• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Gaming has become the "you played yourself" gif and we have no one to blame but ourselves

jufonuk

not tag worthy
here's a few reasons why the inferior hardware is a bigger issue than you think
1. lack of third party support (this is probably the most third party support they've gotten since the Wii and even then it's still bad, all it is is just ports of 7th gen games)
2. the thing's hardware is awful in comparison to the PS5/XSX
3. awful visuals (NO, BOTW does NOT look good, it looks like the video game equivalent of a RWBY episode. Get your eyes checked and look at an actually pleasing zelda like Majora's Mask or Wind Waker.)
4. also awful framerate (i had to suffer through doom 2016 on switch lite, it's a miracle i came out of it even enjoying the game)
Oh My God Omg GIF by The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon
 
You have a point but fuck me if that isn't a sad list you have there...

I agree, but those are the 100million units selling gangbuster games. GTA is also in that category but that's a far more mechanically complex game so an exception to the rule.

That doesn't mean the types of games you and I get excited over aren't successful. The biggest franchises still sell tens of millions of units.

I was merely pointing out the correlation between game popularity (and thus sales) and mechanical complexity to show that the gaming market actually selects for simpler games as a general rule.
 

Majukun

Member
production values are more easily marketable and are flashier.

it doesn't help that many still think of videogames as movie's less bright cousin instead of their own thing capable of much more
 
The problem, OP, with your reasoning is that you incorrectly assume that gamers care about deep interactivity and physics simulation in every game.

In fact, the most successful games of all time are actually the simplest in terms of mechanics and interactivity; Minecraft, Fortnite, Tetris, Pokemon, Roblox, sports games etc.. None of these games chase bleeding edge visuals and yet are far and away the most successful games in the industry.

So folks like you who want deep game world simulation are in the minority. So yeah no one really played themselves.
Don't agree with your assessment at all.

People actually do care, a lot, about deep interactivity. Minecraft and Roblox are deceptively simple, with deep interactivity. Especially the former that allows creative people to create amazing things in it. What were Wii sports but a bundle of innovative interactive simulations that promised a more lifelike experience? NBA games push some of the most advanced simulations around (ball, clothing, collisions, animation, AI) year after year. Pokemon, handwaved as kiddie stuff, was (and still is) a collection of complex overlapping systems that offer a lifestyle simulation of catching, training, and fighting hundreds of beasts, each with their own unique attributes, in an open world power hierarchy you advance upwards methodically. Way ahead of its time, the problem was it hasn't really evolved.

Oh, most of the GTA games were groundbreaking for their time when it came to interactivity (more reactivity in this case) and all kinds of complex simulation, and they are right up there with anything you listed in terms of success. RDR2, even more complex, almost as successful. Skyrim, one of the best selling RPGs of all time? Where you can interact with every object and engage with every character? You gonna argue that's not a deep world simulation?.

So yeah, people do care, the hardware was never there for really advanced physics simulation, but that's really the next step in all this.
 
Last edited:
Don't agree with your assessment at all.

People actually do care, a lot, about deep interactivity. Minecraft and Roblox are deceptively simple, with deep interactivity. Especially the former that allows creative people to create amazing things in it. What were Wii sports but a bundle of innovative interactive simulations that promised a more lifelike experience? NBA games push some of the most advanced simulations around (ball, clothing, collisions, animation, AI) year after year. Pokemon, handwaved as kiddie stuff, was (and still is) a collection of complex overlapping systems that offer a lifestyle simulation of catching, training, and fighting hundreds of beasts, each with their own unique attributes, in an open world power hierarchy you advance upwards methodically. Way ahead of its time, the problem was it hasn't really evolved.

Oh, most of the GTA games were groundbreaking for their time when it came to interactivity (more reactivity in this case) and all kinds of complex simulation, and they are right up there with anything you listed in terms of success. RDR2, even more complex, almost as successful. Skyrim, one of the best selling RPGs of all time? Where you can interact with every object and engage with every character? You gonna argue that's not a deep world simulation?.

So yeah, people do care, the hardware was never there for really advanced physics simulation, but that's really the next step in all this.

I make a clear distinction between games that sell in the multiple tens of millions--which include games like RDR2 and Skyrim--and games in the class that I listed that sell over a hundred million copies. So when I talk about the most successful games, I'm talking about that pinnacle class of games moving over a hundred million units per release. GTA, being a very complex game, is definitely in that class but is an outlier... an exception to the rule.

I would disagree with you about the level of input complexity of the games in the pinnacle class, at least as it pertains to the arguments in the OP. In my mind, the OP's argument centres around mechanical input complexity and interactivity (they cite BoTW as an example). So purely cosmetic, non-directly interactive physics and gameplay systems don't meet that criteria... and even if they did, there are innumerable examples of that kind of metagame and game system complexity and thus resultant depth in the many many many games that the OP is pointing at and complaining that they are all about graphics. E.g. Pokemon is no more complex than the most recent RPG-lite assassin's creed games.

To me, there are games that have high input complexity and thus are limited in their appeal, e.g. Devil May Cry or MS Flight Simulator. And there are games with very low input complexity that are very simple and easy to understand, to pick up and play. Both types are able to create gameplay depth, but they do it in very different ways.

When the OP complains about a lack of mechanical input complexity in gaming, to me he's talking about interactive physics and gameplay systems that the player directly interacts with (input complexity), but that also can directly interact with other systems within the game creating emergent gameplay opportunities (depth).

This isn't a limitation of console hardware. BoTW being the example buttresses that fact beautifully.

