Am I just crazy and overthinking it?

You're not crazy. We like what we like, and not all of us like that "mainstream" style of video game.

To be honest, it was this sort of thing being pushed so heavily that most other game-types got muscled out in the early 2000s, that caused me to almost lose interest in video games entirely. Luckily that changed, though!

This is the main reason I left current "AAA" gaming too..... Most "AAA" video game publishers are publicly traded companies and have shareholders to please........ "AAA" games are really damn expensive to make and market........

So they end up making very safe products that appeal to the broadest consumer base possible..... To keep their investments safe and their shareholders happy....... Hardly any big publisher is willing to take any risks these days......

The "AAA" market has been stale for at least 10 years now....... Since they every "AAA" game needs to sell many millions of units to be considered a success......

And if you take a risk you risk shrinking that broad consumer base and the shareholders just arnt willing to take that risk......

they end up making very safe products that appeal to the broadest consumer base possible

'Tis the problem right here. They don't want to accept the saying that goes "each to his own". Everyone likes something and not everyone likes everything and that's fine. But they won't accept that, in a sense.

the most formulaic overpriced asset flip

Also another oil added to the fire is the fact that many games share the same engine.
Consider, Linas - games "back then" were made basically from scratch - they had to be as there was no basis for them, no Unreal Engine, Unity and the likes (and I think they are actually good and it's a good thing they exist).
Over time the companies that made the games you mention in your OP developed their own engines - engine,as we know is arguably the hardest thing to do in develompnent and so it's only natural you develop something that becomes universal so you can use it in new and new projects (games) as well. I think this inevitably leads to the feeling of "sameness" of these games - so it's a two edged sword. Sure there are other factors as well but I thought this one to be rational and realistic.


Cheers

Don't forget that many games imitate the Arkham fighting system.


I've probably written the same thing too many times, but the situation is mainly unchanged: In my opinion the expected level of graphical resolution is crippling for innovation and in many cases contrary to good game design. Each game has to have higher resolution textures, models and more and more graphical effects which increases the required workforce and therefore cost to get anything that appears to be viable to the investors. So a basic shell of a game without any mechanics and story is already really expensive. In that situation it is very understandable that most people don't take risks i.e. stray from the mainstream path.

But the existence of indie games opens up room for innovation/fun ideas. Games like Baba is You, Nuclear Blaze (btw the itch.io version can be made native), VVVVVV, etc. offer something different than AAA games.

Yes, very much. AAA games are all of the same handful of genres (Action/ARPG, Shooter, open-world) and they are very formulaic. For an enthusiast of those genres, the variations are surely diverse and some games find ways to iterate and improve elements, but it is still a small subset of the many genres we have and it doesn't push the boundaries of those few genres. Those games are probably outstanding examples, and so people can certainly find things that are distinctive and exceptional within them, but they are still very much related and share many elements. To be clear, nothing wrong with these genres, not every game needs to be something never seen... but the problem is we never see anything else from the big studios.

They seem to have a checklist of what makes a game: collectibles, crafting, multiplayer, skill trees, loot, cutscenes, and a few types of combat system. There are so many assumptions about what a game is - you need a 3D world, you need a character the player controls, you need a main story, you need physics, you need netcode. I have read articles about multiplayer that took for granted that you needed bullet physics, engines often just assume 3D, and people often talk about story and character as if all games had those elements (many types don't: abstract puzzles, strategy, management, arcade, etc). Often the toolbox AAAs pull from have good tools, and the best games use them well (in others they feel just "tacked on"), but it isn't necessarily the best selection, and certainly not comprehensive.

To be sure, part of it is for practical reasons: those games have to work well with controllers for the console market, which excludes a few types of game. AAAs make many open-world and multiplayer because those types of games really need that big budget only they have. But big publishers are also extremely risk-averse (they make only things that have been proven before), inflexible (they have trouble changing what they make), and are constrained by deadlines, marketing (it is harder to market something no one knows and understands), the need to appeal to a huge public (niche titles are out of question), and the emphasis on quantifiable results (increasing resolution or fps is easy to measure, cool style is not). The market consolidation and increasing cost of making games has exacerbated those issues to a ridiculous degree, to the point where they overshadow most things. And the AAA releases are so, so big they often eclipse anything else: even though we have the biggest, most vibrant, inclusive, indie scene and gamedev community, many people won't even hear of it.

