Modern AAA games are boring. How to fix?

[liolio]

It is indeed a highly subjective topic though as the community here ain't that big it is beneficial if people learn to know each others tastes or opinions on relevant topics. It imho gives substances to post, a context that would have to be defined if most posters here were mere anonymous to one another.
Commenter the way you word things have me thinking that you need a tiny break with games as they are no longer what your inner self is after.
I'm bored with lots of AAA games too, I enjoy old school retro games a lot, I even dare to say that the most funny experiences I had lately might have been with Subway Surfers and Banana kong... super casual games. I've been resisting the urge to turn to piracy to get some old Nintendo ROM for a while.
Your case is different as you want 'something new' there is not that much things to try, you sounds a lot like somebody in search for a new hobby altogether not different video games.

 

[Rodéric]

Fix: play board games, seriously, there's more in the world than video games, and playing at a table with people doesn't get old !

It's a risk/reward issue, they don't want to risk the amount of money a AAA title costs, so expect innovation/novelty from Indies instead. (And evolutionnary steps from AAA.)

 

[Rangers]

I think the premise of this thread is flawed. I enjoy AAA. More than indies which I dont generally bother with. AAA is my thing.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I've bought, played and loved a ton of indie games - the ones that stick out are Banished, Don't Starve, Endless Space, FTL, Fez, GameDevTycoon, Gratuitous Space Battles, The Long Dark, Minecraft, Pixel Piracy, most of the PixelJunk games, 7 Days to Die, Space Engineers, Spacebase DF-9, Spelunky, Sunless Sea, Terraria, Torchlight and Windward and plenty more have been played and forgotten.

But the games I get most invested in and and certainly spend the most time playing are games like GTA, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Uncharted, Red Dead Redemption, Arkham Knight, Witcher, Crysis, The Last of Us and Far Cry.

 

[Goodtwin]

Same thing happens to all forms of entertainment. They offer a product that has wide spread appeal, and they don't like to deviate too much unless consumers speak with their wallets. As long as these yearly releases of games like COD and Assassins Creed light up the sales charts, they wont be looking to change. They want their games to appeal to as wide of an audience as possible, so this means accommodating the lowest common denominator, basically the audience that really doesn't want to be challenged to think to hard, but is really there for the ride. AAA games have really adopted many of the qualities of blockbuster movies, and that includes turning games into a somewhat passive form of entertainment. Lots of hand holding, and controls that while make the player feel like awesome, but in truth, the game is doing a lot of whats happening on auto pilot. For example, Batmans combat is really simple, counter and strike, but what's happening on screen is far more impressive. Batman is doing impressive counters and combinations, all from simple button mashing. Compare this to the combat in a game like Bayonetta, a far deeper, but also much more challenging combat. The combat in Batman is about as hard to master as Double Dragon, while Bayonetta is akin to Tekken. Same is true with Assassins Creed, you simply run your character into a wall, he climbs it. You can run along thin rails as if he were magnetically attached. Basically, the required input from the player has been dumbed down, and allow the NPC to do a lot of really complex things with limited player input. This can be good or bad depending on who you ask.

As for A and AA games, their problem is typically that they are trying to replicate what the AAA publishers/developers are doing, but on a modest budget. They can replicate the gameplay easy enough, but the production values are far less impressive, and thus the game ends up being less impressive as a result. Its like a smaller Indie movie production trying to replicate a Michael Bay movie experience, its just not going to work.

Luckily there are lots of games available that haven't gone this direction. If your sick of the AAA games, then you should probably look to the PC scene. There are tons of games on Steam that are considered niche, but will probably offer the deeper gameplay that your looking for.

 

[Scott_Arm]

The games that are boring to me are not boring to younger people who haven't been playing videogames for 30 years, and haven't played every genre of game from its inception. It's easy for me to say shooters are boring, because I started playing fps games from the original Wolfenstein and have played every variant of fps since. For a younger person, without that history, Black Ops 3 might be the most amazing game ever.