The fact is, the blue ocean prevailing mainstream casual gamer is afraid of games that have that level of complexity. That's not to say that the market for complex games doesn't exist. Your examples of titles selling multiple tens of millions of copies demonstrate that. It was never in question. But since publishers are forever chasing the blue ocean prevailing mainstream casual gamer that plays Fortnite, Minecraft, Tetris and Roblox, there will be an intentional effort to limit player input complexity in a large swathe of games so as to increase the game's accessibility for players who prefer simpler games.
 

blacktout

Member
GigaBowser, buddy, I think I've argued with you in the past, but you're absolutely right this time. Budget bloat and warped priorities are leading to a barren, joyless industry.
 

ACESHIGH

Member
Gamer since 93' here. In terms of accesibility, gaming is better than ever. The value you get from subscription services like Gamepass or Playstation Plus is pretty crazy if you think of it. Then HW is incredibly powerful. A mid range cellphone can emulate light ps2 or gamecube games and everything before that. I have a 128GB phone with Retroarch on it. Pop a cheap bluetooth controller and you have a significant chunk of the history of the medium on the go, and with an OLED screen to boot.
Been playing diablo inmortal and yeah, it has awful predatory MTX but its a FREE campaign that almost resembles a 7th gen full fat diablo game. On your god damn cellphone.

PC gaming library is infinite. Steam deck is a portable supercomputer. Next gen consoles are powerful, the Series S is insane value, that thing may end up emulating PS3 games and playing next gen games...

But...

In terms of game creation and innovation, the medium is moving at a snails pace outside VR. AAA games don't have much variety, they are all this safe open world Ubisoftian borefest that ticks all boxes and excels at none. But gamers are to blame here. They expect to pay 60 USD or less and get hundreds of hours of entertainment with top of the line production values. And those take eons to be made. How about releasing shorter games? What happened to replayable games with short campaigns you could beat in a few days, master them an speed run them like PS1 resident evils or Metal Gear Solid?

Indie games can't fill the void AA studios left. Too much pixel art 8 bit games that wear their influences on their sleeves or hide and seek horror games.
 
Gamer since 93' here. In terms of accesibility, gaming is better than ever. The value you get from subscription services like Gamepass or Playstation Plus is pretty crazy if you think of it. Then HW is incredibly powerful. A mid range cellphone can emulate light ps2 or gamecube games and everything before that. I have a 128GB phone with Retroarch on it. Pop a cheap bluetooth controller and you have a significant chunk of the history of the medium on the go, and with an OLED screen to boot.
Been playing diablo inmortal and yeah, it has awful predatory MTX but its a FREE campaign that almost resembles a 7th gen full fat diablo game. On your god damn cellphone.

PC gaming library is infinite. Steam deck is a portable supercomputer. Next gen consoles are powerful, the Series S is insane value, that thing may end up emulating PS3 games and playing next gen games...

But...

In terms of game creation and innovation, the medium is moving at a snails pace outside VR. AAA games don't have much variety, they are all this safe open world Ubisoftian borefest that ticks all boxes and excels at none. But gamers are to blame here. They expect to pay 60 USD or less and get hundreds of hours of entertainment with top of the line production values. And those take eons to be made. How about releasing shorter games? What happened to replayable games with short campaigns you could beat in a few days, master them an speed run them like PS1 resident evils or Metal Gear Solid?

Indie games can't fill the void AA studios left. Too much pixel art 8 bit games that wear their influences on their sleeves or hide and seek horror games.
As much as I like your name, I have to disagree with you here. I want every game to be 60 hours....but I know I represent not even 1% of gamers.
 

Northeastmonk

Gold Member
Replay ability is a big plus. I always want to see extra enemies or something special in NG+, but most of the time it’s just the same game and you start off very powerful. If a game has good level design, has some hidden parts to it, or offers the player something in return for playing the game again. That’s fun to me. I also think it’s fine to have robust 100+ hour campaigns if they somehow incorporate your total time spent into the 2nd or 3rd replay. My character in NiOh 2 for instance. I can just replay the game on harder difficulties after spending 80 hours to get to level 180. Harder difficulties are there, weapons and armor scale way in the thousands in terms of numbers. In terms of Fallout 4, the Witcher 3, Far Cry, or Assassin’s Creed. There’s not a whole lot after you see those credits roll. I haven’t really been on the Ubisoft bandwagon since Watch Dogs came out. I’ve owned each AC since the original launched. I haven’t felt like beating them since Revelations. Far Cry is about the same way. I don’t mind going back to these “-“super long games”-“, but honestly I’ll finish the main story, mess around with a few side missions, and that’s enough. I got my money’s worth.

What I’m seeing with Ubisoft games is that I’m willing to just play other games by different developers. I was a fan of Desmond’s story, but that’s been ages ago. It’s taken off and had better gameplay. It’s just the story isn’t doing much for me. Same with Far Cry. I admire the ambition, but it doesn’t feel ambitious. It feels more like the same thing with cool explosions or something to make it look fresh.

I’m actually happier that my taste changed. For some players they get a lot out of side missions, but it’s the side missions that never catch on. I feel like you’re making me take a detour and I’d rather play a solid 30 hours and finish the game. So it’s not always about length. If you aren’t sold on the premise anymore then I guess those games aren’t interesting to play. I’ve been fond of 8 hour games, 30 hour, and 60-80 hour long games. It’s just a matter of picking the right path. No one stops you from enjoying the main plot and skipping all the fluff.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom