Why Derivative Game Design Doesn't Matter

[CriticalGaming]

And there's nothing since like that. None of the great games- sequels or not- are fundamentally different than stuff I've played since 2015. So what are you supposed to say about Spiderman 2 other than that "it's more Spiderman." It is and there is just no world where it would make any kind of "impact." Cannot and should not compare to Mario World coming after Mario 3 which was like a whole new thing completely. Tech hit a point of diminishing returns.

I mean realistically has Mario been any different since Mario 64? Outside of graphical updates the core gameplay idea has never changed.

Gaming is limited quiet severely in terms of what gameplay can do. The Witcher 3 doesn't play any differently than any of the Ubisoft open world AC games.

Gameplay ideas are not really evolving, and they don't really need to. Because a fun game is a fun game regardless of how many times you play it. People have been golfing for 100 years, playing Baseball, Soccer, Football etc. Gameplay is fine.

What really matters and what tends to "blow your mind" is presentation. The story, the characters, the setting, the art design, that stuff is where people lose their shit and call games masterpieces.

And this might be why people think gaming sucks these days, because this new generation of writers and game makers are too busy making political message vechicles rather than games. That's why we don't get Dragonage Origins, we get Veilguard.

And it's also why when game unaffected by that SJW messaging, it gets huge news. Stellar Blade, Black Myth Wukong, are just solid games with a clear vision that made a solid game, because they didn't care about what reviewers in the West would say. Which didn't PCGamer shit on Wukong because there were no "women" in it, but that's only because they didn't make it far enough in the game to see the women.

Expedition 33 does fuck all differently. But people love it because the presentation (and hype over rooting for the "little guy" even though they had big publisher funding). That's what get's people these days. The gameplay just has to be decent and everyone will love it.

 

[BrawlMan]

Mario 64?

Yes. Sunshine and Galaxy says hello. A reminderThere were people who didn't like Sunshine, because it was too different from 64. I thought the game as okay, but I definitely prefer Galaxy and Odyssey over it.

Expedition 33 does fuck all differently. But people love it because the presentation (and hype over rooting for the "little guy" even though they had big publisher funding).

While true. It was still done by a small development team, and they weren't right over with threats of over time. Nor staying more than longer human hours. They got the job done without any of the abuse nor threats. The fact that they're all ex-Ubisoft devs, puts the icing on the cake.

I may not care much for the game itself. But i'm glad it's a major of success and people are loving it for the right reasons. Don't forget, but even the big Western publishers are scared (Ubisoft especially), because even the casual audience are starting to realize the grift now. Even if they don't fully understand it yet.

It's why I gladly support the smaller developers mostly because they give me exactly why I want. Gameplay and/or story with unique looks and without any of the bullshit attached by most AAA studios. It's why Nintendo is still in business. Even they admitted that they don't want to go overboard on budgets and are just funding smaller projects to make their titles, it's easier to make.

 

[Silvanus]

And it's also why when game unaffected by that SJW messaging, it gets huge news. Stellar Blade, Black Myth Wukong, are just solid games with a clear vision that made a solid game, because they didn't care about what reviewers in the West would say. Which didn't PCGamer shit on Wukong because there were no "women" in it, but that's only because they didn't make it far enough in the game to see the women.

? Wukong has been very well received by Western reviewers, including PCGamer.

Truth is that generally, Western reviewers focus most of the time on gameplay and mechanical elements too; its just that some of them occasionally mention social or political stuff. Which is perfectly reasonable: there's no reason to arbitrarily exclude certain aspects of plot and narrative. Some people dislike those topics and rather than just skim over them when they come up, they moan about them having been mentioned at all.

Stellar Blade got a bit of specific focus not because it was particularly mechanically great or narratively inventive (its not), but because it was outwardly fetishised. Fine, enjoy what you want! But don't pretend the particular focus was for anything except wanting to put their dicks in the pixels.

 

[BrawlMan]

Stellar Blade got a bit of specific focus not because it was particularly mechanically great or narrative inventive (its not), but because it was outwardly fetishised. Fine, enjoy what you want! But don't pretend the particular focus was for anything except wanting to put their dicks in the pixels.

@Silvanus speaks the truth!

Before anyone starts, I know I made the thread for Stellar Blade, but it wasn't the game I wanted, and is a worse version of Nier: Automata.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

> And this might be why people think gaming sucks these days, because this new generation of writers and game makers are too busy making political message vechicles rather than games. That's why we don't get Dragonage Origins, we get Veilguard.

No they're not, Tucker.

 

[BrawlMan]

And this might be why people think gaming sucks these days, because this new generation of writers and game makers are too busy making political message vechicles rather than games. That's why we don't get Dragonage Origins, we get Veilguard.

Agreed. That doesn't make any sense, considering there's been plenty of games with politics beforehand or the politics took the main stage before the characters. Kojima is guilty of this, and so is the first Bioshock. The same applies to the second Bioshock as well. It's nothing more than, it's only politics I hate or disagree with, where people like that start to take issues. Otherwise it's the, "truth or telling it like it is" when it's something they agree with or if it's something apolitical.

Speaking of politics, Call of Duty Vanguard actually has some of the better discussion politics from the franchise. It at least bothers to talk about and imply that racism and sexism that went on those time periods that weren't just from the Nazis. Though of course, the grifters complain about "forced politics and diversity" in a war shooter that takes place during the Nazi occupations. One of the grifters got offended and "triggered", because a black soldier called a white soldier (Wade Jackson), "white boy". Even though that was the actual attitude back then in the 40s-60s, and white people have said far and much worse slurs against blacks and other races. I just find it hilarious, that a grifter got triggered even though it's a grifter, making fun of people or mainly liberals for being triggered.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Gaming is limited quiet severely in terms of what gameplay can do. The Witcher 3 doesn't play any differently than any of the Ubisoft open world AC games.

Gameplay ideas are not really evolving, and they don't really need to. Because a fun game is a fun game regardless of how many times you play it. People have been golfing for 100 years, playing Baseball, Soccer, Football etc. Gameplay is fine.

Gaming isn't limited quite severely by gameplay, just like anything else in life, people don't like doing hard things for the most part. Combat is easy to develop for, hence why most every game's main gameplay feature is combat because combat is easy. RPGs like The Witcher shouldn't have gameplay that is mainly combat; RPGs are about you making decisions and the world responding to those decisions. But what's easier to do? A combat system or player decisions actually impacting the world? Just look at what is offered in the board gaming medium, that vast majority of games there feature no combat whatsoever. And any board game can be digitized and made into a video game, hence how are video games limited severely by gameplay? Slay the Spire is literally a card game that was made as video game first (there is a board game version).

 

[CriticalGaming]

Combat is easy to develop for, hence why most every game's main gameplay feature is combat because combat is easy

I dont so much think that combat is easy, as much as it is an easy concept for the player to understand. By player I mean your average gamer who just wants to punch or shoot people on the game.

But it's just as common for the gameplay to be cooking, or sports, or card games of various types. The most popular feature of Witcher3 was the damn card game.

Combat is only easy as a concept, but you and I both know that games with truly great combat systems are quite rare and very difficult to make.

 

[BrawlMan]

Combat is only easy as a concept, but you and I both know that games with truly great combat systems are quite rare and very difficult to make.

If all challenging combat systems were that easy to make, then what would be the fun or point of them? Nothing would stand out, and even more games would play too similar to each other. It's why I really value game franchises like DMC, Bayonetta, Streets of Rage, No More Heroes, and the later Oneechanbara titles so much. Even one off games like Killer is Dead has somewhat deep combat depth as you play the game and discover new tech.

Evil West has something really unique nobody else has done exactly yet. An over the shoulder, third person shooter hybrid. Before anyone brings up Jake Wesker, but his was the combat was more proto beat'em up than anything else. Plus, RE6 still sucks.

 

[CriticalGaming]

If all challenging combat systems were that easy to make, then what would be the fun or point of them?

You misunderstand me.


I'm not talking about a difficult combat system. I'm talking about making a good combat system is difficult. The combat itself could be easy, but super fun and super satisfying to play. Those combat systems in games are rare and very hard to make. But people love them when they come out.

A good turn-based game like Expedition.
A good parry system like Sekiro
A good action rpg system like FF7R.

Those kinds of systems are hard to not only conceptualize but also program and make feel good to play.

 

[BrawlMan]

You misunderstand me.


I'm not talking about a difficult combat system. I'm talking about making a good combat system is difficult. The combat itself could be easy, but super fun and super satisfying to play. Those combat systems in games are rare and very hard to make. But people love them when they come out.

A good turn-based game like Expedition.
A good parry system like Sekiro
A good action rpg system like FF7R.

Those kinds of systems are hard to not only conceptualize but also program and make feel good to play.

I heard and understood you the first time. I was just adding my own views to it. Making a good combat system is hard, but once again, if it was that easy, then nothing would be interesting or nearly all play the same as each other.

 

[CriticalGaming]

othing eould be interesting or nearly all play the same as each other.

