Thoughts, not 'wants'. Just random things. I don't agree with everything I posted here. But many games/researching/articles over the years/old and new system later a lot has made me think.
I do wonder if we get more reprints or only limited physical companies for collectors editions still or just the collectibles and that's it.
The analogue/digital differences or players/mediums staying around and functioning. Archiving them.
Singleplayer then multiplayer offline, online, bots even anymore, singleplayer online sucks. Controlled cheating, saves, trading, and more in certain genres being changed over time. Why server costs then just better encryption methods but no............. why do that.
How much 'altering the game' to make it playable without server connections let alone people caring to play them again then the older entries/moving on like companies want us to do. Besides just general archiving. Emulators for games like that will they be altered to be playable if they seek a connection. Will we even have the possibility to emulate the game hardware wise quicker or slower.
People got their time/money's worth out of it right? They don't want to play it again right? Make content from it, re-experience it, etc.
So many angles to think about with modern gaming and going oh this new obstacle, that new benefit, that new even more annoying obstacle even on a general level not just emulation like I leaned into.
The future with cost to reload, move a step, hit a golf ball and pay for the best wind/best club (said for any sport format to work around), pick a choice to direct the game's outcomes/best choices, (in game currency or real money to convert) is just a joke if is does. If an arcade did that back in the day oh would that have been bad, game overs sure but 'every step of the game' no way would that have been good.
Will resolution tiers be a thing? Get this texture pack even pay more? Get this and that? Depends what angles they go for.
I'm still surprised Nintendo does the read from the disk/cart. No installs only updates/digital games/whatever minor data. Sure no save to the cart like DS/3DS did (and batteries in older carts, unless Switch does do the DS/3DS thing for some games I don't know). Yet depending on the game/dev they run fairly well.
Whatever we see I don't know what to care about/what to avoid in some speculation/some that already exist. Disks as licenses is annoying though. Jedi Survivor disk and download, PS4/Xbox One version? How much less data on a regular Blu-ray so why bother, just go digital at that point then the lacking 2 disks as 1 disk, 1 download of the PS5/Xbox Series version.
Digital will be eh. Also the prices and discounts of physical differ a lot. Sure they get high rare games or popular ones people go for. But for general stuff it's not full price again always on the second hand market like it is digital and whenever the next discount. Physical prices balance better I find besides how few paper we get with them over time or disk care of data on them.
Gift giving (unless expanded, refunds, whether a Robotcache for PC, I know as a sponsor/service or thing is believable or even possible on consoles due to how the polices/storefronts work even, no idea whether to hate the idea of multiple storefronts or not), we don't always see much hardware use.
We had Playlink, party games with smartphones so kind of multi/dual screen in a way and well without a Vita/Wii U approach to dual screen with 1 strict screen (not exactly GBA and GameCube or Dreamcast VMU scale whether how many or wired but now wireless and many people have smartphones so makes sense)..... PS Portal. Everybody 1-2 Switch does similar for 1 game then the many Sony had for Playlink brand but now a decade later.
With digital I see less hardware focus in some areas but just a guess. Unless it's streaming focused. If we see Indie hardware/crowdfunding of crazy ideas or so then sure but for major consoles/PC I doubt it of certain peripherals besides the audio/camera side. Sure VR exists but no idea how much push for it.
To me gameplay has been bland, heavy characters that don't always feel right I find, but it varies, I prefer floaty or balance more so balance, some 6th gen have odd heavy characters compared to modern ones walking/weight of characters or physics for racing games or whatever the case, handling models, (lets just say even strafing in Order 1886 (replaying it), in some situations sure but the whole game it's awful you want changes per combat, exploration, and more like come on, there is a reason I keep strafe in Ratchet limited to combat only situations with the buttons, or not the strafe only camera mode on all the time, I can toggle it at least for platforming it's awful), stories/visuals/themes sure but most times missions are eh of gameplay or the mechanics are boring in some games.
I go linear usually for the why they can present some ability mechanics, in an open world sometimes they are used well in their open spaces, their cities but other times they can be pretty eh or you yes get linear moments to cover them so it makes sense. Sometimes menus are better than just a jump to somewhere or a more boring gap. For racing I prefer menus not open worlds, but do I like the walkable dealership in Project Gotham Racing 2 (besides the garages or fun Geometry Wars original sidegame/minigame to play) as a novelty also yes I think that's cool. Will I fast travel even if the movement system is good yes but it depends how the fast travel is accessed or if a fun mission is in the area too if not then well eh.
