Why Are Games Nearly Always The Same Ole Thing?

And any time there is a hobbit in rivendell, I'm always thinking "Mister Anderson." It doesn't ruin the movie though (okay, maybe for the hobbit movie when it's giving me better ideas of things to watch).

I would hate to rein in the existential crisis you're having (you might just be on the verge of becoming a final fantasy character), but are you suddenly realizing that 80-90% of everything sucks? At which point I want to shame you by asking how old are you and how long did it take for you to figure this out? I'm willing to bet it didn't take me that long to figure out, but I was young enough to adapt and care more about the differences than the similarities. You might be screwed though, so I would recommend the solution to all of life's issues, alcohol.

 

I'll check back in a few days and see what else has transpired.

 

There are several different types of game we also need to consider as well.

For instance, some are "true" games, meaning you compete (with a computer or player) and you either win or you lose. (Sports games, multiplayer FPS games, etc.)

Then there are games that are technically more akin to toys. These are games that you just play with and make up your own goals. Games like city builders or sim games would fall into this category.

Of course, there are also the story-driven games, such as RPGs. You play through the whole game, possibly experiencing setbacks, but you will eventually "win" regardless and really, you're playing for the story.

There are, of course, many others, and a lot of games are hybrids of these different categories. But, with all these different styles, it's best to know exactly what type we're talking about before saying "games should be this" or "games should be that".

 

As a teen, I dreamt of playing games like League of Legends, World of Warcraft, and Journey. The truth is that games are products made by businesses who are trying to make money by entertaining. And also at 43, I still find games and game designers to be amazingly creative.

Gigi

PS - Edited cause I'm late to this thread.

 

LOL! It is always good when one can lift another up and help them to feel better about themselves. I am glad my post did that for you.

 

That is true to a large degree for me as well. As far as the atmosphere and "putting me into the game". I expected the presentation to be more detailed and yes we imagined games in 3D.

I don't hate modern games. I see a lot of cool things about them. Just would like to see some games provide a little more in some areas. I figure the best way is just to do it. So I am working on a game and will add the things I have been talking about. Then see how it turns out.

 

Not much. We may have exhausted the topic. I definitely appreciated all of the different opinions. Many are happy with the games as they are and a few can see room for improvement in the interaction and AI and so forth. For me personally, I am just going to continue working toward that end. See if any of the added depth, details and other focus on advancing the game play stand out in the end.

 

All games are basically the same one game. The only game is the game of pretending that there is a problem/challenge to solve. The problem is made up, and you have to accept some of the fact that it's made up and enter into a degree of unconsciousness or belief that the problem needs to be solved, and then you set about trying to solve it. I think that kind of sums up every kind of game - the game of life? The rest is all variations on a theme, fluctuations in appearance and structure, complexity, etc, trying to disguise this same basic underlying mechanic.

 

I can't help but think that there is one game that is as close as we have now to the perfect game. Check it out:

> It's an open world MMO with as many meters as there are signficant bits in a double!
> The thousands of players on its servers are increasing every day!
> Everyone trying to build an empire that will stand the test of time!
> Encourages creativity and learning!
> You can build things but not just blocky things like in Minecraft!
> You can make things in this game that can be exchanged for real money!
> It is so addictive that it is costing people their jobs and livelihoods!
> You can do, literally, whatever you like man in this game!!

Unity : )

 

BING! BING! I think a ton of people who have ventured from being only on the side of game playing to the side of game development discovered that game development (and to a degree just development in general whether business, portfolio or whatever) is the greatest game of all.

I think the reasons it is so satisfying is not due to absolute visual quality but rather the interactive nature of the process (we add something or take away something or modify an existing something we test it and see the outcome) and depth of options available to us (we have so many options of what to work on at the moment design, graphics, sounds, level construction, AI, whatever and can choose how advanced to go in each area). Combine those two with near immediate easily understood feedback (we either got what we wanted or something better OR we didn't) and yes we find an activity that is basically the ultimate game. Notice that while presentation may be a part of the feedback and perhaps absolute graphics quality may be the current desired goal it is in fact just one minor drop in the ocean of it all.

And this goes back to my OP focusing on Interaction and more depth in games (the immediate easily understood feedback has already been achieved for the most part for a long time now in games). So basically we have come full circle but I really don't want to start it all over again. lol

 

I agree.. and disagree with you on certain points. For instance, I totally second your point when you say that some of the games we ourselves played as kids seemed magical at that point of time. According to me, that was because the so-called virtual world was an entire new world for us, something novel which we hadn't known before. And now that the same world is becoming more and more a part of our everyday life, it is turning monotonous for us. And that's perhaps why we begin to feel that there is little creativity now compared to earlier, even though this statement may not be entirely true.

