Modern AAA games are boring. How to fix?

[Prophecy2k]

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.

You misunderstood. My arguement wasn't that gamers of today are worse at playing games than the gamers of yesteryear and so games changed to accomodate that. It's that the small consumerbase of yesteryear that valued the kind of challenge in games that required hightened manual dexterity were too small a market to support the ballooning dev costs of subsequent generations, and thus publishers that wanted to sell more games streamlined their new titles in order to target a more broader audience who had much less of a history with challenging games and thus would be much more likely to be alienated by games designed with that level of challenge in mind.

Us gamers that grew up with games started out with games on arcade machines that were designed to be challenging in order to rinse as much of our pocket money as was phsyically possible. When games moved to home consoles this same level of challenge in the games' design remained. New gen gamers that came after the arcade era didn't share the same history with challenging games as we did, and so devs/pubs assumed (rightly or wrongly) that these new gamers would not want the same kind of challenge in new games than we were accustomed to.

So mainstream games followed the broader audience and changed accordingly. And as the audience grew the average gamer skill level dropped, because the average gamer's history with games shortened as more and more younger gamers came onboard to join the hobby.

None of this is really a negative thing mind. As games being less punishing also meant that they could be designed with sprawling and complex stories, characters and content that devs would be sure that the majority of gamr would be able to enjoyed, as opposed to a mere cross section of gaming elite who possessed the superhuman skill required to reach those areas in the games.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You misunderstood. My arguement wasn't that gamers of today are worse at playing games than the gamers of yesteryear and so games changed to accomodate that. It's that the small consumerbase of yesteryear that valued the kind of challenge in games that required hightened manual dexterity were too small a market to support the ballooning dev costs of subsequent generations, and thus publishers that wanted to sell more games streamlined their new titles in order to target a more broader audience who had much less of a history with challenging games and thus would be much more likely to be alienated by games designed with that level of challenge in mind.

Which is the same as saying on average, gamers aren't as good.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Which is the same as saying on average, gamers aren't as good.

As a market that may be true given the market is now larger but individually? Some of the mad skillz(tm) demonstrated by 'pro' gamers in eSports events are nothing short of astonishing. Most of the 1980s videogames I recall could be beaten by memorising patterns or employing basic strategies and repeating them adnauseum.

I think a big contributor to change is that the nature and purpose of games has changed to accommodate that expanded/ing market. Early videogames were hard and challenging and therefore generally only entertained the demographic that liked that level of challenge. Modern games, I guess in part due to increased development costs, are generally intended to appeal to a wider audience.

There's a fine line between challenging and frustrating and certainly for me as I've gotten older and my reflexes and hand/eye coordination has dulled and (more importantly) have way less time to game (coupled with games being a whole less immediate, e.g. the die-immediately-restart cycle is often now die-animation-reload-restart) I am more likely to get frustrated and switch to another game than persevere. I rarely buy sequels to games that frustrate me.

I beat GTA III, Vice City and San Andreas on PS2 through skill and perseverence (with a lot of swearing) and must have died in each game dozens if not hundreds of times. The suicide cop AI and that m*th*f*cking firetruck at the end of San Andreas made me rage quick a ton of times. Contrast that to GTA IV and GTA V where I died maybe a couple of times in each. I beat classic 3D GTA more out of determination than enjoyment. GTA V was supremely entertaining without making me want to throw my controller at the TV

edit: typos.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Many 8 bit and even 16 bit games were purely frustrating. I got far more angry at ridiculous Spectrum games than any PlayStation game (though there were PS games that managed this like some Driver missions, one of which near the end caused a friend to give up on the game). Of course, I was younger and likely more easily frustrated, but even going back to some games now it's obvious that the gameplay was balanced very much in favour of hardcore training to be able to win. I also know from little games I've made that its impossible to gauge how other people will play it. The skills developed 'playing' the thing just to test and track bugs amount to dozens of hours play experience and skill development before you get around to balancing, and end up balancing for a veteran and not a novice. These days larger developers will employ proper play testing, but in the days of bedroom coders this wasn't a known issue, and games were released balanced for the developer and his mate who were seasoned experts on the day of release.

