Well, I was very sad when I realised that these days when I have so little time to game, I play games with really bad gameplay and impressive visuals. I guess it is like watching a movie, where you can control perspective and so on almost, but WOW those visuals….

First I played TW3 the gameplay consisted of holding right mouse button and looking for red marks in a square + combat, press w, space and left mouse and f, repeat. OO, and a card game so stupidly easy, I think I lost three times in the entire game.

Then final fantasy XV, look for items within a square, combat click left mouse button, f and then , t and potion, repeat.

Funny that it is even the same buttons almost, if I had time I would prefer a game with good gameplay for sure.

Is that Gameplay thing so important when you play a CRPG than you forget everything else?
On TW3 for example you seem to focus on that while other people would have talked about the characters, the quests, the world etc..
I don't remember the gameplay, I certainly remember the game though.

No, I think you misunderstood my post, the withcer 3 as well as ff XV are great, in many ways. But my point is that gameplay appears to be very low priority in those games. They focus on a beautiful world to explore, characters and choices and consequence and so on, and they do that fantastically, what makes me sad is that the actual gameplay is very low focus in those games and that I accept that because all of the other parts are so good. When you have very limited gaming time, it is hard to get into a deep game with complicated gameplay as they usually require that you invest more than 30 to 60 minutes every now and then.

However that kind of time is perfect to finish some conversation and watch some beautiful landscape and movies unfold, and I guess the AAA game developers cannot lose those players which I realized that I myself has become, at least right now, did it make sense ? :lol:

Ironically the game I am making which has removed most of my gaming time focuses on gameplay, so I guess I am making a game that I would not be the audience for right now, but that will change for sure once I get more time!

@TheMadGamer

It's not just you. I've found the gaming scene to be full of mediocrity in recent times.

I don't think it's all to do with getting older either (though it's difficult to have perspective on your own position), as the occasional game comes along that grabs me as well as any ever did. But, with the AAA scene shifting mainly to online games-as-a-service, and the indie segment producing so much that is derivative, much of it leaves me cold. Quite a lot of indie RPGs I find are technically superior to the games that inspired them, but lack the personality and interest of their ancestors.

I think a really good game can transcend its graphical limitations and draw you into its world, but I find few do that for me in recent times. On a slight tangent, I think that's a problem that extends beyond games - in the realm of film, there's tremendous technical talent badly served by insipid and artless writing and direction.

I also agree with @GothicGothicness that gameplay often seems quite perfunctory - just something to pass the time in a huge and beautiful world, and again almost always completely derivative.

That's part of why I started working on my own game. I get more fun now out of trying to realise my own ideas, and, judging from the amount of hobbyists in the gamedev communities, that's a very common situation. What I'm working on at the moment is essentially a fairly generic RPG demo, and there's a couple of reasons for that. It's much easier to find assistance and examples for popular game styles, and I think it makes sense to solve all the problems in a feasible project before trying to implement something more novel. But it seems to me that a lot of commercial projects really aren't that concerned with any kind of fresh gameplay, and are happy to knock out some sort of clone.

A bit more but I'm still not seeing it.

Just what do you folks actually mean by "gameplay?" Things to do in a game? Systems in a game?

Games are the same. You guys just changed.

It's like when I hear an old fart moaning "it was better in my time", I always tell him no. Fucking no. Things weren't better at all, HE was better.

Yeah, I do try to take that into account, but I don't think that's always the problem. There's definitely a tradition of "things were so much better in my day" that you you can track all the way back to the ancient world. But, I do think sometimes real conditions do also change for the worse.

I think, for example, in all creative industries, there's much more of a focus-grouped committee of suits making creative decisions, whereas in the earlier days it was more about cigar-chomping tycoon who might give a kid a chance if he liked his style - which sometimes let some original talent into the system.

Video games have been mainsteam since at least the 90's. Maybe longer. It's hard to tell appart the good and bad of that state.
I respect a lot of games from the more experimental, handcrafted periods but so many were also downright unplayable.
Today all games are playable, but not a lot are original.

But to be objective, just compare games:
Zork was great, Firewatch is great too.
Alien VS Predator= great. Alien Isolation= great!
Tetris is a classic, but Crypt of the Necrodancer is more fun.
Ultima 7 was grand, Kenshi is grand…
Epic was gigantic, No Man's Skies is bigger (both are boring though)…
Et cetera, et cetera…

Now, consider someone playing tennis for the first time and someone who has 300 matches under his belt.
Their experience will be largely different, and the newbie will certainly find the game very fresh while the vet could be slightly bored…
Two very different experience but the game is the same, and never changed.

Please, don't take it the wrong way (especially if you don't recognize yourself in what I'm saying), but maybe some should find other interests, for their own sake.
I actually know a few "gamers" over 40 who cling desesperatly to their supposed love of video games because that's what they used to love all their life, but don't actually have the passion anymore.
They're wasting a lot of their borrowed time doing something that doesn't give them
satisfaction, by sheer reflexe, inertia or lack of imagination.
I always encourage them to find someting else, as we only live once and video games are just one of the many awesome things we can sink our lives in.

You make some good points, and I agree with a lot of it. Personally, I tend to do what you suggest, and engage in other interests if games don't grab me. But I do notice that, among my interests, I identify more of a problem in games and film, whereas I have no trouble finding new music and books that still engage me. I think it has something to do with the types of media that require serious funding, and those that can be achieved, at any scope, in your back room.

I think, if we go with the idea that it's more about "me" than about the games themselves, it's not so much that I consider the old days were better, but that my tastes have kind of zeroed in on the sort of game I really want to play, but somehow it doesn't exist - and there's no choice but to try and make it! :p

True words Winterfart!

We play hundrets of RPGs over the years and there is a high chance to become jaded over time and loose interest in gaming.

Putting the blame on the newer games is not fair.

You can't experience the great feeling of discovering a new genre again, because you are a veteran - you know most elements of the genre already.

I have played more RPGs than most persons I know - so why do I find them still interesting to play?

a) I have other hobbies - not only computer gaming
b) I try to be open for new sub-genres with new RPG elements (I play a lot more J-RPGs in recent years for example) so I don't get bored
c) I don't play a game to the end, if I don't like it
d) I value gameplay much more than gfx, sounds etc. - so I still have fun with RPG Maker games, NWN-mods, Indie games etc.
e) I try not to powerplay every game I play and put all my gaming experience in it; at times I like to roleplay weaker parties. So I don't break the game balance with my RPG knowledge.

It is also true that video games aren't a mature media and I think it's perfectly normal for adults to lose interset in them.
You know: pew pew! Go kill evil! Save the world blablablah, it's teenagers level of interest..

I suppose that’s true, but at the same time I’d say that’s part of the criticism. I think gaming in general is beginning to scale those heights (I think The Last of Us had genuine power to explore the feelings around the loss of a child, and was a real achievement.) I guess I just see so little that really pushes the envelope, either artistically or in terms of innovative gameplay, particularly with RPGs. (I’d quote Disco Elysium as a rare example with that kind of aspiration.)

With regard to what @HiddenX was saying, I don't really go along with the idea that over-familiarity with a genre is the problem. I think almost all art is variations on a theme, using a handful of elements. But I think it's always possible to create something fresh that engages even an experienced audience.

Looking again at the wider media, I'd mention Cormac McCarthy's novel The Road, and the first season of True Detective - both examples of very well-worn genres, but I would also say brilliant new examples.

In the realm of RPGs in particular, I just don't often see something that reflects the best potential of the genre.

Of course it is possible to create something new in the RPG genre.

But if someone limits himself to only one subgenre (western isometric RPGs with turn-based combat in the Dungeons & Dragons universe for example) chances are great that you
a) don't get many new good game releases in a year
b) you will get bored over time

Well, yes - but I'm not limiting myself to such a narrow scope. I think the RPG genre is much larger than that.

Not many games "grab" me as you mention. When I take a look at most of the games coming up as reported on news websites like this one, they mostly seem unremarkable to me. I flip back and forth between "it's me" and "it's them." Obviously we all change as we get older but I've been a gamer since the 1970s and through all those decades my gaming interests have ebbed and peaked but has never gone away.

I don't particularly need fancy graphics. As a cRPG gamer I became quite accustomed to lesser graphics in favor of more complex game play during the 70s, 80s, 90s, and even early 2000s. Art direction, perspective, and theme are all factors. I don't prefer anime but then bizarrely the art direction of World of Warcraft never bothered me. I grew up loving games like Ultima VII with it's 2D isometric perspective but these days I really don't prefer it nor do I prefer the "sidescrolling" perspective in some cRPGs that seems popular these days. I'm pretty much stuck in the Tolkien-esque theme… I've tried and tried to immerse myself in other themes from post-apocalyptic to space to sci-fi to who-dunnit to western and none of the grab me.

Really, the only thing on the horizon of some interest to me right now is Elder Scrolls 6 which is scheduled to release sometime in 2150 a good century and a half after I'm dead. And if it comes out sooner, Bethesda's penchant in ruining their recent offerings indicates a worrisome probability they'll included online only or pay-to-win or some other nonsense.

I'm sort of rambling here… I do believe people change, tastes can change but at the same time I've been through too much of my life as a gamer to think I'm done with it… I don't honestly think I'm done… I'm just not finding anything that scratches my itch just right. Been through this before… hopefully this is just a spell. It's been a long spell though… or maybe just seems longer because of the lock down.

Nothing wrong with a good ramble!

I don’t personally think the Tolkien-like world is played out, and that’s my preferred style, too. I think it’s essentially just a development of Western mythology, and there’s plenty of scope in spicing up an imaginative European history. Tolkien himself developed the idea of Middle Earth because he thought the English mythological tradition was lacking – there’s still room for some more! He always claimed he didn’t write the stories, but found them in an historical book called The Red Book of Westmarch, which was inspired by the real Red Book of Hergest. That’s the sort of depth that really makes it come alive.

Maybe my hopes are too high, but I don’t see why a really great continuation of that tradition couldn’t arise in the gaming realm. I just find that a lot of RPGs are content with being generic derivatives.

I guess systems within a game would be a good way to describe it.

Usually combat is the most complex.

But it might be puzzles, mini-games within the game, character development, sneaking and so on.

TW3 and FF XV and so on is typically brain-dead games which has no innovative gameplay, ok not fully fair to FF XV point warps is quite unique and some optional content require a lot more, but anyhow, you don't need to think or have any skill, anyone can just click and watch basically to complete the game.

Dark Souls, Ogre Tactics or Wizardry for example would be games where you need a lot of skill and thinking to complete the game, with complex game-play system and character development, you can't just click your way thought. You have to think in the quests and puzzles ( ok Ogre Tactics is only combat :).

Also the way most human work ,is that if it requires skill to complete something, the satisfaction will be greater once you complete something ( winning dark souls boss fights for example :D ). That is solved in many AAA games by rewarding you with beautiful videos or such instead, for doing nothing :)

More clear?

Sorry but… wtf?!

Bach was not Madonna. Okay, another example, Abba was not Justin Bieber.

There is a reason TW3 is what it was just as there is a reason FF15 tells a tragedy without tragedy.
If you searched for yet another QTE2.0 game and expected it inside TW3 and FF15, you'll get disappointed. But if you want to see hairworks on your PC, then you'll dance happily seeing it in both TW3 and FF15 - but never in QTE2.0 games.

There is a good reason QTE2.0 games spawn clones over clones, endlessly, one worse than another.
Noone however managed to clone TW3 nor FF15. Because neither TW3 nor FF15 were selling perhaps? Of course not.
As with every art expression, you don't have to like the genre.
Wanna make no story gameplay oriented only game? Why not. Name it Skyrim 2. :p

Just a disclaimer: There are still a lot of quality RPG developers out there imo producing things like Encased, Underrail, Kingdom Come: Deliverance - too many to list. Some devs are just a game away from really coming into themselves and delivering something good. Spiders has been on that list for awhile. There are also a lot of lets say 'swipe left' developers.

In terms of the problem RPGs themselves, my impression is that game developers feel the need to check every expectation box. There is also a widespread genericism in terms of presentation and how things feel to play. Perhaps this is the problem of bespoke engines like Unity and Unreal delivering ubiquity - easy to clone something but harder to do something original. In other words unless a developer really knows the engine well you will get a lot of rinse and repeat.

I don't think there is the problem of risk taking in terms of trying something mechanically new. The problem is implementation of the ideas they do have being unsatisfying and not fun. They clone 'x' mechanic without appreciating why it worked in the first place. Or if they do try something new they don't fully commit to it in terms of presentation leaving it a confusing/unsatisfying mess. They put in graphics that are a mishmash of style and theme. The music is generic to the point of being painful or wishing it wasn't there. There is a certain blandness to a lot of these experiences where it feels like the developers simply didn't take the time to make every little element shine.

It could also be that they have a rather poor and unsophisticated taste. I think some of the younger developers simply lack the appreciation of things outside of gaming that my generation would take for granted. I grew up when gaming on computer was new and all the really passionate people went into game development. Their experiences were forged by books, movies, and music that was formed from a classical basis. These days developers simply want to clone the game they enjoyed in their youth. This translates to poor RPG unfortunately.

I don't think the engines are the problem. Unity and Unreal couldn't really be called bespoke - they're general purpose engines, and you start with a pretty blank slate. In terms of implementing gameplay, they don't pull you in a particular direction like, say, RPGmaker.

What might be a factor is that, if you're a new developer, it's much easier to get guidance on how to do the things that people have done dozens of times before.