I myself know that feeling, when you play one game, get tired of it and move onto something else, only to find that it pretty much tires you out the same way as the earlier 'boring' game you were playing did. And this constant repetition suddenly starts becoming tiresome.

On the other hand, when I see my son discovering the gaming world, I see the same fascination in his eyes, which probably I myself had as a kid; the only difference being that in today's world, he has many, many more options than I had at that time to choose from. And I, as a parent, can help him discover and make the correct choices. For instance, he loves playing these fun pet games I came across recently. They are not what you would call the quintessential, typical games we generally have. Also, I have made myself a list of reading games I discovered online the other day, along with some interesting online math puzzles and games, which I plan to introduce to him by and by once we start homeschooling full-time, to supplement his learning skills.

To put it all in a nutshell, the point I'm trying to make here is that games are not always 'the same ole thing'. There is a mind-boggling variety available, provided you look in the right places and discover for yourself what would truly interest you. Your biggest problem could be just sitting down in front of the computer screen for long hours and wondering what went wrong - why you're so bored with the game you used to love earlier. It could simply be because you're yearning for something new, not because the games themselves lack creativity. The gaming world today is, in a way, richer and more interactive than it was, say, a decade ago, if only we know where to look.

 

Great points. I agree with the the whole bit about as a kid it was all new and exciting. And now most games generally give me the "same ole same ole" feeling.

There are a lot of options for games and I *think* I am exploring them all from commercial AAA games to Indy games to web portal games to download site freeware and shareware to retro remakes and even retro games. I'd be happy to find other sources of games so if you have some specific sites to check out certainly feel free to share.

Mainly what I would like to see is an evolution of the games in certain areas. Mainly in interaction and gameplay. When I play games today and look past the graphics themselves at the depth of gameplay and interaction sure there are some improvements here and there but very little.

What I mean is if you take a modern game and gave it a presentation of a game from the late 80s / early 90s or basically since they are nearly all 3D now if you took away the fancy graphics and gee whiz effects compare that game to early 3D games and how much has really changed? And more than that if you take any game from the past 10 years and look at them beyond just how they look and sound do you see any major advances in the gameplay? I see a continual focus on the presentation. Basically the same games but with a little better graphics than a year or so ago. And those were basically the same as the games a year or so before them except they have a little better graphics.

What I would have liked to have seen is a game... just grab any one of them... say Moon Patrol... a modern day game inspired by Moon Patrol would go something like this... the artwork is revamped to be in HD with tons of colors. Some lens flare added. 3D used. Some dust now flies as the buggy crosses the terrain. Shooting stars occasionally streak across the sky. Speech is present giving your missions and status. But what you do is jump over craters and rocks while shooting aliens above and obstacles in front of you. Maybe that example will illustrate what I meant in my OP. It seems like 90% of the evolution is simply in how the game worlds are presented.

 

Excellent! I have homeschooled 2 kids and have two more to go. Games are a great way to introduce problem solving and later on, for socialization. My college son who is studying computer programming loved the Putt Putt series long ago. My youngest, now 14, is big into Minecraft, building and experimenting, as well as spending time with friends who have moved away. Unfortunately, not as many good educational games today but they are still out there.

Good luck to you.

 

@GarBenjamin - Have you played DLC Quest (Steam)? It's a wonderfully simple platformer with a twist on story and gameplay evolution. My son and I laughed our way through the ~2 hours of content. Wonderfully clever and unique.

Gigi

 

Also I just want to add that I am not saying it is easy to evolve the other aspects of games. In fact, I'd say enhancing the gameplay is much more difficult than enhancing the presentation. It takes a lot of thought and design and play-testing to figure out how to improve the gameplay. To provide meaningful interaction. Meaningful choices.

Also as we discussed in the thread it seems that a lot of players are happy with simple games that have a superb presentation. And if more focus was placed on interaction many people might not notice or care anyway because they would be too busy looking at the graphics and listening to HQ's transmissions.

 

No I have not played that game. I will search for it tonight. I stopped using Steam several years ago when it started getting uber popular. It was cool before then. I use Desura or buy games direct from Indy websites these days. Maybe that's it!? I wouldn't have thought such games would only be on Steam but who knows. It is possible. Maybe I need to make another account on Steam.

 

Another issue might have to do with the way that games reflect reality, or the hope for a certain kind of reality. Perhaps the difference between early video games and current ones are not the games themselves but the way that we perceive the future, and how that perception changes our ability to dream through games.

It certainly seems to me (although this could be wrong) that people in general are more cynical and fearful about the future than they were in the 60s - 80s, back then somehow there seemed to be a naiive presumption that we could do something together that was really great in the next century or two, and with it came loads of great science fiction that explored every possibility under the stars, even if it was totally wacky, and this was followed soon by video games. Also the way that video games came about inside the early hippie hacker culture made them feel part of some underground, anti-establishment 'dreamscape'.

