Are developers sacrificing gameplay for presentation?

[Manibrandr System]

Recently, I have been playing build engine games like Doom 1/2, Hexen, Strife etc and addons. The thing is, while the graphics look very dated, the gameplay still haven't aged one bit and I find myself coming back to those games for more.

Those old games have a particular charm that the newer games were simply unable to reproduce. I think it's the inclusion of thoughtful level design in the game designing process that makes those games stand out. Almost every level in those game have their distinct feel and design that managed to come together in a coherent episode while most of today's games, particularly in the FPS genre has this samey redundant feel for almost every level. Halo & Doom 3, anyone? Gamers today are much more concerned with atmoshere and presentation that they forget how much better a game can be with a well-fleshed out gameplay idea. Nowadays, those games are few and far in between.

Which is sad because the only upcoming game releases I am looking forward to right now are Serious Sam HD and Serious Sam 3.

Am I alone in this, or does anybody else think the same?

[inferiare]

No, you're not alone. I like going back to my SNES and older consoles, and I have a few DOS games lying around that I now have to play with DOSBox, but I have them. They had more story to their games, and rpgs had better character development (well, for the most part), better music, and the creators focused on keeping their players happy with everything, not just LOL GRAPHICAL ENHANCEMENTS!

Sure, I like when games look REALLY nice. Graphics now are really nice. But they always come in third compared to storyline and music. Some games now have some linear dungeons (Gust games come to mind) but the designs and feel of all of them are completely different than the others. Then again, I think I'm bias toward Gust's games.

I think I'm not thinking too coherently at the moment, so I'll expand on this later.

[Freedan]

I think the problem is most developers aren't trying anything new.

10, 15 years ago, these gameplay ideas were new. The SNES had some of the greatest games ever made, as far as I'm concerned. But those were simpler times for gaming.

Now, people expect that as the presentation evolves, the gameplay will as well. But it hasn't, generally. My favourite FPS was Goldeneye for the N64. What groundbreaking ideas have come to FPS' since then? You can put in big monsters, big guns, and make it all look nice, but is any of it all that original? I'll take Goldeneye over Doom 3.

I think most developers are afraid to take risks, because if gamers don't like the changes you've made, you stand to lose a lot of money (Okami was an unusual title when it came out, and sold like shit). So we get Madden '04, '05, '06, '07 and '08, where the biggest change might be different tackling physics. They stick with the status quo, because it's already proven to sell well.

But every now and then, they get it right and try something different. The upcoming 'Scribblenauts' is anything but a cookie-cutter copy; you literally have thousands of potential tools at your disposal to use how you like, right from the beginning. They could have made a regular platformer, and on the DS, it probably would have sold well, but they decided to go a different way. And it's one I'm definitely looking forward to.

Change doesn't always work, but when it does, you can make the starting point of a new status quo.

[tay120n64]

Well, it's been a problem ever since games went into 3D. Hell, I'd say Donkey Kong Country and Mortal Kombat really started it. Those games looked good, but were mediocre at best.

This trend really grew with the PSX and N64, though, as the games with the best graphics sold best, and are still looked back on as the best of their time, even if there were obvious shortcomings (I'm looking at you FFVII and MGS). The real problem is developers who refuse to take risks, as has been said. In today's economic climate, playing it safe with an established franchise is a tad more forgivable, but this is something that has been going on for years.

Nintendo is guilty of this to an extent, but occasionally they think out of the box a little (Pikmin comes to mind). Most of their releases consist of new twists on old IPs. Which is okay, as long as it doesn't feel stilted.

And on the issue of "Madden", there actually used to be a decent amount of innovation in each new year, but in 2003(?) Electronic Arts purchased exclusive NFL rights, thereby blocking out any real competition. This made an already dried up IP even more dry by taking away the only thing that ensured EA would continue to work hard: it's competition. That having been said, I am proud of EA. Last year they took a financial risk by investing in several new IPs, one of which was Mirror's Edge, a game that I felt was quite innovative, despite quite a few shortcomings.

With the DS, there have been a lot of creative new titles that have shown that innovation still exists. The Wii, which was supposed to do follow suit, instead proved that, yes, crap does sell. It sells in large quantities.

Nothing instills a gamer's consumer confidence quite like the knowledge that IPhone and Wii shovelware, as a whole, can match the sells of AAA releases.

Regarding the FPS genre, there are only so many ways one can innovate. Doom pioneered it, Goldeneye popularized it, Halo proved it could be done successfully on consoles, and the Wii increased levels of immersion (mostly unsuccessfully, but it's the thought that counts). What can you really do beyond that? Not much other than copy, paste, and invert the color scheme. Virtual Reality is the next step for FPS. I don't think anything else will come out that will "innovate" within that genre. Unless a game comes out that goes "cross-genre". But we'll see...

Presentation is very important in games. I personally love that games are reaching a caliber of presentation equal to that of Hollywood cinema, but I also feel that developers need to understand its okay to make older style games and innovate within that realm. I think that the release and success of games like Mega Man 9 and Braid has helped a lot. Developers, I feel, are going to start leaning a little heavier on digital distribution as a means of gaming, which will allow them to take more financial risks. It costs a lot of money to market a physical game. If it weren't for Xbox Live, we most certainly would not have gotten Mega Man 9. Ever.

Yeah, MM9 is hardly an example of innovation, but it's still awesome. And hard as f**k, too. (Have I gone off topic?)

[inferiare]

OK. I have more brains this time around!

As Tay and Freedan said, there's a lot of crap going around with the newer consoles, and rehashed games like mad lately. What irritated me was when FFVII was released, and game that was released around the same time (hi, Wild Arms!) got dwarfed and forgotten because OHMYGODTHISGAMEISTHEPINNACLEOFGAMINGOHMYGODMYPANTSARECREAMEDWITHFANBOYGLEE! While FFVII was a good game for its time, there are a few games that have been so much better.

As I mentioned, I really adore Gust games, the ones that have come out here. I'm absolutely in love with the Ar Tonelico series (which totally wasn't obvious considering I've been listening to nothing but the series music!) because it's so different than what I've seen here. It's probably not so different in Japan, but for American audiences? Definitely. Plus, it's got 2-D sprites and really amazing backgrounds, which is a huge OMG YES *_* for me, considering I love games that have an old-school feel. The first game took me 70+ hours to get through, and I'm nearing 70 hours on the second game, and I'm still not finished getting all of the extra stuff! Games that have long play times with plenty of things to do, plus a story that I can get into with no problems? Those are the sort of games I like. Few are like that anymore, and barely hit 50 hours of gameplay and aren't replayable. At least with Ar Tonelico, I can replay the second game up to four times (with four different endings) and the first can be replayed three times for different endings as well.

Other games I've noticed that are a bit different from the mold but still have a huge series behind it is the Shin Megami Tensei series of games. My current hour count at the end of Persona 3 (and I still have The Answer to go through once I beat Nyx) is about two hours away from 110 hours. Plus, Digital Devil Saga gives you CANNIBALS. The games have a lot of the same gameplay elements (the monsters you fight are in like, every game, though a lot of the monsters are based off of things in mythology) and the stories tend to be really dark. However, each game has its own story and each spin off is waaay different than another. Persona has the same basic principle of "Somehow you evoke this different version that can kick some ass from your mind!" but each way is different. Persona 3, they use evokers that look like guns (I was snickering the first time I played the game and it looks like the characters are shooting themselves in the head), but Digital Devil Saga you just turn INTO the monsters in battle and devour the others.

There are some creative games out there, but they're hidden under all of the other crap that comes out. :/ Right now, I'm looking forward to Riz-Zoawd, a game based off of (of all things) The Wizard of Oz. It sounds pretty different and one of my favourite composers composed the music for the game. I was surprised when I heard that it was picked up for release here. Definitely a surprise.

[Manibrandr System]

I really don't think that the real problem is the lack of innovation per se, innovation can be a double edged sword. What the problem is is the total creative bankruptcy of developers these days. It's okay to take an old idea and put it in a new game as long as a fairly fresh spin is put into it and as long as the gameplay revolving around the new spin is fleshed out.

