next »

[Theophilus]

2. lack of genre variety (FPS and TPS together make up about 75% of all of the biggest budget games)

Do you have a citation for this?

[rivon]

[s0]

4. lack of strategy, variety, or allowance for creativity (e.g. in most games all challenges can be completed in only one way, the intended way)

5. linearity (but this was always a problem, not just with modern games but also with games in the past)

I see these two as one and the same. Strategy and creativity are a form of nonlinearity imo.

I agree that strategy and openness in games is on the decline, in the "indie scene" almost as much as in the "mainstream." Gilbert Timmy said something about that in some other thread. He contrasts "challenge mentality" (making the player jump through hoops) and "playground mentality" (giving the player the tools to overcome obstacles in their own way) and thinks that "challenge mentality" is more prevalent today, or that's how I understood it at least.

[Belimoth]

If you guys are going to think of adding features as removing not-features this thread will never end.

I think I would remove HUD radar as well. It is hard not to rely on it for navigation and it defeats the purpose of getting a big TV if I'm just going to be staring at 1/16 of the screen the whole time.

[Zaphos]

2. lack of genre variety (FPS and TPS together make up about 75% of all of the biggest budget games)

Do you have a citation for this?

Here's a top 10 of game budgets as of 2010: http://www.digitalbattle.com/2010/02/20/top-10-most-expensive-video-games-budgets-ever/

[J-Snake]

Features removed? How about redesign them and adding more interesting stuff?

[EdgeOfProphecy]

Features removed? How about redesign them and adding more interesting stuff?

More != Better.  Further, not everything can be redesigned.  At some point you have to take a bad idea out behind the shed and lie to your boss that it's in a better place now.

Features are like tools.  Their neither good nor evil, they're simply there.  Game designers can use them poorly, or use them masterfully.

Except for one.

Quicktime events.  I.  Hate.  Quicktime.  Events.  It's like, "Oh hey the game's just about to get interesting, but rather than let you play it we're going to have you press a bunch of random buttons then watch this cutscene."

[Zaphos]

Does Elite Beat Agents gameplay count as Quick Time Events?

[J-Snake]

It is right that more features don't necessarily make a better game. However there are often more fundamental problems which simply cannot be solved by removing features. So removing feautures is often not the right question. Take Halo 3 as example, it cannot do the most important thing a shooter should feature: responsive, consistent and sticky aiming like in Cod(or better). Then the game barely runs at 30 fps. Rebalancing weapons or removing feautures won't have that breaking impact as long as the fundamentals are not solved. One important factor why Cod is so popular is simply because it is fast gameplay at 60fps. That is what adds immersive feedback right there.

The problem I see with most of the developers is that they are lacking insight when it comes to technical detail in game-mechanics. For example I am not sure why but regarding the controls it seems I am the first one who is featuring sophisticated diagonal controls for a grid-based game. The controls should be designed the way that you can achieve the desired depth of expression with the least input-overhead possible. For example in TrapThem you can move fluidly and perfectly around corners without being that much of a finger-acrobat. Also the core mechanics should be as precise as possible. That sort of mentality is what I miss in general. So why no pac-man-games and that sort of stuff didn't do that already??? Is it just me who is sensible for perfected controls? That bothers me. Crappy controls are like crappy tires on your car, the only connection between the road and the car. If it has a great engine and all the luxury around, much will be lost if the crappy tires don't translate correctly.
That should be a core issue when it comes to games based on action. Halo3 is a pretty much worthless game from that standpoint alone, the lack of proper tires is what prevented me to drive it first place.

[King Hadas]

Does Elite Beat Agents gameplay count as Quick Time Events?

I've never played Elite Beat Agents, it's a rhythm game right? Although there is quick timing in a rhythm game they are not clear isolated occurrences or "events' so QTE probably can't be applied to Elite Beat Agents. Still never played it myself so I don't really know.
 

[SundownKid]

Does Elite Beat Agents gameplay count as Quick Time Events?

No. The thing that defines "QTE's" is that they are shoehorned into a game that would normally let you move freely. (The term "Quick Time Event" implies that it takes place in such a short timespan that the player wouldn't be able to react without being forced to.) This isn't the case in Ouendan/EBA.

[1982]

Is it just me who is sensible for perfected controls? That bothers me.

I am with you. Easily I can spot out that most of those games I always loved to actually play, have had perfected controls. It is also easy to spot bad controls, and thats it the end for that game. I don't remember about Halo 3 if it had bad controls or not, but playing FPS game with gamepad is bad experience in the first place.

It is interesting, nowadays you see actual bad controls much more rarely than in 8bit era. Maybe because in 8bit era the gaming was 95% about of controls and 5% rest. But that is why I love good games from that era, they are actually FUN to play. For me gaming (at least in action games) is quite a lot about controls in the end. Modern action games are all sorts of crap mixed up, so its harder to find the actual fun playability from there. Maybe its become too complex I think. Well I actually stopped playing console games in 16bit era because I got confused with new extra buttons on the gamepad.

[s0]

A bad game with good controls is still a bad game. So you have the core gameplay figured out. CONGLATURATION A WINNER IS YOU, now do something interesting with it.

That's not to say an otherwise good game can't be ruined by bad core mechanics ofc. Example: Little Big Planet.

[s0]

Modern action games are all sorts of crap mixed up, so its harder to find the actual fun playability from there. Maybe its become too complex I think.

It's become more "complex" but ultimately shallower. A lot of the additional interactions modern action games add are trivial at best, QTEs being the most extreme example. Increased linearity also adds to this. I think Super Mario Bros is a deeper game than (the singleplayer campaign of) COD.

[J-Snake]

Mario is featuring a wider set of gameplay-elements, at least. I would suggest to everyone who wants to create a fun platformer to dedicate some time studying mario-games and extracting all those elements. You will be surprised how much creative thought there is behind this simply looking game.

[s0]

adjusting settings before playing (esp important for pc games), choosing difficulties etc.

[gimymblert]

supermario = great simple, responsive and direct control + World interactivity.


Now in modern game you can't have a character that moonwalk, that jump cut animation and stand in fine air. All those add extra check who remove responsiveness (delay with transition).

Because the world is realistic you won't let the player do abstract action, it mean more button to do obvious stuff, harder to see interactive element and less interactivity within the game world as it became at odd with the theme (no more floating icons or strange weapon build.

[J-Snake]

start menus. I've never understood why they are necessary.

I am not sure but may be you mean the start-screen. At least on some systems the reason is to route and set the input to the input-device you are using. That is why you see "press start" or some stuff like that at the beginning. Otherwise yeah, it would be pointless.

[J-Snake]

Because the world is realistic you won't let the player do abstract action

I think that is the main issue, the realistic tone can be very restrictive with gameplay-elements. The shooting-gameplay is mainly a linear experience without a wider range of skill-sets. That is why some of us prefer UT-classic, more of non-linear weapons.

[s0]

Because the world is realistic you won't let the player do abstract action, it mean more button to do obvious stuff, harder to see interactive element and less interactivity within the game world as it became at odd with the theme (no more floating icons or strange weapon build.

True. When vidgams were more abstract you could just throw random shit together and make a fun game. Fat italian plumber in blue overalls jumps on mushrooms and turtles? Yellow pie chart eats dots in a maze? Who cares?

With a "realistic" setting everything has to be "coherent" and "make sense."