In Game Mechanics and Advancement?

[JU!]

Was thinking the other day about Onimusha on PS2 and its mechanics as a game and remembered it was also a PSOne title originally. I also thought about recent Yakuza 5 I bought for PS3 as well as its mechanics, and it has run from A-B fight, side, mission etc. I came to the conclusion that game mechanics don't seem to have moved or advanced much in recent years in my opinion. I think that they have remained relatively the same. This can also be seen in all the Gran Turismos for example where the handling model is slightly tweaked.

My question is how do you think game mechanics can or will advance in the future? What you think can be added? E.g. Maybe Gravity Daze on PS Vita is an interesting example, of how game mechanics may advance. Maybe all games need a simple base mechanic ala Street Fighter to make them easy to pick ip and play I'm not sure. What do you think? Or do you think mechanics have advanced a lot and I am blind to it. Discuss...

[nakamura]

I think in some cases they have gone backwards. Games like Uncharted are almost entirely automated in terms of gameplay. The platforming is completely predefined for example.

I would love to see real platforming injected back into a game like that. You have a character that only jumps so far or can do so much. The new Prince of Persia game was even more of a joke.

We don't need good mechanics now it seems, just lots of QTEs and checkpoints.

[Wools]

After trading in Bioshock Infinite today, I've come to the realisation that I'm well and truly bored with shooting in a FPS or 3rd Person environment.

Halo was beautiful because of the AI, Rainbow Six was unique because of the slow pace and punishing difficulty, Portal was a revolution in puzzles and Half Life 2 was an adventure game. For the past few years developers have relied on shooting dumb enemies with ordinary guns far too often and its shocking how little variety or unique mechanics developers bring to the table.

Luigi's Mansion 2 is just the antidote with a 3rd Person framework supporting truly unique mechanics and puzzle design. As tech moves on, new consoles are released and developers are allowed to flourish, we get exposed to new ideas and new ways of playing. I have no doubt that the masters of Videogame design, along with brand new start up studios, will continue to bring out innovative and new gameplay styles.

I'll never be jaded enough to say that it was better in my day, today has proved Nintendo still bring it with Luigi, but Nakamura is correct that the cross pollination of game mechanics feels greater than it has ever been. I don't want all games to play and control the same, I want every title to be majorly or subtlety unique and feel individual.

[Charlie]

Looking at current generation games like Trials and Half Life 2 and Mario Galaxy, it's clear that mechanics have advanced, but those games are exceptions in what is becoming a stale period in videogames where mimicking movies by focusing on visual splendour and story are the priority, rather than gameplay mechanics.

[rmoxon]

Games have moved forwards since the PS1 days, it's foolish to think they haven't.

Sports games are the biggest improvement.... I'm sure someone will call blasphemy and have a rant about how winning 11 on the gamecube is the greatest football game that has ever been made, but the fact is that sports games are becoming more accurate and giving you both a more realistic, and a more enjoyable experience of your favourite sport, all the time.

Other genres are constantly evolving and improving too though. Look at the original tomb raider games, then look at the new one. It simply plays better in regards to its mechanics, and in fact it even improves upon the uncharted template that it copies in certain ways, such as the intuitive auto cover system.

Games are improving all the time.

[nakamura]

Except they aren't. Some are, some are not.

[Charlie]

Regarding the new Tomb Raider, I disagree it's gameplay is an improvement over, say, Tomb Raider Underworld. The gameplay in the new Tomb Raider has simply been reduced to the lowest common denominator. Most people like action and Tomb Raider delivers more action, but that doesn't mean it's better. I certainly had more fun playing Underworld.

[rmoxon]

Regarding the new Tomb Raider, I disagree it's gameplay is an improvement over, say, Tomb Raider Underworld. The gameplay in the new Tomb Raider has simply been reduced to the lowest common denominator. Most people like action and Tomb Raider delivers more action, but that doesn't mean it's better. I certainly had more fun playing Underworld.

This thread is about gameplay mechanics, not the focus of that gameplay. Regardless of the players preference, the mechanics of the new Tomb Raider game are much improved from previous instalments. The big one is obviously the combat, the series had previously featured notoriously bad combat yet with the new game, they have implemented modern gaming techniques that actually give the series good combat for the first time ever.

That's progression, and it's proof that games are moving forward. As technology improves developers get to implement ideas that previously weren't possible in games. If you don't think that is progression, then you don't understand the meaning of the word.....

.....And just because you don't like the way something has progressed, does not mean it hasn't.

[Charlie]

Haha. You're a rude thing. But something tells me you're unintentionally rude, so no matter. I was talking about the mechanics. I prefer the mechanics in Underworld to the new Tomb Raider. Does that mean the old mechanics are better, of course not, but by that very token the fact you think the new mechanics are better doesn't mean that's true either. I don't know what parameters you use when gauging how good mechanics are, but mine are satisfaction and fun.

[dvdx2]

Still taking the anti social pills, moxy?, Surely you know by now its rude to suggest people are foolish on a forum you frequent on a daily basis? We are all idiots, right?

In your infinite gaming wisdom, tell me how the mechanics have improved in the Gran turismo series or call of duty series

[rmoxon]

Charlie, again... We are talking about progression, not if you like the mechanics, you keep talking about something different to what the thread is about.

And dvdx2, Getting touchy and offended when no one is insulting you is anti social... So I'd argue that I'm not the anti social one, but anyway...

Call of Duty is not that hard to discuss when it comes to progression since the series inception. The biggest leap was from the first game to the second, the change between the use of health bar and med packs to a regenerating health system etc. But beyond that the series has consistently strived to bring as much variety to the plate as it can while remaining basically a series of first person based shooting set pieces.

