Things the Game Industry has Forgotton About

While there's probably some exceptions, what are some things that you think the games industry, in general, has just forgotten about?  Talking about anything related to game elements, not saying people forgot about game X.

1).  You don't have to play as a human
I can't count the number of games where you play as a human.  Remember, hell, even back on the ps1.  There was spyro, crash, etc.---> non humans.  I dunno, but I think it's sometimes more neat to play as, who knows, how about something stupid, say a squirrel, than something ripped out of Saving Private Ryan.... There are lots of times when playing as a human makes sense, but you know, in order to fly as a human you'll need a jetpack, not so as a dragon.

2). It doesn't have to be realistic
   If you want the characters to go into a hell level for no reason, why not?  Why can't we have WW2 shooters where you eventually end up in some paranormal gooley place?  Why can't I have neat powers.

3) transforming is cool
just thought I'd put that out there.   i remember playing the old beast wars or 40 winks and realizing this.  Those are meh games, but transforming added a neat variety.  For the record, Conker does tranform as well.  Variety in gameplay is a nice addition.

4) Neither complexity nor over-simplicity are good concepts.
How about just make it accessible?  Lots of pc games suffer from this and then are called "hardcore".  Most of the times most of this can be presented in a much better format.  Simplicity, such as in making things automatically do something (like auto jumping) isn't good either.

5) Games that are long with filller content/ copy and paste content suck.
Really, it's just wasting my time. If it feels like I'm doing exactly what I was doing two hours ago, you probably didn't do something right.  I remember being amazed by the first hour or so in Fallout 3 after the vault.  Then, I realized that fresh and great content was the only content in the game.  I truly beat the game in that first hour after. 

6) You should really get the core gameplay down before making a kickass world and game.
Because, take for example GTA4.  The gunplay and the feel of movement (turning a table I say) are just awful.   Could they not have made movement up to par with what the medicore half assed games are even?  Seriously now. The movement itself (on foot, a tad in car) ruin the game.   Game ruining aspects ftl!         This isn't rempant through games, but it's there way more than it should be.

Yeah, I guess these are trends the majority of the industry has shyed away from lately. To be honest, it doesn't bother me. I hope to be a game designer myself one day, and all my current game ideas are based in reality. I will say that replaying Banjo-Tooie on XBL has reminded me of how uncool transforming can be. I don't mind it at all in the original, but I guess I just think the things you transform into in Banjo-Tooie are mainly pretty weak. I agree games shouldn't be too complex or simple. I think generally you want to have relatively simple, streamlined controls that offer a pretty solid amount of depth and don't cause the game to be too easy.

Sure, filler is bad. I hate when companies try to increase a game's length by adding unnecessary backtracking or item-searching and all that sort of stuff. However, I certainly never felt like that was the case at all with Fallout 3. I did love the vault section, and I think it's what really helped suck me into the whole game, but man, I really thought there was plenty of great stuff in D.C. and I thought it was certainly worth taking a look at.

Okay, as for GTAIV, I think the core gameplay works fine. I've never had all that much of a problem with it. I certainly wouldn't say it was mediocre. One issue I had though was whenever walking near a ledge, if you got too close, you could certainly expect to fall to your death and die. Niko should be able to catch himself from falling, or they could have implemented some resistance towards ledges so he couldn't so easily walk off. My 360 controllers left analogs are kinda busted and think they're centered when they're slightly to the right, so sometimes guys will be moving on their own as a result, which is a perfect way to walk right off of a building. By the way, thanks Microsoft! The more I've played GTAIV, the more it has cemented its status as being a masterpiece in pretty much every way.

You know, judging from your criticisms, I'd almost say Excitebots is the game for you.

Yes, buy a Wii.

Wow, some legitimate complaints about games. Another one along that train of thought: not everything needs to be some epic plot to save the world from an ultimate evil. Remember back in the days of the Genesis, when a mascot's only goal was to beat the hell out of a random bad guy out of pure boredom (play any Mickey Mouse game, and you'll see what I mean)?