 

[iroboto]

As a market that may be true as the market is now larger, but individually? Some the mad skillz(tm) demonstrated by 'pro' gamers in eSports events are nothing short of astonishing. Most of the 1980s videogames I recall could be beaten by memorising patterns or employing basic strategies and repeating them adnauseum.

I think a big contributor to change is that nature and purpose of games has changed to accomodate the expanded market. Early videogames were hard and challenging and therefore generally only entertained that demographic that liked that level of challenge. Modern games, I guess in part due to increased development costs, are generally intended to appeal to a wider audience.

This is more or less along the lines of my thinking. Every olympics the world record moves forward even though the event stays largely the same. This must mean our training methods, understanding, and technology is what propels these players forward.
The skill cap has likely raised quite a bit - the method in which players train for eSports is _radically_ different from back when Thresh was training for Quake, but because games now focus on many different things and aspects, the player base is also changed to incorporate more players.

A lot of the last gen games had poor controls or just impossible platforming feats. Players got around that by just playing a lot, that definitely doesn't make newer games worse because designers have removed those encumbrances - but you are correct that those skills are generally no longer forged with the current population. A good article about that is here: https://medium.com/message/playing-with-my-son-e5226ff0a7c3 where a father forced his son to play through the history of video games - and not just the ones of today. In the end his son becomes a monster at understanding games - he beat Spelunky on *hard*. That being said, Prophecy2k, if we use this kid as an example you'd have a strong argument which I agree with. But if I use this kid as an example, he'd be the one showing people on youtube how to do it, and there would be a few adventurous ones that would watch and follow his footsteps - his social gaming would enable many more to complete the game than had he just finished it privately.

I mean, lets talk Diablo for instance, there are definitely cookie cutter builds and weapons, but it takes a lot of skill to figure those out on your own. But because of the internet, all the best builds are iterated on and developed almost instantly. And many players will use sites to help give them that edge right away. You're right that the skill of the players are likely less (because they don't know how to make their own builds) but that doesn't change the fact that developers are still having a hard time slowing the player base from progressing through their games so quickly.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Many 8 bit and even 16 bit games were purely frustrating. I got far more angry at ridiculous Spectrum games than any PlayStation game (though there were PS games that managed this like some Driver missions, one of which near the end caused a friend to give up on the game).

For me 8-bits had the edge on cheap death and I think this was partly due to the limitations of the technology. AI was often rudimentary as was early collision detection on a lot games using anything other than hardware sprites on the 64. Plenty of scrolling games employed mechanics where if you hadn't memorised patterns of incoming enemies and positioned yourself in the right place, by the time they appeared you had no time to move and were dead.

There were plenty of game that handled increasing difficult well like Defender (and clones like DropZone) and I could get an hour of play for 10p from Defender in the arcade. Paradroid, Turrican, International Karate all had great difficulty curves where you lost because you made a mistake, not because of something unfair the game did.

I used GTA as an example of a game that transformed hugely from one console generation (PS2) to the next (PS3). I remember many reviews commenting GTA IV (and GTA V) was easy. I prefer to think of those games as being fairer. Half of my time with GTA (and Driver on the PS) was fighting the controls/camera and contrived mechanics designed to make you fail. How many people died in GTA III because the weapon lock-on had focussed on a pedestrian 25 feet away rather than the Yakuza 10 feet away with the machine gun. Thousands, probably.

 

[Prophecy2k]

This is more or less along the lines of my thinking. Every olympics the world record moves forward even though the event stays largely the same. This must mean our training methods, understanding, and technology is what propels these players forward.
The skill cap has likely raised quite a bit - the method in which players train for eSports is _radically_ different from back when Thresh was training for Quake, but because games now focus on many different things and aspects, the player base is also changed to incorporate more players.

