Why are you so content with what games offer?

It seems anticipating a revolution in the design of fictional games is as unrealistic as imagining flying cars in the real world.

I love games, always have always will and for years, but whenever the novelty wears off, I'm always doing the same stuff. A fun ziplining mechanic here or a mind-bending puzzle there, but then it's back to the same box.

I'm not asking you to be pessimistic or jaded, We want to have a good time, and a hobby isn't worth getting mad over. But we are on gaming forums right now which means we care about not only celebrating games but also critiquing them and discussing their future.

The budget spending of publishers and developers is majorly dedicated towards graphics and technology, writers, voice actors, and advertising stunts.. Eevidently, little money is kept to be spent on the game design itself (mechanics, interactivity). It is rehashed with minor enhancements, title after title. How does that not turn you off?

I'll use the latest example: Playable females in BF4. I don't play Battlefield or give a fuck about the current sexism controversy, but EA already spent money on an entire new engine for BF3, so their budget isn't going on tech. The genre has been around since 1992. If NOW isn't the time to evolve it into a realistic genre with both men and women, then WHEN IS?

Look deep into your soul, are you really happy with the extremely slow and uncreative evolution of game design, and content with the evolution of only characters and aesthetics? If your answer is yes, I'll believe you, but I for one no longer feel excitement for games because they fool us. They give us prettiness, atmospheres and emotions, and the core gameplay is still stuck in the same box since GTA 3, Freedom Fighters and Deus Ex.

We'll never reach the future of game design if we don't ask for it.

I watched the first two hours of Bioshock Infinite and, while the atmosphere and story progression leave me SPEECHLESS, it was merely a new episode in the same franchise called First Person Shooter. I didn't see anything I haven't done before, which is why I'll watch the game rather than buy it.

I don't know what better game design means, I just want to play Bioshock Infinite.

Bioshock Infinite and other games like it disproves your point. You yourself are being pessimistic instead of seeing the games that actually try something different. There are tons of games that do and / or explore things that you simply couldn't do back in 1999-2003, you just aren't seeing them.

If I wasn't having fun I would be discontent, but I'm having fun so it's fine.

Fun things are fun.

You're looking in the wrong places. It seems like storytelling is irrelevant to you in this critique, so what you want are inventive new mechanics and design. For those things you have to look at the indie space on PC and mobiles.

As games become more and more of a market controlled by relatively large companies it becomes less and less innovative and more about reproducing the same thing over and over to please the customer. Innovation does not drive capitalism, predictable strings of profit do.

I think you are looking in the wrong place. The mainstream in any entertainment industry is by definition safe and derivative, you wouldn't look for cutting edge work out of Micheal Bay or Lady Gaga, so why look for innovation there in games. Instead look to the indie scene, where in a lower risk environment new ideas can be fostered, where you can play a range of different games from a soviet passport guard sim to what the hell Datura is. There are so many games available today that there is really no excuse to be bored, all you need do is look for them.

As long as there are games out there that I enjoy playing I really don't give a damn what direction or pace the medium develops in. And there are. The industry can sort itself out just fine without me constantly fretting about the future. And what kind of utopian "future of game design" were you honestly expecting? We've kind of reached a point of diminishing returns in our current paradigm: ever since the very invention of video games one of the overarching goals has been to strive towards creating photorealistic worlds and we are pretty much there now. There are incremental improvements to be made graphically, in design, in control fidelity and in such things as digital actors, world size as well as believability and vibrancy of said worlds. Bioshock Infinite, and yes, likely BF4, represent our latest advances in these areas. The new console generation is likely to push that even further.

What you are obviously longing for is some kind of revolution, apparently based on the seemingly explosive development during the 90s. And I agree - the difference between your average game in 1993 and 2003 were worlds apart compared to the difference between 2003 and 2013. But you have to keep in mind that that explosion was not at all unexpected - we were always aiming to create amazing 3D worlds because of the simple fact that we happen to live in an amazing 3D world. So that development was hardware-based, not creativity-based. Once we reached the point of diminishing returns in that department it understandably slowed down, and here we are today.