Like @iroboto said, sometimes it's just best to play less and find other things to do if you're getting burnt out on games, and come back when you feel the urge to play something.

 

[function]

I'm bored of AAA games becasue I've seen almost all of what's in all of them before ... and after 30 years of being a gamer I've often seen it done in ways I prefer.

That's why the Crackdown 3 demo had me laughing. When I play it, it'll be different to the things I'm currently familiar with. It'll be impossibly large in destructive scale relative to my character and it'll be fun.

It'll feel ~ largely ~ new, while still having asplodes and graphX and transforming CaRz.

Same with Shenmue 3. Yu Suziki hasn't played many modern games. It'll be like stepping into a parallel universe where things have evolved differently and aren't just Call of Evil 4: Grind Raider. Most people will hate it because it's not like the games they know, and so they won't feel instantly expert and will blame the game. But I'm actually tired of games pretending I'm competent right from the beginning.

I realise now why I haven't played so many of the games in my stupidly big Steam games list: it's because I can't be bothered learning to play something that's ultimately just the same as all the other games I'm fucking sick of.

And that's my problem, not the games' problem.

 

[ArcticCircle]

The games that are boring to me are not boring to younger people who haven't been playing videogames for 30 years

Then there are also people like me who have played games 30+ years and think that modern AAA games are best games ever. While many my generation have fond memories of their fav c64, Amiga or NES games, I'm more then happy to leave 'em in the past. I was already bored of platformers and sidescrollers in the 80's. There are some genre classics that did some aspect better then any modern game like Planescape Torment writing and world building but even if someone would make game like that and it'd look like it did in the early 00, I probably wouldn't play it. For same reason I'll skip majority of the indies and kickstarter games

 

[dobwal]

Publishers don't create AAA games. Consumers do.

Big development budgets and high production values are products of success. Almost all the big tent pole titles of today come from pretty humble beginnings not some strategy guide called AAA development for dummies.

Today's fresh and novelty is tomorrow's boring and drabness because thats what happens to great mechanics, presentations or techniques. They become influential then adoption happens leading to standard practice and widespread use.

 

[Phil]

Then there are also people like me who have played games 30+ years and think that modern AAA games are best games ever.

I hate to say it, but people have become really shallow. This isn't a dig at you btw, but more directed at the market as a whole. We see it in movies too, where the aim is to offer even better visual effects, better CGI, higher, bigger.... better. Except IMO the core values of what actually make 'good' entertainment is kind of getting lost in the process. There are some brilliant movies out there, no effects, no visual stunning art, but entirely carried by the strong acting of its crew and a brilliant storyline plot to go with it. In games, I see it similarly. People just seem to focus too much on what we see. Image quality, polygons, more authentic worlds etc - but the gameplay mechanics haven't progressed much since we've hit 3d. How many developers of games really sit down and think about what might be fun to play?

Simple games are great, because they focus on the core experience. No fluff on top to sweeten it, but entirely carried by the nature of the game itself.

Don't get me wrong - I love gaming and I love some of the AAA blockbuster games we get now days. But if its graphics that is the 'wow' factor you are seeing over the gameplay, then you're missing out on quite a bit. A bit like people who need stunning visual effects in movies and can't enjoy a good 80/90ties flick. Filming techniques have gotten better, but I wouldn't say that that has made movies better overall. In the same sense, I don't see how the latest GTA is a much better 'experience' than the original birdseye-view one was. Both are extremely fun, the former perhaps only 'better' because the team has learned a thing or two (as well as being helped by technology) in the process, not because 3d has made gaming much better. Similarly, I am really looking forward to the new Tomb Raider, but as I said in the topic - I have very fond memories of playing the original games some 18 years ago, and in many areas, I found them to be better games than what we get now days.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Modern AAA games are boring. How to fix?

Don't play games that you find boring.
They probably weren't developed for you anyways.