Now though, IMO, we are very cynical about society and where it might go, and our perception of the future is dominated by fears rather than hopes (global warming, big data/big brother, genetic engineering, terrorists attacks etc etc) and not only that, games are not identified with freedom and the hippie culture but rather monolithic evil companies that use them to drain your wallets every which way. Science fiction has all but died out, and the stuff that you find these days (e.g. Peter Hamilton) is generally afraid to hope for anything new and rather just projects the usual capitalist dogma onto some future filled with gadgets.

So maybe the games themselves haven't changed all that much, but we didn't realise that our dreams were what made them really alive, and those are what have changed due to our perception of where the future is going/our ability to control it.

 

Steam knows that I purchase lots of Indy games, so it recommends more Indy games. At this point, my recommended list goes: Featured %DISCOUNT GAME, INDY GAME, AAA game, DISCOUNT GAME, INDY game, AAA pre-order title, ...

Gigi

 

Start thinking outside of the box. The more you think outside the box the better it would be for the industry.

 

Steam has become something of an Indy hotbed (both great and terrible) and has become one of the biggest marketplaces for buying games, you should certainly have a flick through the new releases occasionally to get a better awareness of the games trying to advance gameplay. This thread has been an interesting read with lots of opinions, personally I can see games trying to push the envelope but I also have the 'back in my day' affliction...

 

Someone smarter than I could probably describe the cyclical history of creative progress. I bet it goes something like this.

1. Status Quo.
For the most part everything is what people accept. There are genres, styles, whatever; but there is a collection of options and people understand the "totality of what's possible" (in my opinion as a creative, one of the most dangerous positions someone can take is "this is as good as it gets and there can be no more progress." it doesn't matter if its music, art, gaming, politics, religion, pasta, sushi, shoes, or tech devices like phones and tablets)

2. Interesting tools come along
This is a really important step. A lot of progress comes from artist just simply experimenting with cool new stuff. "New kind of paint? Rad, lets draw naked women!" (lol but really) This is where "bad art" is often made, but it's a birthing process. People are giving themselves permission to make mistakes, and this step in the creative process is so freaking important. omg. TRY STUFF! I don't care what it is, if you think of something give it a good test run and see what you learn: good or bad!


3. Passion & Dedication to something novel.
Some creative type will eventually come along and go "I'm going to make this because I want to." and that's possibly the most important moment in the creative process. Someone says "This is awesome or this could be awesome. I'm going to keep doing this." It's an artist trusting in his/her own taste. Sometimes it becomes popular simply because it's novel. For many people, something new is more important than something good. Sometimes something because popular because despite what medium its expressed on, it's simply largely agreed to be a positive thing.

4. What was once profoundly new and different has become so common place, we're simply bored. We're back to status Quo. Go back to step 1.​

Once I learned about Unity, I thought "the time is NOW for me to start learning how to make my dream game!" I virtually never play any video games anymore. I'm incredibly bored of gaming in general right now (and have been for several years.) I'm excited to see the indie games pop up like they have. It sort of feels like the days of 16-bit console games. Things are starting to feel new again.

 

I'd disagree with all RPG's and FPS games are the same, Mass effect was awesome bar it's multi-coloured ending. Fallout is also an amazing game even though I think the graphics were pretty crappy, Metro, Witcher, the original Dragon age. All are examples of games with decent gameplay and interesting plot lines, the main issue is delivery not the genre.

It seems every genre is becoming like pop music, you'll still have some amazing songs pop out from time to time (generally by lesser known artists) but the bulk will be rigid rinse and repeats with slight variations. Because they know the variations work, it's a formula and it's like eating chocolate day in and out. You'll get sick of it at some point...

 

And speaking of formulas, romance novels use the same format over and over but yet the sales are always good.

There is a formula 50% comfort + 30% excitement + 20% unknown = fun. Known genres are easy to learn and then find the variations.. but something groundbreaking has to be really careful how it is introduced. Going thru Kongregate, I bet we as designers can find tons of new and could-be-interesting gameplay ideas waiting to be discovered.

Keeping the audience in mind while applying our design principles adds a lot to the comfort level that people can wrap their brains around while then attempting to use the tools given to them. Then the joy of using those tools / gameplay gives them new ideas how else they make the game work. Then finally putting their knowledge to the test where they experience the unknown exploration of doing something they've never done before.

Too much unknown and people run away too fast to learn it usually
Too much excitement and people burn out or never get pushed to explore
Too much comfort and people find it boring fast.

