I don't really like gamey games...

[Floyd]

This is an odd one as it's difficult to explain what I mean... I don't want to say if you know you know either. I suppose I realise I may be in the minority here, so I'm going to explain what I mean as best as I can to find out if it's just me.

 

This has been in my mind for a very long time but after recently playing the Resident Evil 4 remake, it's gamey-ness has brought back memories of playing it on game cube all those years ago. The easiest way to explain it is the "frustrating" part of games or how unfair some parts of the game seem to be, almost as if the game is cheating to make something harder rather than rely on the players own skill level. However, I don't think it boils down to simply the difficulty of the game but the design of the game. It's this but also a overall sense or feeling about the game that rubs me up the wrong way and I cant think of a better word to describe it other than being gamey.

 

Perhaps this is the reason I prefer RPG or RTS games and there's a sense of preparation or freedom of approach. These games can be hard and challenging but the game give you fair chance.

 

I mention Resident Evil 4 as it's the most recent game I've played and maybe that's not the best example.

 

It'd be interesting to know if others know what I mean and if anyone can explain bit better or had any other examples. It's one of those things I can probably expand on.  

[thesnwmn]

2 minutes ago, Floyd said:

Perhaps this is the reason I prefer RPG or RTS games and there's a sense of preparation or freedom of approach. These games can be hard and challenging but the game give you fair chance.

 

I'd argue that many strategy games can be, or are exactly, as unfair as the other games you might mention.

 

I think the key with game-y-ness, regardless of genre, is either being able to actually hide it or make it fun in and of itself once the systems are known. At any point the balance of the unfairness is the key to a game being fun in the long run.

 

In survival horror it's the idea of feeding ammo at just the right pace. Low ammo is an entirely false concept to create tension but it works until you spot it. Once you know about it and how it works it's yet another system you can manipulate. In a racing game it's the AI adapting it's skill level to you naturally to reward you with good racing. In the worst cases it's rubber banding. In the best it's some form of natural adaptation to you over a few races. In RTS and other strategy games it's unit spawns for the enemy rather than actual base building. Or ignoring the fog of war to be able to see you all the time. Or simply tweaking the health of enemies in real time to slow you down.

 

Further, the real issue is the range of experiences different players want. In all of these cases it comes down to difficulty and the nature of difficulty being  variable. Should a game's difficulty feel the same to all people regardless of their skill level or should better players have a different experience. Adaptative difficulty is part of trying to do this but it's what, I think, often feels the most unfair to the best players. The game changes to bully them.

[Benny]

Tell me you mistakenly started playing on Hardcore mode without telling me you mistakenly started playing on Hardcore mode.

[Qazimod]

I'm not massively familiar with the RE games so I can't comment on that particular example. It sounds like "dumb videogame logic" to me.  In an RPG or RTS you often feel like you're toying with an elaborate machine and have as much influence over the outcome as you'd like, and so when everything goes to shit you've only yourself to blame. Whereas in another genre that influence is in the hands of the game and the designers - something like infinite respawning waves of enemies until you've done a particular thing that the game didn't tell you that you had to do.

 

As long as it's not genuinely bullshit or offputting I usually just embrace the stupidity and roll with it.

[Floyd]

18 minutes ago, Qazimod said:

I'm not massively familiar with the RE games so I can't comment on that particular example. It sounds like "dumb videogame logic" to me.  In an RPG or RTS you often feel like you're toying with an elaborate machine and have as much influence over the outcome as you'd like, and so when everything goes to shit you've only yourself to blame. Whereas in another genre that influence is in the hands of the game and the designers - something like infinite respawning waves of enemies until you've done a particular thing that the game didn't tell you that you had to do.

 

As long as it's not genuinely bullshit or offputting I usually just embrace the stupidity and roll with it.

 

Yes, that is another way of putting it for sure.  I suppose it the illusion the game is trying to give but I always look for some kind of realism that it makes sesne in the world the game is set.  So using RE4 as an example, when an enemy appears out of nowhere with a chainsaw, even though there's no possible way for that enemy to get there unless it's spawned in. That's what i don't like. I know that enemy has to come from somewhere but it needs to make sense for me. Thats the thing I dont enjoy. Again, I would think I'm in the minority but I'm glad you know what I mean! 