 

[liolio]

I hate to say it, but people have become really shallow. This isn't a dig at you btw, but more directed at the market as a whole. We see it in movies too, where the aim is to offer even better visual effects, better CGI, higher, bigger.... better. Except IMO the core values of what actually make 'good' entertainment is kind of getting lost in the process. There are some brilliant movies out there, no effects, no visual stunning art, but entirely carried by the strong acting of its crew and a brilliant storyline plot to go with it. In games, I see it similarly. People just seem to focus too much on what we see. Image quality, polygons, more authentic worlds etc - but the gameplay mechanics haven't progressed much since we've hit 3d. How many developers of games really sit down and think about what.

Sometime I wish that it would really be more of the same so as Function puts it the learning process is minimal. Sometime they also fix what is not broken, wip3out comes to mind controls did not need to be fixed or dumbed down. F-zero suffered the same fate in another manner. In both cases stupid raw speed and impressive topology took precedence on proper gameplay and rack design.
I got to play a lot of old games lately and they are punishing, you need to commit to the game and keep up with frustration yet it is impressive that some games weighting a couple of MB (really) are better than a bunch of newer games available on everybody prefered apps stores, games that weigh a lot more by the way.
Overall I share your pov wrt to 3D, I like the graphical representation but I'm a lot more reserved wrt to the gameplay benefit. I'm old school but I could never really transition to 3D gameplay as for me it made the gameplay and control mechanics awkward and too complex. The most successful way to navigate a 3D world is FPS and the best control for that is KB+M. I'm not a FPS person sadly and FPS have their issues, I tried to convinced myself that tps were my thing but they are not the navigating the 3D space with such view more often than not trigger camera issues and glitches, for me it does nothing top down or isometric view can't but as I just say comes with issues camera and overall more complicated than it need to be control scheme.

Simple games are great, because they focus on the core experience. No fluff on top to sweeten it, but entirely carried by the nature of the game itself.

I agree too, I want to play not watch the game plays. Production values can get in the way through too many cut scenes and what not.
Though there is a rebirth of simple (more focused) games.
It is all a matter of pov of course and I suspect age does a lot to one pov too #notanoldfartyet

 

[Prophecy2k]

Sorry folks, but I don't agree with the premise that modern games are boring. In fact I would say that there's always been boring safe uninspired derivative games. Back in the platformer days, everything was a platformer. back in the racing game days everything was a racer. Today everything is either open world or an FPS. Perhaps tomorrow everything will be an RPG.

In the end though these are overly simplistic, gross generalisations that don't really reflect the reality of the industry. There are games out there of every type, for every type of gamer. If you get bored ofgames in some genres, buy new games in others. Experiment and try new things.

Back in the day I loved platformers until I got bored. Then I bought my first JRPG and fell in love with those games. These days I'm pretty tired of FPS games, so I ignore them and pick up stuff like wRPGs (that I can never really bore of) or even stuff on PC like Elite Dangerous (which is my new favourite thing).

If you're bored of gaming on the whole then you're either over it as a hobby and you probably should be doing something else with your free time, or you're not doing it right. Have a open mind, try new stuff and you'll never get bored.

Variety is the spice of life as they say.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Sorry folks, but I don't agree with the premise that modern games are boring.

OMG you're so shallow!!!
Get off our clique right now!

/s

 

[Rodéric]

I suppose things get boring when no novelty is introduced, and things get annoying when the number of meaningless choices increases...

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I suppose things get boring when no novelty is introduced, and things get annoying when the number of meaningless choices increases...

Sometimes more of the same works. During the PS2 era I couldn't get enough of the Ratchet & Clank games. The mix of platforming and combat, along with new and upgradable weapons hit that sweet spot for me. And this lasted for the first two outings on PS3 as well. On PS3 Motorstorm, Uncharted and Infamous are franchises that nail gameplay for me and exemplifyBungie's infamous "30 seconds of fun" statement. Others seem to feel the same about DriveClub and Forza.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Sometimes more of the same works. During the PS2 era I couldn't get enough of the Ratchet & Clank games. The mix of platforming and combat, along with new and upgradable weapons hit that sweet spot for me. And this lasted for the first two outings on PS3 as well. On PS3 Motorstorm, Uncharted and Infamous are franchises that nail gameplay for me and exemplifyBungie's infamous "30 seconds of fun" statement. Others seem to feel the same about DriveClub and Forza.