And then there is just the fact that those large companies and the rich people that own and manage them are -without exception - awful, evil, self-centered, and they ruin everything they touch.

It is just so sad to see resources poured into those games, while so many indies struggle to make ends meet. To see talented people exploited making dull games by employers that aren't interested in their cool ideas. To see large budgets burned on meaningless "improvements" to graphics, when it could do so many cool things.

Yes, very much. AAA games are all of the same handful of genres (Action/ARPG, Shooter, open-world) and they are very formulaic. For an enthusiast of those genres, the variations are surely diverse and some games find ways to iterate and improve elements, but it is still a small subset of the many genres we have and it doesn't push the boundaries of those few genres. Those games are probably outstanding examples, and so people can certainly find things that are distinctive and exceptional within them, but they are still very much related and share many elements. To be clear, nothing wrong with these genres, not every game needs to be something never seen... but the problem is we never see anything else from the big studios.

They seem to have a checklist of what makes a game: collectibles, crafting, multiplayer, skill trees, loot, cutscenes, and a few types of combat system. There are so many assumptions about what a game is - you need a 3D world, you need a character the player controls, you need a main story, you need physics, you need netcode. I have read articles about multiplayer that took for granted that you needed bullet physics, engines often just assume 3D, and people often talk about story and character as if all games had those elements (many types don't: abstract puzzles, strategy, management, arcade, etc). Often the toolbox AAAs pull from have good tools, and the best games use them well (in others they feel just "tacked on"), but it isn't necessarily the best selection, and certainly not comprehensive.

To be sure, part of it is for practical reasons: those games have to work well with controllers for the console market, which excludes a few types of game. AAAs make many open-world and multiplayer because those types of games really need that big budget only they have. But big publishers are also extremely risk-averse (they make only things that have been proven before), inflexible (they have trouble changing what they make), and are constrained by deadlines, marketing (it is harder to market something no one knows and understands), the need to appeal to a huge public (niche titles are out of question), and the emphasis on quantifiable results (increasing resolution or fps is easy to measure, cool style is not). The market consolidation and increasing cost of making games has exacerbated those issues to a ridiculous degree, to the point where they overshadow most things. And the AAA releases are so, so big they often eclipse anything else: even though we have the biggest, most vibrant, inclusive, indie scene and gamedev community, many people won't even hear of it.

And then there is just the fact that those large companies and the rich people that own and manage them are -without exception - awful, evil, self-centered, and they ruin everything they touch.

It is just so sad to see resources poured into those games, while so many indies struggle to make ends meet. To see talented people exploited making dull games by employers that aren't interested in their cool ideas. To see large budgets burned on meaningless "improvements" to graphics, when it could do so many cool things.

s
Accurate post.
I particularly like your style. Clear, concise and to the point. I think I can agree with it all.
With that said I think it's also fair to say:
- Mainstream games have a right to exist
- the players do have alternatives in the Indie scene
- Everything is not as bad considering last 30-40 years of games history. I dare to say there is progress. Just try it for yourself: Go and play a game from 30 years ago. Then play AAA game from today. Imagine you've never played any game before. Which one will you like and enjoy more? Be honest. I rest my case

(disclaimer: what you said remains true and my post is not countering yours, just adding)

Last edited by FSFmember on 24 May 2023 at 9:41 pm UTC

Tomb Raider remakes, Shadow of Mordor, Jedi: Fallen Order, Assassin's Creed, heck even NFS Heat, all the same kind of open-worldy map, same kind of pointless collectibles, same character moveset, etc. Especially Jedi: Fallen Order in my opinion is the most formulaic overpriced asset flip, basically Tomb Raider with lightsabers, just done worse

In addition to everyone's comments above, which are great!!, We also have to acknowledge trends, fads, Themes ,etc....