In order to revolutionize videogames from here on forward we either need revolutionize how we use that 3D space or create paradigm-braking hardware that interacts with that space in a new and revolutionizing way. As for the first one, I have no idea what that could be. God knows there are plenty of skilled designers trying to find that elusive golden ticket every day - if it is doable, some day some genius will. And we will never have seen it coming. As for hardware there are certainly attempts there as well - the Wii and the Kinect where both honest attempts at this but, as we know now, it didn't have staying power because the control fidelity wasn't enough. Attempts at introducing "real 3D" the way movies do are still niche because it doesn't really add much to the experience. Devices like the Oculus Rift represent our latest crack at Virtual Reality but as you may notice it's still the same type of games because in the end, at least until we can hook games directly up to our brain stems, VR is nothing more than a 360 degree field of view and surround sound.

So to summarize, the reason development seems so slow now is because the "next step" in gaming is the hardest the industry has ever tried to do - easily equivalent to the very invention of video games themselves or the first introduction of the NES after the video game crash. It requires us to re-imagine what video games are, and very few people are capable of both doing that and acting on it.

I will be as happy as a child on Christmas morning the day that happens. But until that time I will continue to play the games I like and appreciate how they are made better by the development that we after all still have. Like you say, life's too short fixating on what could have been. Life is definitely too short to fixate on where we expected a goddamn industry to be ten years ago.

EDIT: Oh right, what the guys above me said about Indie games - if you want creative innovation in how we use the 3D or 2D space, look at them. These are the kind of people who will be at the forefront whenever we reach the next paradigm.

Game design is not the same as it was ten years ago. Go back and play old games, then come play new ones.

I didn't expect revolutionary gameplay from Infinite. I expected good shooting with a great story snd world, and that is precisely what I got. For some reason I can only hold 2 guns though...

If the story is not good I can't really invest in a game regardless of how fun it is.. I love narrative. What I'm saying is that fantastic stories alone aren't enough, otherwise why did games evolve since Planescape: Torment and Max Payne? Because the design of the mechanics and the capacity of the interactivity of the world are as big a factor as any other.

@guiseppe: @amatureidiot: Two things: Firstly, I'm looking at the big budget games because the word is right there: big budget. That means they have the money and the manpower to push us into the future.

And secondly, can you give me examples of AAA games (guiseppe) and/or indie games (amatureidiot) that have actually evolved the interactivity beyond the standard, genre-respective experiences we've had variations of since 2000?

I'm not shooting you down, I'd love your perspective on this :)

To be honest, the older I get the less I care about "innovative" game mechanics (as opposed to refined and improved) and more into whether or not the story is interesting and well written and the atmosphere brings me into that world. If we're talking about established genres. But I am always interested in completely new ideas though. And I don't necessarily think there's a shortage of that.

Innovation is overrated. I mean, certainly you can find games that do things that have never, ever been seen before. They're interesting, but most of them are not that fun to play.

As long as people keep making games that I enjoy. Then I have no reason to complain. Also DotA.

Gonna piggyback on this since I also mentioned indie games.

Big budgets don't get us better storytelling and better design, they get us better production values. Insisting that innovation come from those at greatest financial risk is incredibly foolhardy and futile. That can only come from those that are wealthy beyond reason, and they don't care about games.

I'd recommend checking out Cart Life and Year Walk for games with strong narratives and creative design.

The skyrocketing of AAA budgets this gen aren't sustainable, and it's probably only going to get worse, before it gets better.

But eventually, that ideaology will implode on itself, and - hopefully - will bear more creative fruit.

I have no problem with the rate that games are developing, and I enjoy them just as much now(if not more) than I did in the NES/SNES days.

You want innovation? Go and play Soda Drinker Pro! It revolutionized the soda drinking simulation!

@officegamer: Off the top of my head: Magicka, Mark of the Ninja, Assassins Creed, Batman:AA, Vampire:TMB (was gonna say Mass Effect but this was a precursor), Portal, Chronicles of Riddick

Ah, man, did you have to take two of my examples. I would also point to Fez, as it introduced meta gameplay outside of the actual mechanics of the game with its cryptographic puzzles, and Minecraft in the way it just gives you tools and a world, and says you work it out, rather than giving the player set goals. If were purely talking about gameplay and interactivity. There is also the wide range of games that try and to do one interesting mechanic well, like Papers, Please, Reciever and Miasmata, which all seek to do something new with how you play and interact with the game.