[EverPhoenix]

Valerie Valens wrote:

I really don't think that the real problem is the lack of innovation per se, innovation can be a double edged sword. What the problem is is the total creative bankruptcy of developers these days. It's okay to take an old idea and put it in a new game as long as a fairly fresh spin is put into it and as long as the gameplay revolving around the new spin is fleshed out.

that too is a double-edged sword. personally, i think there arent a lot of things that games havent done before. i suppose it doesnt stop them from being creative with storylines and presenting professionally-written stories with really flashy cutscenes.

as for new gameplay elements, im playing phantom hourglass at the moment and the excessive use of the stylus is F**KING ANNOYING! sure its a ds and all, but theres only so much pointing people can tolerate. i like my 2d zelda played with a d-pad and buttons, not a pen.

[Freedan]

Valerie Valens wrote:

It's okay to take an old idea and put it in a new game as long as a fairly fresh spin is put into it and as long as the gameplay revolving around the new spin is fleshed out.

Geist (Gamecube) comes to mind. The shooter aspect of it was nothing special, but the possession idea was cool (and had much more potential than what they used).

[Jason Tandro]

Yes. Simple Question, Simple Answer. Indie groups with good ideas can't get off the ground with series regurgitating juggernauts dominating the market.

See Braid for more information...

[Ratty Randnums]

tay120n64 wrote:

Regarding the FPS genre, there are only so many ways one can innovate. Doom pioneered it, Goldeneye popularized it, Halo proved it could be done successfully on consoles, and the Wii increased levels of immersion (mostly unsuccessfully, but it's the thought that counts). What can you really do beyond that? Not much other than copy, paste, and invert the color scheme. Virtual Reality is the next step for FPS. I don't think anything else will come out that will "innovate" within that genre. Unless a game comes out that goes "cross-genre". But we'll see... Presentation is very important in games.

Well it's not really innovation that's the problem. It's a lack of simple variety.
Ben Yahtzee Croshaw summed it up in a single phrase "Let's be more like Halo."
Every FPS these days is cranked out quickly, browned for realism with either space marines or a WW2 setting. Aimed straight at frat boys and others who are more concerned with being "Hardcore!" than having a good and unique game (when they're not playing Guitar Hero that is).
So the emphases on level design, colorful and interesting settings/enemies etc. gets chucked out the window.

There's a place for gritty realism in FPS- but not THAT big a place. Especially when you consider how unrealistic it inherently is. You can have the best graphics in the world but running over a box with a red cross (OR sitting in the corner for a few seconds for that matter, in many modern games) and healing instantly won't become any more realistic.
More attention should be put on making FPS fun and interesting rather than "realistic" and more on being challenging than just a "hardcore" veneer.

To be fair this isn't a completely new trend. Duke Nukem was making the same mistakes as early as the mid ninties. And people gobbled it up.
"Plagiarizing-flat-and-uninteresting main character? Uninspired and boring level design/monsters? BOOBIES!? I'm sold!" Said the average 12 year old who played the game, now a rabid defensive fan-man.

I will thank it for partly inspiring Serious Sam though, one of the most fun, delightfully wacky and hard FPS ever.

[SoulBlazerFan]

In the words of a favorite author of mine, The World Has Moved On. Gaming has changed, like just about everyone said here. There is little to no innovation left in the world. But, could we also be a bit biased ourselves? We grew up with great games- and to us, none shall be better than those. Sure, there's a faction of newer, younger gamers who love old games- people on this forum are proof of that- but there are games out there that are awesome.

Braid was awesome. I don't know if Jason was being anti- or pro on that, but it was taking the old 2D side scrolling, and the game made you THINK. It challenged your problem solving skills.

I liked Resident Evil 4, too. I thought that game was innovative... however, there were problems. They took away from the old games "Have to go here get a key go here get an item go back to same room and use item" style of play, and instead broke it down into chapters. It changed a game series that, while mostly linear, could be played differently sometimes, whereas RE4 was completely linear. RE 5 was even worse.

The new Ghostbusters game I loved, but prehaps that's a Ghostbusters game, and I'm such a franchise fanboy. It plays like Gears, but it changes an aspect- the capturing steam, having to slam ghosts to weaken them. The story was amazing too, on par with the films. It was short, very short, but nevertheless fun.

[tay120n64]

I've gotta agree with SBF.

There have been a lot of really great games this decade. And regardless of how good games get, we're all gonna look back fondly on the days of SNES, because that's what we grew up with.

[Manibrandr System]

I dunno, I kind of missed the SNES era bus when it was there and it was only in recent years that I have discovered these games that kick ass. They don't make them like they used to.