Remember 10+ years ago, when everything was "Zombies!!"?? And more recently, open world survival craft? Arena shooters! and then before that the RTS craze? Also... Steampunk

Add to that "Landmark" games of those genres that really lifted player expectations when looking at later games, especially when looking at certain features (open world, combat, achievements, story).

Some of these things might stay on for years or forever, and others might fade away after a while.

Everything is not as bad considering last 30-40 years of games history. I dare to say there is progress. Just try it for yourself: Go and play a game from 30 years ago. Then play AAA game from today. Imagine you've never played any game before. Which one will you like and enjoy more? Be honest. I rest my case

100% agree, I'd add the additional evidence of the success of some remakes and "-likes" that throwback to that era but with modern technology.

I don't think you even need to go back that far, maybe 20 years? I feel like at least with a lot of the AAA games, there's a strong line in the sand of the late 90's/early 2000's where a lot of the features/mechanics were established that modern games pull from. Think, Deus Ex, GTA 3, Halo, KOTOR, Morrowind, etc... I think a lot of us could play and enjoy them still. But, if I go further back a few years, System Shock, Daggerfall, Dune... The mechanics and controls are soo different... It's rough... You're right.


Last edited by denyasis on 24 May 2023 at 11:49 pm UTC

Accurate post.
I particularly like your style. Clear, concise and to the point. I think I can agree with it all.
With that said I think it's also fair to say:
- Mainstream games have a right to exist
- the players do have alternatives in the Indie scene
- Everything is not as bad considering last 30-40 years of games history. I dare to say there is progress. Just try it for yourself: Go and play a game from 30 years ago. Then play AAA game from today. Imagine you've never played any game before. Which one will you like and enjoy more? Be honest. I rest my case

(disclaimer: what you said remains true and my post is not countering yours, just adding)

Thanks. I very much tried to make your first point - there are people that like those games, they aren't "bad"... and particularly because I was talking genres, there is definitely space for games in those genres. The problem is how going outside of it is prohibitive.

And yes, the indie scene is great. The problem is solely with the AAA industry, and the solution is already here. Heck, often we noticed the issues precisely because we played some indies and suddenly realized we didn't have to put up with the AAA annoyances.

As for progress... yes, there was definitely progress. In the games I play, usually more strategy and management, the interface in particular evolved a lot and playing old games can be quite painful. We have new styles that are really cool, new ideas explored, many good games. But also, progress is expected when people are working on things for decades... what is noteworthy are the few instances of regression - when games now include antifeatures like ads or gambling, when games are harder to share with friends for bullshit reasons, when games can't be played without an internet connection... the result of years of work should not be negative.

But also, progress is expected when people are working on things for decades... what is noteworthy are the few instances of regression - when games now include antifeatures like ads or gambling, when games are harder to share with friends for bullshit reasons, when games can't be played without an internet connection... the result of years of work should not be negative.

This topic alone would warrant it's own website I'm afraid. I'm just trying to focus more on the positive lately, it's either that or mental asylum.

Last edited by FSFmember on 26 May 2023 at 10:31 am UTC

I would add on to the original argument that everything is the same isn't necessarily confined to games. People are set in their ways and tend to like the same thing. Movies and literature are a great example. Almost all of them follow the "Hero's Journey" plotline.

And that's ok. People (us too!) like many of the uplifting aspects of those stories. The good guy over coming the odds and defeating evils. In fact, most of our big video games do the same thing, even down to some of the same plot points we see im film and tv and books.

We all love being the heros!! (Some times, lol)

Especially Jedi: Fallen Order in my opinion is the most formulaic overpriced asset flip, basically Tomb Raider with lightsabers, just done worse.

That was the exact same thing I said. Tomb Raider in a Star Wars setting, only with far worse, frustrating mechanics and traversal. I spent more time than I should have getting through it, thinking OK, the next planet has to get better. Hmm, Kashyyk, that's a nice planet. Get there and it's just more of the same stupid grappling, wall jumping irritating crap.