I kinda of agree and kind of disagree. I do agree that games are more of the same nowadays and it drives me insane. Sequels are more expansion packs than anything else. One game from one genre feels exactly the same as a completely different game by a different developer and publisher in the same genre...

However, there are a couple games that actually do something different and do it well, like the Bioshock series IMO or Dishonored for something else more recent. It sucks that they are few and far between, but there are some there.

As for why don't we speak up? I do all the time and I'm constantly called a cry baby for "whining" that games feel the same, despite the fact that it's not whining and it's just voicing an opinion that differs from others and have to attack me to support their opinion instead of actually giving good reasons supporting their opinion.

Because current game design is already pretty good, at least from what I have played?

The reason mechanics havent changed is because they work, and because there is no real way to improve on them with todays technology. They tried introducing motion controls, and people hated it.

To your point about woman in BF4, That is not a mechanics issue, that is another issue. Wanting equality is one thing, but complaining anytime woman is, or isn't in a game is dumb. No one gives a fuck that one of the Main playable characters in Sly Cooper is disabled. Where are all the posts complaining about the disabled characturs? Or the disabled people in BF4?

Is it that you want equality, but only for certain people, or did you forget about everyone else?

Buy a new PC, don't play "AAA" titles, play more free & cheap independent games, find yourself laughing at the idea there is a dearth of creativity in video games.

Surgeon Simulator 2013 disagrees with this thread.

I think its more that about 2000 devlopers had tried out enough to know what works and what doesn't genre wise i.e how many guns are best(for consoles), button layouts etc. I just feel the arguement is like moaning how all filmmakers use sweeping shoots for landscape scenes.

As for now genres i can think of tower defence, MOBAs, Minecraft.

Have you ever asked yourself if you ain't probably playing the wrong games?

The whole time I was at pax I avoided wating in lines for major publishers and talked to the smaller indy guys, because they are the guys that actualy make the games. And, while some of them are just social city builder games for the iphone, some of them look really good. Like, as I mentioned before Revolution 60, a game I would not have known existed, if one of the devs didn't talk to me.

Also this game is a direction I would like to see ios games go in.

@officegamer: While I do agree with you true inventiveness is really rare - what really can be called original anymore? - when each game is being developed into a specific genre or mixture of genres it is really difficult that the sum of its part will be something trully revolutionary. I generally also don't buy into the whole avalanche of similar destilled games in the FPS, TPS, Action or horror genres, but there are some great games out there different from much of what it is done. Games like Catherine, Brutal Legend, Silent Hill: Downpour, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, Alan Wake, Deadly Premonition, The Darkness, etc. try really different and cool stuff from a complete spin on the puzzle and horror genre to integrating bizarre super powers into an fps game and letting the combination evolve into an unbelievable experience.

I don't go to summer blockbusters for deep meditative sorties and I don't go to big budget console releases for innovation.

Every generation brings something new. Even if we had cover based games that concept has become popular in this generation. There were co-op games, but that has become popular in this generation in which consoles are meant to be connected to the Internet, not so popular before, that has allowed better multiplayer, co-op and also other options like mindjack, brink and dark souls, new ways to play with people through the Internet are evolving. One of these ways is what we could call game 2.0 as in Spore and Sim City where you compete with other players even when they are not online and not in direct ways. Character customization is evolving and becoming better. Of course we have better graphics, but also better physics that provide different approaches to games, shooting at wheels of vehicles wasn't that rewarding when they didn't explode. Genres are mixing and we find games that combine the gameplay of several of them, etc.

To me games have changed a lot since 2003 and it's quite likely they are going to keep evolving in the next years as a new generation of consoles gets new franchises with new concepts and gameplay twists.

About kinect, wiimote and that color ball PS3 has, I don't buy it. I'm quite certain millions of people are going to love it, that may even be the future of the industry, but I'm simply not interested in any of those things, as I'm not interested in guitars and other controllers to play games based on quick time events. The industry is evolving and that is part of the evolution. I'm also not interested in fighting games, sports games, or the nth installment of "Bland FPS: because you like FPSs". But those games sell like crazy, so I guess there are millions of people interested in them for reasons I don't know and I don't care about.