I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING


Also games don't have to look blody grey and apocalyptic all the time sillys

I agree with your things but not your examples.  GTA4 is the most solid controlling GTA so far IMO.  Fallout 3 has repetitive graphics and sound assets, but they're put together in clever ways.  I'd prefer every object in a game to be unique, but that's not realistic.  Every game has prefabs, before they were 3D they'd be 2D sprites reused over and over.

So, basically you want cheap, shallow fun?

Lots of valid points but you forgot how remaking any good game should be a crime.

I disagree with the point about movement in GTA, I found lots of nice little touches in Niko's animation like his sideways run down steps to be pretty awesome. Tripping people is still funny, too.

My main problem with games is the writing in them is often terrible, after playing through Persona 3 and 4 back-to-back I think I'm going to punch someone the next time I see someone's name spoken followed by an "...". On that note, when given the choice to punch someone, I'd like to actually punch them, not just have them pussy-out, run off and then have Chie flip-out at me for intervening.

Hell, on the whole, I'd like more chances to be a dick.

1. You don't have to be good. Actually Fable II and Bioshock address this well.

2. Besides getting new weapons, there is the possibility to change the character. Again, Bioshock doesn't have this problem.

3.  HIgher difficulty settings shouldn't be locked until the game has been finished the first time.

4. The hardest difficulty setting should be a challenge, not ridiculously difficult for the sake of it.

5. Points don't/shouldn't add replay value, game variation, cooperative play and extra modes do.

6. We entered the disc-based gaming era. Games shouldn't be as expensive as many cartridge games were.

1. Many developers are doing this at the moment... but they do this so that the player can get further imersed in the game and it generally does make a better play experience... Take Bioshock for instance, if you were a squirrel in that... it would suck... No wait, THAT WOULD BE AWESOME!!
2. You call BioShock, Halo, Banjo & Kazooie, Mass Effect, Team Fortress, Brutal Ledgend etc Realistic? I see what you're saying though.
3. Transforming... Transformers?? :P There are a few of these types of games around... Anyone remember Altered Beast?!
4. Many games are extremely non complex... Look at the Wii for example... or Empire Total War...
5. I agree with you there :P
6. Agree and Disagree, GTA4 gunplay was fairly intuitive i thought, movement sucked though.

I really wasn't trying to be dismissive when I said ExciteBots. It has almost everything you mentioned.

1).  You don't have to play as a human
Check. You play as weird hybrid robot car things.

2). It doesn't have to be realistic
Certainly not. This game has redicilous sense of fun and even humor. It seems to be aiming for constantly keeping you on your toys and a consistent "WTF?!" attitude. Very abstract and bizarre.

3) transforming is cool
The ExciteBots are basically lawsuit bating Transformers rip-offs.

4) Neither complexity nor over-simplicity are good concepts.
This might be the place where Excitebots falls short; its control are pretty simple, with your typical Wii steering. Still, it certain functions and it is never punative in anyway.

5) Games that are long with filller content/ copy and paste content suck.
While the game has several game modes that are fairly similar, they also are more or less 5-10 minutes races that are fairly well self-contained. Good quick pick and play fun.

6) You should really get the core gameplay down before making a kickass world and game.
ExciteBots said piss off to anything but the core gamepaly. It has no impression of being bad-ass or anything besides...robot-car hybrids racing really fast and causing redicilous quick mini-games. It focuses completely on core gameplay competency.

So yeah, hit 5.5 out of 6 of your points. My suggestion still stands.

Here's where I think this thread falls short...Whilst it's full of great points, it kind of leads us down the blind alley that there is a formula for good games. There very much is not.

you forgot good offline multiplayer

As long as games bring the fun, I'm not to picky.  I do agree that many games take themselves too seriously and have done so for awhile now.  Mindless extras and arcade-like options for games are great if you ask me.

Even games that may seem realistic really aren't. People say Call Of Duty is all about realism, but everything about that game is not even close to real life.

You guys are taking a hypothetical debate waaaaaaaaay too sewious.