That was an utterly horrible game, I never played it again.

Jedi: Survivor isn't much better, in my not so humble opinion. At first I thought they learned from their mistakes of the last one. I was enjoying the living shit out of it on the first few planets. I wasn't having much difficulty traversing or accomplishing anything. Then suddenly the difficulty ramped up to "right click and uninstall" level of annoyance on Jeddha. I tried to get through it but it was just relentless at every turn... "now what".

Those games are colon blow.

Huh, I liked Fallen Order a lot. The souls-lite mechanics, while making no sense at all, suited me perfectly and generally I had a very good time. It wasn't anything exceptional, but I rate it a high 7.

The latest two Tomb Raiders, however... I liked the reboot, it was properly epic and a nice change from what was before (which I liked as well, admittedly). Rise was so bland and uninspired. I never managed to get through Shadow, I'm hoping to muster the resolve some day, but it's just such a terrible slog.

Last edited by damarrin on 30 May 2023 at 9:18 am UTC

Oh, and if someone is looking for something that's not just a reskin of everything else with slightly modified mechanics, the answer is the two latest Zeldas. I know, Nintendo bastards, anti-consumer, backwards, hostile, evil (one or more maybe definitely true), but their games rock.

Last edited by damarrin on 30 May 2023 at 9:34 am UTC

Somewhat related topic: people "trained" to expect certain grindy game-play mechanics and being confused/angry when they don't exist or are actively avoided in indie games.

I noticed this a lot with Veloren, an open-source multiplayer RPG, where people would come to the chat and ask about ways to optimize their grinding strategies and so on all the f*cking time. I mean, come-on... those mechanics are just a ploy in F2P games to make you spend money on microtransactions and loot-boxes and you are seriously asking for them to exist in a game that tries to actively avoid such dark-patters?

Back on topic though: I think the reason why AAA games are so formularic is related... some people just want to tune out and repeat the same thing over and over. Just look at how popular LoL / Dota2 is, which is literally the exact same map over and over again and people have been playing it for 10 years now. Makes me honestly a bit sad to see so many people with what I assume must be coping strategies for mental health issues.

Last edited by Julius on 30 May 2023 at 11:41 am UTC

Back on topic though: I think the reason why AAA games are so formularic is related... some people just want to tune out and repeat the same thing over and over. Just look at how popular LoL / Dota2 is, which is literally the exact same map over and over again and people have been playing it for 10 years now. Makes me honestly a bit sad to see so many people with what I assume must be coping strategies for mental health issues.

People enjoy board games over and over again with possibly limited variations. Baseball, basketball, etc are all the same maps over and over.

I'm fine with games following a formula with minor changes. I liked Tomb Raider in the PS1 days. Sure the yearly games were not innovative but they gave me new levels to play which was fine for me.

We have a lot of games coming out. Many may match current trends but we also get innovative games. Frankly most people won't play the first innovative game because it will have flaws. They will iterate and eventually find the right balance. Vampire Survivors for example wasn't the first auto attacking game but it was the one that got enough things right to takeoff.

People enjoy board games over and over again with possibly limited variations. Baseball, basketball, etc are all the same maps over and over.

Sure, but with the exception of lonely old ladies playing the same game of solitaire over and over again (clear coping strategy) these board games are social events where the game itself hardly matters and at least for board-games people do like to have a larger library to choose from and not play the same (or overly similar) game multiple times in one evening in my experience.

Sports are a slightly different topic because they are competitive (even as a visitor sport), so usually people are mostly just excited about that aspect. Same for gambling, where the game itself isn't really the point.

You could argue that at least LoL fits somewhat into the social and competitive category, but people playing with randos on the internet are not particularly social nor do they really compete unless they are really good.

Last edited by Julius on 30 May 2023 at 9:27 pm UTC

Somewhat related topic: people "trained" to expect certain grindy game-play mechanics and being confused/angry when they don't exist or are actively avoided in indie games.