With COD4, possibly the most innovative game in the series to date in regards to progression of its game mechanics, it saw the birth several features that at the time were very unique, a perk based multiplayer system was unveiled and levels where you weren't just shooting people were included. This has been built upon in further games, with levels where you control support drones and latter games even feature levels where you switch between several types of gameplay during a level. Black Ops 2 took this one step further still, and features levels that are a shooter/rts type hybrid. Here the developers should be commended, because despite their not so successful implementation the levels at least show a level of ambition that the series often gets somewhat wrongly accused of not having.

Overall the series hasn't been the most impressive in terms of progression of its gameplay mechanics. But there have been quite a few moves forward since the first game in the series all the same.

[Sam The Man]

Look at the original tomb raider games, then look at the new one. It simply plays better in regards to its mechanics,

And yet they are now where near as fun, immersive, atmospheric or memorable as the early ones on the PS1. Which proves that the technicalities and mechanics of a game don't determine the emotional response from the individual and i don't even think that in all areas the mechanics of games have improved. And you talk about progression but its not important if something has progressed, whats important is if its progressed for the better. You may feel im wrong and that the new TR games are way better in which case i will say no your wrong so how about we just agree to disagree but i can say truthfully that iv never enjoyed any of the new ones anywhere near as much as the first 4 TR games and there for it doesn't matter if controls wise they have progressed as it failed to make the games themselves better and i know that's subjective.

[dataDave]

I think it's the other way around. Game mechanics are constantly being dumbed down in order to appeal to a wider audience.

DmC being a good example. Either Ninja Theory/Capcom are incapable of delivering a wholesome and indepth approach to their combat (likely), or they simply want to dumb things down on purpose in an attempt to sell more copies and get new players and core gamers on board (also likely).

MMOs.. WoW being another good example. When that started it was fantastic, the PvP skill-cap was through the roof. Levelling up was only one side of the coin, you had to spend literally hundreds of hours working out the intricacies of fighting all the other classes and their relevant specs in order to become even remotely good. It was like learning all of the other classes and specs individually. Then Activision came in and everything nose-dived practically overnight. In an attempt to get even more players on board (like it needed that) they dumbed everything down. This actually had a reverse effect and more people left rather than joined.

Something meaty comes along (MGR:R) and it gets slammed for being too hard and cheap, when in fact, people are just lazy ****ers and they don't want to have to learn anything to get good and reap the rewarding experiences that are locked away inside there. Even when it comes to the praise of Bayonetta, I'm quite certain around 90% of players haven't been playing to any where near the extent of what the mechanics have to offer. That can't be blamed, mind. I think I've got about 100 hours on my clock and I feel like a beginner, still. I'm not even at a level where I think it's fair to give the game a review because I've hardly seen much.

I want more games like that. Games which mean I only need ot buy three or four of them a year and still feel overwhelmed.

BioShock:Infinite. Nice presentation, great story, sweet graphics, awesome setting... FPS mechanics? It's behind Perfect Dark on the N64 and that's a 13 year old game.

[rmoxon]

And yet they are now where near as fun, immersive, atmospheric or memorable as the early ones on the PS1. Which proves that the technicalities and mechanics of a game don't determine the emotional response from the individual and i don't even think that in all areas the mechanics of games have improved. And you talk about progression but its not important if something has progressed, whats important is if its progressed for the better. You may feel im wrong and that the new TR games are way better in which case i will say no your wrong so how about we just agree to disagree but i can say truthfully that iv never enjoyed any of the new ones anywhere near as much as the first 4 TR games and there for it doesn't matter if controls wise they have progressed as it failed to make the games themselves better and i know that's subjective.

Im not sure what is so hard to grasp here. I'm not talking about wether you like the mechanics or not. I'm talking about progression, which is what I thought this thread was about, but it seems to have descended into a thread about what people like. Which is weird as it only took 1 page to do so.

The original poster was pointing out that he thought games have not changed much in the last 15 years. Which I feel is untrue. As Ive already pointed out over and over games are moving forward and changing all the time. I will say it again, just becuase you dont like the way something has progressed does not mean it hasn't progressed.

Look at the music industry, the majority of bands will always develop a more mature and often more commercially acceptable sound as they age, this does not mean they aren't progressing, just because you don't like something does not mean its a backwards step, it's a step forward in regards to the career of that band, every time we expand our horizons in life it is a step forward.

In your post above you're trying to argue with me, but then by the end of what you have written you are virtually agreeing with me by saying things have progressed but you just don't like the way they have.

Obviously it's a general statement and not true every single game released becuase every one of them is different, but games are(generally) changing and progressing all the time.

[H-Man]

BioShock:Infinite. Nice presentation, great story, sweet graphics, awesome setting... FPS mechanics? It's behind Perfect Dark on the N64 and that's a 13 year old game.

heh very true. Don't start me on multiplayer fps - the current crop are leagues behind what we had 10-15 years back in terms of learning curve and gameplay. Although, if lowering the skill ceiling in terms of accessibility is the goal, which it looks like it is, you could argue that mechanics are moving forward. They're certainly changing.

The Uncharted series is another bug bear of mine - I never felt challenged, or ever in any peril, or that I was discovering or exploring anything. The game wraps you up in safety and gently leads you from screen to screen - with little chance of dying or getting lost and no penalty if you did. But again, anyone can jump in and play and there's little to no barrier to entry. So I guess in this sense mechanics have moved forward.