I can defininitely get behind this. Any genre with the right combination of mechanics, story, music, environmental atmosphere, great game design and overall production values, that just clicks with me I will continue to enjoy again and again.

E.g. even if GTAVI was just GTAV but with reskinned character, different city, no new gameplay mechanics but with a new story then I'd buy that sh!t up at a high price. There are just games that are designed so well that you finish them wanting more, so giving you more of the same is giving you exactly what you want. Any minor new additional features and mechanics would just be a bonus

 

[iroboto]

from another POV: one thing that does continually get mentioned in game design talks is that the players are advancing much faster through content and puzzles than ever before. This is something that, in the old days, wasn't an issue, the internet didn't exist and youtube walk throughs didn't exist - twitch etc. It seems that as much as games might be evolving/innovating - it's quite possible that games cannot keep up with the rate at which gamers improve.

 

[Prophecy2k]

from another POV: one thing that does continually get mentioned in game design talks is that the players are advancing much faster through content and puzzles than ever before. This is something that, in the old days, wasn't an issue, the internet didn't exist and youtube walk throughs didn't exist - twitch etc. It seems that as much as games might be evolving/innovating - it's quite possible that games cannot keep up with the rate at which gamers improve.

Tbh I don't buy that this due to anything other than games being easier to play and less difficult nowadays than ever before. Games last gen on consoles went through the process of "streamlining" (urgh) to increase accessibility in order to be able to capture a wider audience. Thus games, just aren't as hard anymore, as the challenge that existed in the games of our childhoods would be seen and interpreted by modern gamers as "tired", "old" and "dated" "exercises in frustration". Challenge in games is no longer seen as a positive thing for most mainstream gamers, so the games themselves changed to accommodate this. It's no mystery gamers are getting through content faster than ever before, because the devs themselves are intentionally designing their games that way.

Gamers certainly haven't improved, or gotten better at gaming. Take any young gamer from nowadays and give him "Battletoads: Battlemaniacs" or "Loony Tunes: Buster Busts Loose" on the SNES and see how far he gets. I guarantee that he or she will struggle worse than we did when we were that age.

 

[iroboto]

Tbh I don't buy that this due to anything other than games being easier to play and less difficult nowadays than ever before. Games last gen on consoles went through the process of "streamlining" (urgh) to increase accessibility in order to be able to capture a wider audience. Thus games, just aren't as hard anymore, as the challenge that existed in the games of our childhoods would be seen and interpreted by modern gamers as "tired", "old" and "dated" "exercises in frustration". Challenge in games is no longer seen as a positive thing for most mainstream gamers, so the games themselves changed to accommodate this. It's no mystery gamers are getting through content faster than ever before, because the devs themselves are intentionally designing their games that way.

Gamers certainly haven't improved, or gotten better at gaming. Take any young gamer from nowadays and give him "Battletoads: Battlemaniacs" or "Loony Tunes: Buster Busts Loose" on the SNES and see how far he gets. I guarantee that he or she will struggle worse than we did when we were that age.

Yea, but just because those games were hard, that didn't necessarily mean they were fun. If gaming skill is about making decisions, than shallowness is the lack of decision making, where depth is about having many options available to you to make. Older games lasted longer because they inherently were based around physical dexterity - you weren't allowed to progress further until you gained the ability to make these feats trivial. Lets talk about that Shinobi ending, or the ridiculousness of TMNT or Battletoads. While that is 1 method of challenges gamers can face, it seemed more popular with older games. Games of today are more streamlined, but I feel this a result of aiming for glorious set pieces - not because gamers today are worse and therefore the developers are catering to that.