A lot of the last gen games had poor controls or just impossible platforming feats. Players got around that by just playing a lot, that definitely doesn't make newer games worse because designers have removed those encumbrances - but you are correct that those skills are generally no longer forged with the current population. A good article about that is here: https://medium.com/message/playing-with-my-son-e5226ff0a7c3 where a father forced his son to play through the history of video games - and not just the ones of today. In the end his son becomes a monster at understanding games - he beat Spelunky on *hard*. That being said, Prophecy2k, if we use this kid as an example you'd have a strong argument which I agree with. But if I use this kid as an example, he'd be the one showing people on youtube how to do it, and there would be a few adventurous ones that would watch and follow his footsteps - his social gaming would enable many more to complete the game than had he just finished it privately.

I mean, lets talk Diablo for instance, there are definitely cookie cutter builds and weapons, but it takes a lot of skill to figure those out on your own. But because of the internet, all the best builds are iterated on and developed almost instantly. And many players will use sites to help give them that edge right away. You're right that the skill of the players are likely less (because they don't know how to make their own builds) but that doesn't change the fact that developers are still having a hard time slowing the player base from progressing through their games so quickly.

Yeah definintely, if your argument is that gamers now have more tools more readily available to them to give them the edge and allow them to get better at games more rapidly then I heartily agree with you. But I would argue that these types that do make use of these resources are still a relatively small cross-section of the wider "expanded" gamer consumerbase.

While certain genres of game, like MOBAs, Diablo-likes, hardcore FPSs and fighting games are often designed towards these player-bases, far more games are targeting the borader audience that cares more about just gaming to have a bit of fun than to really learn a set of mechanics in a game to improve their skills.

Again I would say this is a good thing, as for example; I tend to enjoy fighting games of this generation far less than the older more "easier to pick up and play" fighting games of the SNES, PS and PS2 era. Nowadays fighting games are designed around these pro-gamer tournament types, and I honestly think it restricts developer creativity too much, making the games to technical and difficult to play and enjoy for me. I miss the days when fighters were easy and had great single player story modes. Nowadays, I feel as if the competition killed the fun for games in that genre for me.

 

[Goodtwin]

Which is the same as saying on average, gamers aren't as good.

Yea, its not to say that there aren't just as many skilled gamers are before, but the gaming community has grown, and the majority of growth did come from gamers who are more into a passive experience. Can you imagine if games like Super Mario Bros on the NES gave you infinite continues, constant check points, and gameplay mechanics that made Mario practically stick to the platform he jumped on. Same goes with games like Mega Man. Games priorities have gone from challenging the player to giving the player an interactive experience. This is of course not true across the board, but in general, todays AAA games certainly offer their experience in a way that even terrible gamers can complete the journey.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Confession time:

I stopped playing Super Mario Sunshine for the GameCube halfway because I gave up after several tens of hours (and I mean tens of hours literally!) trying to pass a stupid level where I had to time and place some jumps at milisecond and milimeter precision for the whole level or I'd have to start again.
I swore I'd never put myself up for those levels of frustration (and lack of self-respect for my free time) again, so I never even tried the Mario Galaxy series even though I owned a Wii and all reviewers were calling it the second coming of Christ.



So yeah, maybe the games are less challenging, but maybe they're less frustrating too.
I know I do enjoy the experience of an accessible game with good story, content, graphics, immersion, gameplay, etc. a lot more nowadays.
Certainly more than I did 15 years ago where challenging simply meant you had to play the same level over and over and over and over again just to get those platform jumps right, so you could continue with the damn thing.



Gaming nowadays feels a lot less of a chore than it did in the nineties and early 2000s. I'm glad videogames evolved the way they did.
There. I said it. I don't belong to the clique either.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Yea, its not to say that there aren't just as many skilled gamers are before, but the gaming community has grown, and the majority of growth did come from gamers who are more into a passive experience. Can you imagine if games like Super Mario Bros on the NES gave you infinite continues, constant check points, and gameplay mechanics that made Mario practically stick to the platform he jumped on. Same goes with games like Mega Man. Games priorities have gone from challenging the player to giving the player an interactive experience. This is of course not true across the board, but in general, todays AAA games certainly offer their experience in a way that even terrible gamers can complete the journey.