[Soulstar]

This reminds me of a thing that irritated me about Dead Island. There were plenty of times the game spawns a zombie behind you nearby so that you’d potentially hear or not hear a noise and turn only to get attacked unexpectedly. I realised it was spawning when I’d be in areas where I’d cleared everything and there was nothing around only to get suddenly attacked from behind. If it’s a one off set piece trigger then that’s fine but it was sporadic and possibly at specific locations.
 

They also had an endless spawning running type zombie at a certain location which would run after you from a huge distance away and would always appear every few mins or something. In Riptide, the same thing occurred but I could literally see the zombie appear on a roof or something entering the seen out of thin air repeatedly. 

[ImmaculateClump]

What you're describing sounds similar to a lot of old school shmups.

 

Take something like thunder force 3 for example, which I tried playing recently.
It's like "gotcha death traps: the game"
Just a load of untelegraphed "fuck you!" surprises.

 

"Oh, you didn't know an enemy was going to bum-rush you out of nowhere or that lava waterfall was gonna come down on your head? Well, you'll know for next time."
One or two moments like that you could excuse, but it felt like there were like 5 of those per stage.
Such shitty game design. That's not difficulty, that's straight up cuntery.

 

So to clear the game, the best strategy would be to just keep credit feeding through and memorising when and where all the death traps occur, learning your lines off by heart so that you can string it all together in one run.
Does that sound like fun to you?

 

Your game has to be fair and allow time for players to react and improvise their way out of tricky situations, otherwise it's just a rigid test of memorisation where you just feel like you're playing your part in a choreographed dance.

 

I can't remember resi 4 being too bad with this, but I haven't played it since it came out. I remember some of the quick time events being bullshit. Am I on the right track though?

[Benny]

For me the basic essence of the beauty of games is that they *can* drop surprises on you that don't always make sense. As long as the challenge is fair, it's part of what makes them a joy.

[Floyd]

45 minutes ago, Benny said:

For me the basic essence of the beauty of games is that they *can* drop surprises on you that don't always make sense. As long as the challenge is fair, it's part of what makes them a joy.

 

It's not always the surprise out of nowhere though. It could be a number of things. It could also be a set piece or a quick time even that's out of context. I struggle to think of an example at the moment because I cant remember the detail but I want to say the end of GTA 4....but i might be misremembering.

[makkuwata]

I love Gamey gamey games!

 

Spoiler

I’ve fallen pretty far down the online Melbourne comedy rabbit hole over the years tho.

More to the point I bought Gotham Knights on sale at the start of the year and have barely touched it because it feels like an arcade machine in every sense from the aesthetic to the thirst for coins.

[Benny]

That's not a gamey game problem. That's a shit gamey problem.

[Marlowe]

RPGs (unless they're something legitimately role playing like Deus Ex) are the gamiest of all games. You couldn't have picked a worse example.

 

All the worst 'gamified' design of the last 20 years basically boils down to developers forcing so-called RPG elements on games that don't need them. My progression in the game should be as a result of my mastery of the mechanics that are taught to me through clever level design, not from accruing meaningless points.

[Floyd]

10 hours ago, Marlowe said:

RPGs (unless they're something legitimately role playing like Deus Ex) are the gamiest of all games. You couldn't have picked a worse example.

 

All the worst 'gamified' design of the last 20 years basically boils down to developers forcing so-called RPG elements on games that don't need them. My progression in the game should be as a result of my mastery of the mechanics that are taught to me through clever level design, not from accruing meaningless points.

 

I wouldn't consider a game with forced RPG elements to be an RPG. Having levels, crafting and skills points being just another way to manage progression. It's become popular but I don't hate it and I wouldn't call it gamey. However, one persons gameyness idea might differ to another which I can now see.

 

It's interesting to hear others thoughts on it. I don't think a traditional RPG fits what I think a gamey game is 

[Hello Goaty ♥]

Are bits of the entire God Of War series from the PS2 onwards gamey? 

 

an amazing series for sure. But lots of what i ( think ) could be classed as your gamey gamey thingy?

[Pob]

I think I know what you mean @Floyd because I had the same reaction to Resident Evil 4 when it first came out. That game, along with Half Life 2, made me realise what kind of game I really engage with, and it's all to do with player agency and simulated systems vs designer-led experiences and linearity. I think with Resi 4 is was the appearance of a spooky forest at the start with the realisation that only had one path could be taken.