Many of us feared what could "casual gamers" make to the industry, causing it to evolve only in casual ways, with changes being only aesthetical, like graphics, or based on controllers, while no interesting gameplay changes happen. That may be true to some extent. Maybe if the industry hadn't been "casualized" the money would have flown to greater changes in the gameplay and not other aspects of games, or maybe less money would have been available for developers and we would have seen even less evolution in the gameplay. We will never know.

To sum up, yes, sure we could have seen more evolution in games, nothing is perfect, but I think there has been a good share of evolution in the last decade and I'm certain there will be more. If you don't see any evolution, maybe you are not playing the right games.

PD: also Portal nearly started and clearly inspired a new generation of puzzle games like Quantum Conumdrum and some more. I don't think we would have seen Kingdoms of Amalur without Fable 2 (inspiring cards anyone?) and so on. Changes happen gradually, and if you look back in retrospective, they are obvious and significant. I'm not really into the Bioshock franchise and all that branch of games, but I don't think Dishonored could have become what it is without it and again we will see something new in the next generation. It has been a long way since Counter Strike.

The late 90s were amazing because we were transitioning from 2D to 3D and it opened up a whole new world of possibilities in gameplay. On top of that there were lots of great innovators from the ID guys pushing tech from Doom to Quake and Nintendo trying to relly understand how to do Mario and Zelda right in 3D. The Black Isle (yeah, I know most of their games aren't really full 3D) and Looking Glass people were deeply into tabletop roleplaying and trying to improve on storytelling and interactive systems Richard Gariott had been building into the isometric Ultimas. LG were also trying to incorporate ideas from all of the virtual reality theory that was going on at the time. Actually, GTA3 probably had the least new changes in gameplay of the 2D titles that moved

Now that we're in the polygonal 3D environment, aside from stuff like higher polycounts, normal maps and shaders, deferred rendering postprocessing systems and dynamic lighting, the primary change in gameplay since GTA 3 and Deus Ex is from physics engines and advances in AI. It seems to me that there's not a lot of room for things to make the quantum leap that was necessary to get to 3D, all we are going to see for a while is a slow climb to better graphics, better physics and smarter AI. That's why this generation has been all about experimental controllers, they have been one of the only ways to make gameplay feel different.

The only other direction for things to grow is for games to become deeper in theme, intellectual content and experience for the player. That's where I think a lot of indies are doing things right and while I feel like Ken Levine's games have lost a lot of deep gameplay potential since removing SS2's RPG character systems and survival horror elements, he is definitely ahead of most game designers when it comes to building themes into his games. Portal isn't particularly great in plot or theme, but it's so smart about how it frames its gameplay with its writing. That's more of what I mean by intellectual depth than whether or not a game explores the existential angst of human existence or not.

I hesitate to say we will ever get storytelling the way most people expect that games might tell stories someday. I don't really include storytelling because, ultimately, every game has its own set of storytelling techniques and I don't see it as a unified thing that's progressing along a linear track like lighting systems and AI. Even the best writers in the games industry's stories still wouldn't hold up well at all in other media and I don't know if we can ever expect a game where the story is better than what can be done in movies or novels. Where I like people Levine and Kojima best is the way they play around with the conventions of gaming and your assumptions as a player. That brings a level of sophistication most games don't have while doing something that can't be done in non-interactive media.

My personal vision for the future of AAA-quality games is:

• good looking, high-def but artistic graphics and sound that contribute to the atmosphere of the game in a meaningful way
• open, interesting worlds to explore which are full of deep physics and AI systems (with well-crafted personalities for key NPCs) and the kind of systems that drive games like Dwarf Fortress
• open-ended stories with well-considered themes and some level of intellectual depth (when not intentionally aiming to be simple entertainment) where you're given lots of interaction with the world beyond shooting every living thing in the face.

I think the things that point toward this kind of future are franchises like Thief and Stalker. Even games like Red Faction: Guerrilla start to play with the idea of systems being tied into the whole world more fundamentally than just one section of the game or a single weapon like a gravity gun. The problem is that games like this are incredibly hard to make and never sell as well as linear shooters and multiplayer games.