That's not true bro come on. There are so many different combat systems out there that can all be fantastic. ARPG, turn-based, strategy, souls-like, brawlers, just because you have a bunch of good fun combat games doesn't mean in any way that they would feel the same to play.

 

[BrawlMan]

ARPG, turn-based, strategy, souls-like, brawlers, just because you have a bunch of good fun combat games doesn't mean in any way that they would feel the same to play.

I already know all that. Regardless of genre, you would still run into the same issues. I'm always happy for games that are able to make good combat. Even if the combat's good, I may not like the combat style or find something right, different or better. Leading, right back to what I originally said. Not every game can have the best combat or even good combat, and that's okay. Because there's still plenty out there. But there's just certain combat styles that don't work for certain people, and vice versa.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

You misunderstand me.


I'm not talking about a difficult combat system. I'm talking about making a good combat system is difficult. The combat itself could be easy, but super fun and super satisfying to play. Those combat systems in games are rare and very hard to make. But people love them when they come out.

A good turn-based game like Expedition.
A good parry system like Sekiro
A good action rpg system like FF7R.

Those kinds of systems are hard to not only conceptualize but also program and make feel good to play.

Yep.

Conception, implementation, testing...

I would say the same about platforming. Some of the indy and AA games I've played have this kind of ok platforming and it feels like ass, I hate it. But when you're jumping-sliding-ziplining-grapplehooking whatever and it's smooth but you still gotta pay attention- man, it rules. The new Donkey Kong is the first Nintendo game where I feel like I'm "missing out" by not being able to play it for this reason.

 

[BrawlMan]

The new Donkey Kong is the first Nintendo game where I feel like I'm "missing out" by not being able to play it for this reason.

It's a new nintendo game.He'll always be there for a while. I get what you mean, but I got a whole bunch other lineup of games coming out on either PS5, Switch 1, or PC. I will live.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

Yeah, essentially for the last 10 years or so, every AAA game from a gameplay perspective is something I've already played and a lot of times the gameplay is actually worse overall than some other game from 10-15 years ago.

Yes and no. If some of what we’re playing now came out 10-15 years ago, people would be like, WTF happened‽ going back to what we got. Iteration on successful formulas has generally been considered an improvement; it’s just that it’s become all the more familiar.

Now, the caveat is that having limits can also be considered a good thing if it fits the game’s overall design, but OTOH “playability” and “fun” find themselves overlapping more than ever before.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Yes and no. If some of what we’re playing now came out 10-15 years ago, people would be like, WTF happened‽ going back to what we got. Iteration on successful formulas has generally been considered an improvement; it’s just that it’s become all the more familiar.

Now, the caveat is that having limits can also be considered a good thing if it fits the game’s overall design, but OTOH “playability” and “fun” find themselves overlapping more than ever before.

I think even more of the problem is just how same-y/homogeneous so many AAA games are. You got the whole open world action adventure game with stealth and crafting elements obviously that gets old real fast. I was already super tired of it after playing FarCry 3 and Watch Dogs. Stuff like Ghosts of Tsushima (and the new one) are essentially just FarCry with a melee combat system slightly better than AssCreed. I remember when Arkham combat was so prevalent even fucking Uncharted 3 threw it in. Even a game that had a new mechanic like the Nemesis system in Shadow of Mordor was marred by it being a basically one-to-one copy of the Arkham combat system, even the special moves were the same and just renamed from Batman. Iteration of the Arkham combat is Arkham City with the addition of the beatdown mechanic and quick-use gadgets in combat or Spiderman adding an aerial dynamic to Arkham combat. We got too much copy/pasting and devloving of mechanics vs iterating/evolving them IMO.

 

[BrawlMan]

Ghost of Tsushima and Yotei I find much better combat (to the point that those who favor stylish action games [and do mad combo/skill videos] give the combat for the first game a high recommendation) than any AC game, and those two are pretty much SP's and Sony's answer to Breath of the Wild.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Ghost of Tsushima and Yotei I find much better combat (to the point that those who favor stylish action games [and do mad combo/skill videos] give the combat for the first game a high recommendation) than any AC game, and those two are pretty much SP's and Sony's answer to Breath of the Wild.

The base combat system is pretty solid, the main problem is like half of Jin's kit essentially breaks the game and makes the game super easy.

 

[CriticalGaming]

The base combat system is pretty solid, the main problem is like half of Jin's kit essentially breaks the game and makes the game super easy.

The combat system is nothing more than Rock, Paper, Scissors. It's fun, but it's nothing crazy. Pick the stance that counters the enemy stance and win. Could also be a color matching game, or one of those infant toys where they try to put the same shape block into the same shape hole.