then the game is crap... I dunno what to think about that...

Hired Guns.

And it is glorious.

Oh dear, this is why computer games shouldn't be called RPGs. RPGs are all about playing with friends and role playing together, lol.

Even if it ends up "breaking immersion" in some RPGs, that's no excuse for game developers to interpret multiplayer or co-op for RPGs or genres that typically don't offer such options as a dead end. How far will we get with innovation if people persist thinking like this? I'm sure that not every RPG fan is too thrilled about playing alone, and including co-op and MP just might entice more non-RPG fans to invest their time with this genre.

Demon's Souls proves that there can be some form of an online gaming experience for an RPG, and keeping RPGs the same is almost the same thing as dumbing them down. Risk-taking is very important with the games industry as it is with capitalism.

Game developers should knock themselves out. Go crazy. Kill longtime franchises by catering to casual gamers or those people who weren't originally fans. It's what Adam Smith said about leaving the economy alone and not having the government get into its business, so why not apply the same logic to gaming? Anyways, everyone eventually moves on to new IPs and leaves behind existing ones. Regardless, people like new things and will leave behind some old habits/activities in exchange for new ones.

One problem is budget:

they strive to do better,
therefore they need more money,
therefore they need bigger audience,
therefore they need to increase appeal,
therefore they dumb the game down,
therefore they please no one
therefore the franchise die with its niche
therefore they revive it in a more mainstream genre that have nothing to do
therefore they blend with the bland and derivative clone (even if among they can stand up >> bioshock)

What I really want, is a game like System Shock, but not horror.

I mean, all those cool, but horror games are annoying, even those that it is not zombies or demons, it is zombie/demon-like aliens, or something else like that...

I want a System Shock 2 without zombies! Or a Bioshock without zombies! Or a Half-Life 2 with only the combine parts, no zombies or other sorts of monsters.

Both Half-Life 1 and 2 I had way more fun fighting soldiers than get those stupid headcrabs inside vents jumping into me and trying to scare me.

Also I remember I liked Wolf3D more than Doom (and people would go: How you can like that game with ugly graphics? Doom graphics is way better!!!). That is: Until zombies show up (yes, there are zombies in the first Wolf3D too...), when that part comes up, I stop playing.


I totally made a totally off-topic rant on zombies... Hum...

So, returning more or less to topic:

I want a complex game, like System Shock 2, but without monsters.

Shock of duty?

* cringes *

Exception: Demon's Souls.

It was a really interesting (and IMO successful) experiment removing almost all metagame communication. It's basically online multiplayer minus everything I hate about online multiplayer.

Uhhh ... Deus Ex?

I already finished Deus Ex :P I want ANOTHER one ;)

Seriously, Deus Ex is totally awesome :D

Although it is still simpler than System Shock 2 (ie: No weapon hacking for example... And I would love to design my own weapons :D).

I hope Deus Ex 3 won't do the mistake that Deus Ex 2 did (ie: Deus Ex 2 "streamlined out" the fun parts of Deus Ex 1...)

I hope deus ex 3 DON'T have a tight pace too. I want some bloat and some time to wander in slow moment... But it's not shenmue

We need a gta shenmue :(

I never played shenmue...

It is kinda like Yakuza?

Yakuza had plenty of useless stuff to do :D I loved it!

The game was not even about Yakuza or Beat'em'up, it was more like about japan culture, kinda cool.

I didn't play yakuza
shenmue is more like real life, slow.... and full of void, it's a very contemplative game. First it's "real time", people have routine, you have to wait for them ... you have to win money and jobs are as fun as real life ... But there is this sense of presence, that everybody is consistent (they all have different face and cloth, even in city)... it's very special, a bit crude but cool.

Whoa, even slower than Yakuza...

Yakuza is the same, except your jobs are... Yakuza jobs... So not boring at all :P

WHAT ARE YOU SAYING I CAN NEVER UNDERSTAND YOU I FEEL LIKE I'M ORDERING CHINESE FOOD OR TRYING TO GET MY NICE SHIRTS LAUNDERED

Shenmue is filled with zombies.

i cant decide!

Yakuza = Shenmue + River City Ransom + JRPG... something like that.

It's a great series, but it has a continous story, meaning you can't just buy the newest one and call it a day, you have to play them all in sequence to get the "full experience." Yakuza 3 (dunno about 4) has a short video to fill you in on the most important plot points though.