Think of triple AAA games like Hollywood. Hollywood delivers great experience that don't usually revolutionize the medium. It's still important since we get the big budget content that indies just can't do. If you want innovation then go look for it. Bioshock Infinite is a landmark game because of its high polish and fascinating story. It's an FPS due to how Irrational liked to tell their story. Quit complaining about the lack of innovation in games and instead go look for it.

This is why FTL is the best game I've played since Dark Souls. It's the first game to really draw me in since Dark Souls. I've played a lot of game between then and now and most of the time I lose interest in a couple hours. I've played everything at this point and what I'm looking for is a new gameplay experience. FPS's in particular, all feel the same to me, no matter how you dress them up.

Clearly it's because I'm a part of the mindless, soulless mass.

I agree with many here that tons of Indie games have created new gameplay experiences over the past several years. As far as big budget games, there has been innovation, just less of it. Look at the rise of the third person shooter with Gears of War, the advent of physics based gameplay in numerous titles, the mind bending puzzles in Portal, the ability to carry choices from one game to the next in Mass Effect, the rise of easy level creation in LittleBigPlanet, and a bunch of other cool ideas. I think very recently we've seen a lot of sequels because publishers are saving their big new ideas for the next generation. Most often, innovation occurs most within the first two or three years of a console's lifecycle while the remaining years focus more on refining those earlier concepts. Also, Battlefield 4 has a new engine, Frostbite 3, so they did spend a lot of time on the tech.

This generation has been more innovative than people give it credit for. I still feel there's unexploited potential, especially in the narrative front, but games have come a long way in a relatively short time, just give it time.

And about Bioshock, you should watch some interviews with Ken Levine, that man just loves making first person shooters and it's pretty clear he never intended to make anything else with Infinite. He just happens to love crafting worlds and telling interesting stories as much as shooting dudes in the head with a shotgun, and his games reflect that pretty well.

Also, it's nothing really groundbreaking but these skylines are really fucking cool.

While, I enjoyed this generation of games, I feel like it still doesn't come anywhere near the times of the Genesis, PS1, and PS2. It's been sort of a let down, in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, games like Arkham Asylum, Red Dead, and Uncharted 2 all briefly sucked me in, it's just not the same.

For example, I went back and started playing Jet Moto, Final Fantasy VII, and Resident Evil 2. I instantly was sucked into those games and atmospheres for the latter two. I feel like games don't do a good enough job doing that anymore. It just tends to be the same thing over and over again. I liked Black Ops and Battlefield, but I'm so done with first person shooters at this point.

Maybe I just have huge nostalgia glasses on.

Maybe stop playing video games, mang. It doesn't seem like you're willing to invest any of your time into finding what's awesome about video games anymore. Not judging, just making an observation. Watch a movie or something where you don't have to commit anything other than half of your attention for an hour or so.

As long as I still enjoy playing games, I don't really have any complaints. I know this is a frustrating point of view for people who are more deeply invested in the medium -- and, believe me, I love it when developers try new things and push the boundaries of what gaming is -- but all I need is for games to be entertaining. Whether that means a great, compelling story or fun gameplay, I don't really care. I've been playing a lot of World of Warcraft and Super House of Dead Ninjas lately. Neither game is particularly innovative or boundary-pushing, but I have fun playing them. Mission accomplished, games.

Yeah Im fine with where games are. There are still interesting things being done with old mechanics.

Reading this thread makes me want to kill myself.

See what you've done, OP?

@officegamer: I defiantly agree with you to a point. The fact is we keep getting sequels and sequels and you know what? We buy them and thats why this works for these developers. The fact is every COD feels the same to me, GTA always does similar things and all of the God of Wars feel the same.

The fact is we get better graphics and they try to take things to the next level with better AI, but the design is all the same. I mentioned GTA for a reason I just got done playing a session of GTA3 on my PS2 (reminiscing on the past) and the truth is there is a big difference with it and 4, but at the same time it still is GTA by design. Play GTA3 if you can, you'll see car chases were the computer AI just drives around a circle instead of actually trying to get a way from the player. The fact is we have been given progress but the design is the same.

What I believe you want is new design and of course this is always a welcome but the fact is big publishers think there spending too much money on development of games to try something different. When originality comes from spending money then originality doesn't always go were we want it too.