Definitiely! It's things like rewind functions in racing games. Can you imagine that in the original F-Zero or Daytona games of way back when. The games would have been rediculed for being games that effectively "play themselves".

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Confession time: I stopped playing Super Mario Sunshine for the GameCube halfway because I gave up after several tens of hours (and I mean tens of hours literally!) trying to pass a stupid level where I had to time and place some jumps at milisecond and milimeter precision for the whole level or I'd have to start again.

There. I said it. I don't belong to the clique either.

The ratio of good games to time has also shifted for me. During the 8-bit through to the original PlayStation times I had more time than there were good games to play so I was more inclined to plug away even when frustrated. Now my gaming opportunities are much rarer so I often skip some decent games so I can afford to be picky.

Because I have way less time now I certainly am not going to squander it on something that frustrates me.

 

[Cjail]

Because I have way less time now I certainly am not going to squander it on something that frustrates me.

Confess, how many games did you buy in the last month and how many games you never actually finished this year?!

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Confess, how many games did you buy in the last month month and how many games you never actually finished this year?!

Games bought in the last month would be Everybodies Gone to the Rapture, Galak-Z and Until Dawn. I've not yet finished Arkham Knight yet but this down to lack of time more than anything. I need time and be in the mood for some games. Generally I do finished games.

 

[steveOrino]

Confession time:

I stopped playing Super Mario Sunshine for the GameCube halfway because I gave up after several tens of hours (and I mean tens of hours literally!) trying to pass a stupid level where I had to time and place some jumps at milisecond and milimeter precision for the whole level or I'd have to start again.
I swore I'd never put myself up for those levels of frustration (and lack of self-respect for my free time) again, so I never even tried the Mario Galaxy series even though I owned a Wii and all reviewers were calling it the second coming of Christ.

Thats mostly due to the collect-a-star-athon in small arenas that you have to replay many times with slight variations that plagued the mainline SMB series post SNES. It was the only way to advance and I never liked it which is why SMB64 is probably near the last on my list for all time great Mario games.... Although SMG 1&2 really fixed a lot of the complaints from previous 3D titles and are among my favorite 3D platformers. You still have to collect stars but there is a lot less bullshit in order to do so.

I will agree with you that controlling game characters in a 3D game area on a flat display is mostly where the frustration comes from, its not alway intuitive. In early 3D games, most of the challenge came from fighting the camera and judging distance and angles. I think modern 3D games have "figured it out" for the most part... on the top of my head is the Witcher 3 when riding a horse the game auto guides you through the dense trees and brush because I doubt people would find it enjoyable riding into trees every few seconds. Systems like that have made 3D games much less frustrating.

 

[Prophecy2k]

I will agree with you that controlling game characters in a 3D game area on a flat display is mostly where the frustration comes from, its not alway intuitive. In early 3D games, most of the challenge came from fighting the camera and judging distance and angles. I think modern 3D games have "figured it out" for the most part... on the top of my head is the Witcher 3 when riding a horse the game auto guides you through the dense trees and brush because I doubt people would find it enjoyable riding into trees every few seconds. Systems like that have made 3D games much less frustrating.

It did?!?

How come I still managed to spend 50% of my time on horseback in dense forest kissing the trees? I just gave up went on foot unless I was on the open road.

 

[function]

That's horse AI.

Horses are constantly trying to kill the people riding them. 90% of a horse's tiny, pea sized brain is dedicated to killing the person riding it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I imagine that's true of any animal with a parasite on its back forcing it into gruelling physical labour. That's certainly what my pea sized brain will be dedicated to should a horse jump on my back demanding a ride!

 

[Prophecy2k]

Shifty is correct.

I put my horse on the back of my missus and demanded a ride... it didn't go as I'd planned .

Spoiler

Warning: stealth bragging post. Delete if jelly

 

[function]

I put my horse on the back of my missus and demanded a ride... it didn't go as I'd planned .

She ran into a tree? ...