I noticed this a lot with Veloren, an open-source multiplayer RPG, where people would come to the chat and ask about ways to optimize their grinding strategies and so on all the f*cking time. I mean, come-on... those mechanics are just a ploy in F2P games to make you spend money on microtransactions and loot-boxes and you are seriously asking for them to exist in a game that tries to actively avoid such dark-patters?

Back on topic though: I think the reason why AAA games are so formularic is related... some people just want to tune out and repeat the same thing over and over. Just look at how popular LoL / Dota2 is, which is literally the exact same map over and over again and people have been playing it for 10 years now. Makes me honestly a bit sad to see so many people with what I assume must be coping strategies for mental health issues.

Yeah, in many games I feel like mechanics are there just to check a box. Must have crafting system, must have combat, must have collectibles, etc. Those are seen as easy, drag-and-drop ways to add content, replayability, lore, even challenge... but disconnected from the overall design, it doesn't quite work as a game mechanic. For example, some games have collectibles to give a small nudge for players to explore and find the interesting gameplay outside the main path; some are there just to fill a map that didn't have to be that big and patch over the lack of clear goals.

And then, player expectations are a big deal, and trying to sell to people a game that they don't understand, that they have no idea how it is, can be hard. Staying within a genre, a niche, a formula, can give people a clue about whether they would like the game or not, making the game both more easy to sell (people like X, sell a game that is like X)... but also more approachable to people, benefiting from game literacy and design language and familiarity with tropes or mechanics. Which means it isn't always a bad thing - but the growing consolidation means people have fewer and fewer examples, and those things are decided just by a few large shitty companies and only by virtue of them having more money.

Sure, but with the exception of lonely old ladies playing the same game of solitaire over and over again (clear coping strategy) these board games are social events where the game itself hardly matters and at least for board-games people do like to have a larger library to choose from and not play the same (or overly similar) game multiple times in one evening in my experience.

For the game itself hardly mattering... not at all. Modern boardgames have pretty amazing game design, and people are very enthusiastic about the specific games. There are "famous" boardgame designers with signature styles, extensive criteria for categorizing boardgames, old favorites, boardgame snobs that only play certain things...

Now, I agree in that I don't think people repeat boardgames all that much - usually people buy a lot of boardgames and most are played somewhat few times, with variety trumping replayability. And even considering many playthroughs, the length of a game (generally has to fit in a single social gathering) means people don't play the same game for that many hours save for a few favorites.

But even so, some games just have a lot of replayability, and others don't. One thing that tends to greatly reduce replayability, in my opinion, is being somewhat focused on a story - the core game loop tends to be way more replayable than the number of times you want to watch the very same story unfold. Other things, like variable or random setup, also make it easier to replay a game. And it depends on the person, of course. Mobas are definitely more replayable than the average RPG, precisely for having a progression of skill across multiple games that isn't tied to a narrative arc that ends and people move on. But that only goes so far, and there is all the live service elements that companies use precisely to keep the game interesting for people playing on long timescales, so it is not exactly repeating the same thing - it shakes things just enough for people to not get bored. Not exactly my favorite design for games, but I don't think it is quite the same as the stagnation across various games.

Last edited by eldaking on 31 May 2023 at 12:09 am UTC

None of the open world games have ever appealed to me. For me, I'm into fighting games and while a lot of newer games feel different the DLC/Season/MxT method of how they are supported have tapped me out on ever buying those games.

I just play them at locals or when they are free online - or for the rare ones like Tekken 7 - play the arcade version.

I know why devs went that route but they feel so nickel & dimey that I'm unable to enjoy the games.

So I'm just sticking to retro-fighters to play with my friends & family also at retroLocals.

In the mean time, I check out a indie SP game from time to but I avoid anything with crafting and have a jolly time.

The Gardens Between is different. There are two characters walking through spiralling levels that you cannot control directly. What you can do is forward and reverse time and making one of them interact with the environment to get them to the exit at the top of each level.

The Gardens Between is different. There are two characters walking through spiralling levels that you cannot control directly. What you can do is forward and reverse time and making one of them interact with the environment to get them to the exit at the top of each level.

I liked that game. When it was on Stadia, I rocked it and enjoyed it.