Maybe we should, then, change what the word revolutionary means to us as video game players. The last 6 years have proven that complete originality is not necessary for game to fulfill our every need and quench every thirst. So screw originality!

So basically what I mean by 'revolutionary' is more concerned with the little things. I'm neither a developer nor a creative mind so I don't have any real suggestions, and this might sound stupid and dreamy, but when I buy a new, 2013 title that gets 10/10 reviews, I don't want to start off on a boat looking at two NPCs talking, then get off and start clicking on desks and cabinets to get cha-ching lists of loot. There's gotta be more to the very action of looting than just clicking on distinct pieces of furniture and immediately seeing a prompt telling me I got 10 coins and some bullets. The little things need to radically change and become more realistic and also unpredictable. It's time those things, as well as timed fights, etc.. it's time they change IMO.

@nivash: @jeust: @trylks: @oraknabo: Very interesting and thoughtful points you guys made, your posts gave me a better retrospect.

@ravenlight:@raven10: @phatmac: @darkshaper: @dagbiker: @dabe: @amatureidiot: @starvinggamer:

Since you're the people who are claiming that indie games have that much more (and more different) to offer, I'd really appreciate it if you name me a big bunch of games that will give me alternative ways to interacting with game worlds and accomplishing objectives.

I just suck at seeking out indie games as well as underground music, there are millions of them and I don't know where to look and how to spot out things I will enjoy. Thanks.

Absolutely with you on most of those. How often does a Portal or an Assassin's Creed come about though?

I am content with what games offer right now because i'm having fun.

There are more games than ever and games are more creative than ever. You just have to look for them. The last time there was truly a huge leap in game design was around the mid 90s when most game developers made the transition from 2D to 3D. Before that it was also extremely iterative and it has also been like that since then. Variety and choices are still more vast then ever.

I guess it is hard to answer that because I don't know what you have already experienced and how you want to interact differently. Like Minecraft obviously offers you a very unique way of interacting with the world and completing objectives. Some interesting games I can think of just from the past year or so - Snapshot, Antichamber, The Bridge, Hotline Miami, Cart Life, and Kentucky Route Zero. All of them have quick looks.

I'd also say that if you haven't played The Witcher games then you should do so. Also Dishonored allows you to interact with the world in some cool ways.

I'm very happy with our creative future.

Battlefield 4, Dragon Age 3, Destiny. 2 of 3 of these are games: hatters gotta hat. 1 of them I'm play to level 2000; and 2 of 3 of them I'ma play with my friends, month after month.

@officegamer: While I can't say that these do things unlike anything before them. I can say that all of these games felt like nothing I had ever played before, and that is all I can ask for.

• Yume Nikki (This game is also free, you can get it here)
• Sequence
• FTL: Faster Than Light
• Hotline Miami
• Thirty Flights of Loving
• Tiny and Big: Grandpa's Leftovers
• The Void
• No Time To Explain

yup, the mechanics of the tried and true styles of games are still satisfying to me and i think with the increase in graphics fidelity and animation that the next systems offer will keep it being satisfying

(metal gear rising is a great example of this to me, sure its a third person action game in the vein of devilmaycry/bayonetta and you can rip it apart for being derivative and similiar to those styles of games mechanics wise, but the attack animations and that games style still make the game fun and engaging to me)

and the stories in games are getting better as well.

How I find Indy games is usually through quicklooks, or through opening steam and seeing what just released, and what they recommend.

honestly a lot of weird games i find are games i find through searching for games with the same gameplay as others, for instance i would have never gotten stuck on Viva Pinata if the game hadn't been on the similar section in one of my faverot games.

I also would have never played Analogue: A Hate Story if i hadn't seen it in steam and read about it.

But be warned, I spend about $100+ on games a month. Im not saying you will too, Im just saying my style is just to buy something and see if I like it. Such as Walking Mars, played 18 minutes of it, and will probably never play it again, the game sounded good, and spent $10.00 on it, and mechanically it is good. Just not my type of game.

But again just look up a game you like, in our wiki and check out what other people think is similar, and read up on those games.

@dagbiker said:

For those wondering, N.U.D.E. stands for Natural Ultimate Digital Experiment. If you're like me, I'd imagine you're all disappointed too.