Lets take a 10,000 ft look at Portal for example:
- has a very familiar core gameplay ... first person moving and shooting
- designers introduce a single concept of the portal to get across one simple and understandable obstacle... yey lots of fanfare and excitement
- each level adds an obstacle or two of "how do I use my portal gun to get past this" with more and more complexity and steps to goal completion

Portal re-uses the teleport concept and user placeable object concept together.. not original ideas in of themselves, but well crafted and presented without distraction. Its a great new way of presenting some tried-and-true game mechanics. As for creativity, what if we pair together some other random game mechanics and see what we generated.

As I look around my own personal environment.. what about a couple other game mechanics like eating and flipping switches... how would one present those to make something new and fresh? I imagine a pac-man game going thru a candy-crush puzzle and flipping switches to make some of the yummies slide into other lanes as I match them up right into pac-man's mouth.. Cut-the-rope with a twist?

Personally I love straying from the beaten path and trying something new and fresh. But first make sure the road getting there has well traveled bricks behind as I go forward.

 

I agree with you two. Makes a lot of sense to keep the tried and true to a good degree. This way players are not alienated and confused as heck about what to do. I also think they have built some excellent engines.

What I mean by FPS and RPGs basically being the same is the tried and true aspects seem to make up about 80% to 90% of the game play with 10% to 20% providing the differences between them. I think it would be cool to make about 25% to 50% the same and the rest different.

Borderlands was awesome in my opinion. It had an awesome variety of weapons and shields and so forth. The feel of the game was very cool. I realize it is not everyone's type of game and cannot expect all games to offer such creativity and so forth but I think it would be cool if they did.

Dragons Dogma Dark Arisen is an awesome RPG. Probably the best of "modern" RPG games I have played. Sure it is similar to most in the genre but by placing a great emphahsis on the battles and making many be like boss encounters in other games I thought it really added a lot to the game. Well as long as you chose to face them head on and not try to back stab them they were quite challenging. Those two games stand out the most to me as examples of how to take a somewhat overdone genre and make it stand out.

 

@pixelknight I agree with what you said, it's important that in the player's mind, all the familiar aspects of a good game (all 95% of it) kind of fade into the background and let the 5% 'new' game mechanic take the spotlight...I think this is why we game developers have a hard time because we have to pay so much attention to all the things that players will not even be aware of but need to be there. We tend to develop our games from the point of view of a player and focus on the novel aspects, and it becomes confusing when 95% of the time we are working on the common things that make up a good game...we feel the novel things will get lost in the standard stuff when they are actually held up by them.

 

Well err, I can only go by what I'm doing.. Mechanics vary really, you have the option to play either FP or 3rd Person, some shooter weapons FP won't work on bosses. Third person has more "flash" animations along the lines of batman with swords, so you can play mainly whatever way piccles your fancy.

Quite a tricky setup to pull off, but I like it. Although in any RPG hybrid most of it comes down to the story and atmosphere, graphics are just the icing on the cake.

Sure it's not "outside the box" as such, but it's still not usual. One small step at a time ..

 

As companies become bigger and more profitable it all goes to risk management, Sadly cookie cutters are the easiest way to minimize risk. If company A releases Shooter Game A then expect Company B to release a slightly different version of the same game. Right now Shooters are in so everyone is cash cowing on the genre and because of this we are seeing a lot of the same in those games. Next month it could be puzzle games, idk, its just the sad sad way the AAA industry desires to work. Players buy a bunch of one genre type game, the companies go "they like that genre this year....MORE OF THAT!" and then next thing you know there are 80 bazillion zombie games out on the market.....

You want creativity and new concepts then you have to consider Indie games and for a lot of hardcore AAA fanboys this is hard because they have put up with our smaller budgets and consequently graphically less - appealing games. (Few exceptions to this rule of course, I've seen people play some awsome Unity games with textures qualities I couldn't even fathom being in small budget games).

Even if you are making a simple shooter, ask yourself this, "What am I doing with my game that is going to make it stand out from other shooters on the Indie Market?" This is the key, Gamers want new and exciting but that doesn't exactly mean new IPs although those are great. Switch things up a little, don't use the generic model that a lot of fps games use.

Now granted no matter how creative you are with your game, people will always find some other game to compare it to. I think Pewdiepie said it best when it comes to survival horror games by saying that when you stop and consider it of course all modern survival horror games feel like remakes of Silent Hill or Resident Evil to some degree and that is because those two franchises helped defined the Horror genre, some would argue they invented the genre. Most of us aren't old enough to have "started the game industry" so we are always going to build off what others have done in the past, as long as we are constantly striving to move forward and not settle on what has previously worked I am personally ok with it. Game Devs should always be saying "ok he did that great but how can I do it better?"