I look to AAs and Indies (not always nostalgic old design Indies, sure their inspirations are clear and the popular games make sense but I can look to any popular games or ones that had other ideas and the other ideas were just as good if not better than the popular ones in certain genres that is, the popular makes sense, if you have a racing game then sure more cars, but not race cars just well everyday ranges of them, not always the mechanics excite people, they do me as cars/brands only get me so far, it's how you use them that's fun with the event design, why challenge runs with my own set restrictions are fun, not oh I'm limited to the game in this linear way that's not fun or oh a car class, it's open but it's so accessible it's got no restrictions so it's less fun, less strategic, less challenging, when your game's opponents are the only challenge it's boring, when they have level design, they have other details to define it that's when I find it more fun. It's like any Smash's for glory or otherwise, no items, or shooter match as rocket launchers only or more. If they took that away it'd be boring right? Less replayable.
Like many 3D platformers/racing games I don't care what cars are in there the gameplay got better in others of older eras then the big ones sometimes, couldn't care less how realistic it is, some are replayable but others are a bit lacking, for platformers you bet I want a better Glover, Chameleon Twist tongue move that no grapple hook or otherwise game has recreated by the way, Space Station Silicon Valley or more and I researched them no nostalgia, well known enough by certain people of course but just Banjo/Mario 64 inspiration eh pass).
Biomutant made it clear to me why bother having animals with abilities (my comparison is a bit unfair but I mean researching 5-6th gen platformers made it kind of hard to appreciate in some cases some changes that I'm like oh that's sad to see in modern game design this more lacking area or more easy design with skill trees in some games then more adding to the world as it's already had so much work put into it regardless of how much menu design takes or the percentage/stat tweaks must be easier then more world changes or character changes ability, animation and more wise in certain games especially open worlds and yes I know Biomutant is a AA game but even still) just make the game a world about animals which is fine but I could swap them for humans and it'd make no difference.
Sure the language/narration, sure the 4 leg sprinting but the vehicles, glider, they should be assists (they are but even still and can be like some sales people in BOTW I found to go back to/find), why no flight, no swimming, digging, etc. that makes exploration fun, more things to do/collect (not just outposts and whatever else others have done already), I enjoyed tower defence in Sunset Ovedrive what other games priotised that in it's open world? I know I shouldn't compare but some trends/some design does seem a bit odd to me how far they go and how basic they make them for an audience. Or the ideas they have at the time.
When I see Indies look to old design it may be oh it's nostalgic, but it's also they understand the game, they understand how to put a spin on it/keep it familiar as it 'works' and it's also what people want. I get why people wouldn't go too much for a more out there game but I mean some do exist at least. Why the safeness. Bring some elements back, put a spin, or something completely new, set a trend not always follow a trend.
Or grinding up and down in Sunset Overdrive was great (not innovative I guess? but still fun moveset I mean), not always a vehicle, or running, not always the particular walking around edges of buildings like Assassin's Creed so carefully, when even Ratchet didn't do that but Scaler did and it's grinding was way better in the same generation as Ratchet started) and well get to missions easier, it can still have vehicles for those that didn't pick those traits to swim you still have a jet ski, but you favoured flight, digging or another, if did swimming you can still use the glider.
It's the you can still do it later it's not blocked off (unless a mode to do so and the racing game logic of I want to restrict myself runs by these factors but instead it's you either do that yourself or there is a mode for it as a difficulty option for only swimming capable areas, flight capable, digging, etc. or vehicles only), we have gas immunity but no animal abilities for classes/percentage of animal traits only gas immunity percentage? Why? It makes the game so whatever about being an animal gameplay wise and only theme wise different or visually who you play as. Act on it with gameplay more like come on.
Some games have fair spins on things and others follow trends. Resistance 2 why? 3 is better because it has more that Dev's past ideas and DNA, weapon wheel, level up system (even besides how it presents it's world/characters better) that only that dev uses for the Ratchet series, or maybe a new system, why limit themselves to 'following suit' in it then 2 does being so trendy and formulaic. IF the world isn't strong enough you got to push other areas to be stronger. IF gameplay is bland why would I play it if the world/story also may not be. You need some aspects to be stronger.
My point is I think heavy characters, and some modern design is so boring and feels lacking, some areas could be filled but are so lacking not of old design but just little details. Old games had those details I find. While they also had their own details that lacked because in sometimes they were still early 3D, others were packed with ideas and felt filled. Nowadays I don't find them filled they just aren't just changed to me focused on other things but still lacking details in favour of others.
Not every game needs the same moveset but some need better ideas then a skill tree thrown in or other excuses of design because they are lazy/trend followers.
Last edited by SuntannedDuck2 - on 27 November 2023