 

My favourite games are stuff like Dishonored, Hitman and MGSV, all of which prioritise systems-based gameplay and player freedom within a sandbox over tightly-controlled scripted moments. They are more like simulations to be toyed with rather than carefully-crafted linear experiences. If bad guys obviously spawned in any of the above games you'd never hear the end of it as it's totally opposed to what those games are about.

[ImmaculateClump]

14 hours ago, Marlowe said:

RPGs (unless they're something legitimately role playing like Deus Ex) are the gamiest of all games. You couldn't have picked a worse example.

 

All the worst 'gamified' design of the last 20 years basically boils down to developers forcing so-called RPG elements on games that don't need them. My progression in the game should be as a result of my mastery of the mechanics that are taught to me through clever level design, not from accruing meaningless points.

Yeah, the first few times you discover new enemies or traps in spelunky would feel like gotcha death traps if it was a short linear game, but because it's procedurally generated and infinitely replayable, those enemies are allowed to be that daunting initially. You teach yourself through your mistakes all the myriad ways of dealing with this new foe.

 

Your progression in the game is your skill in real life and the game is constantly testing that while you're constantly growing it.

 

Lesser roguelites will have permanent progression where you're having to grind away to increase some arbitrary stat point in order to artificially decrease the difficulty of the game and level the playing field between you and the overpowered enemies.

[deerokus]

I'm glad there's been a resurgence in them. I find so little enjoyment in the cinematic/minimalised and very prescribed gameplay style that is also very popular.

[ImmaculateClump]

1 hour ago, Pob said:

I think I know what you mean @Floyd because I had the same reaction to Resident Evil 4 when it first came out. That game, along with Half Life 2, made me realise what kind of game I really engage with, and it's all to do with player agency and simulated systems vs designer-led experiences and linearity.

 

Yes! I think anything that's too rigid and forces you to do exactly what the developer intended is gamey to me.

[deerokus]

1 minute ago, ImmaculateClump said:

 

Yes! I think anything that's too rigid and forces you to do exactly what the developer intended is gamey to me.

It's interesting. I think of that as the exact opposite. There's no game there.

[ImmaculateClump]

Yeah, we might all be taking the term "gamey" to just mean "bad game design" and we'll all have our own idea of what that is.

Still interesting to see what people think though.

[Don Rosco]

2 hours ago, Floyd said:

 

I wouldn't consider a game with forced RPG elements to be an RPG. Having levels, crafting and skills points being just another way to manage progression. It's become popular but I don't hate it and I wouldn't call it gamey. However, one persons gameyness idea might differ to another which I can now see.

 

It's interesting to hear others thoughts on it. I don't think a traditional RPG fits what I think a gamey game is 

 

100% agree with @Marlowe. All those things (levels, crafting, currencies, +2 fire damage for your mace, -2 ice resistance for your shinpads...) really get in the way of the game for me, whether it's linear or open world. It feels gamey in terms of it's really explicitly letting you know it's a game designed by a human, but also like work. 

[CheekyLee]

Videogames have been steadily going downhill since IGN gave God Hand a 3/10 and nobody bought it. AAA has become more about "spectacle", whatever that actually means, and the minute-to-minute gameplay has often seemed to be the least important part of the whole package. Witness this year's biggest game, Hogwarts Legacy. Walking around Hogwarts is amazing, but there is just so much stuff piled on for the sake of being piled on because that's what games have in them now. Collectathons with no actual real benefit. Stats that don't make any kind of difference. Your first duel with your fellow students feels great, but that's as deep as the combat system gets. I personally bounced off the game far too quickly, because it felt more like a checklist than an actual exploration. All of the fun was in the presentation.

 

Know what game I couldn't stay away from this year, though? Hi-Fi Rush! In this one, I always felt like I was the one in charge, making the decisions, and tailoring my combat to follow my own style instead of what the game wanted me to because that's what it has planned around. Any challenge the game gave me was one that I could overcome just by improving my own ability.

 

Whereas HL threw a bunch of spiders at me that I couldn't deal with until I moved the story on far enough to learn the first fire spell, at which point the insurmountable become almost trivial.

 

Both are "games", and while I don't know precisely what you may mean by "gamey", I know what I would mean by the word. My suspicion is that you don't like games that have decided that there is a correct way to do things, and that you are going to do what the developer expects no matter what else you may have in mind. Such games don't respect the player, and it's one of the reasons why an incredible game like Elden Ring drew criticism from Western game devs for not following the rules they like to impose upon players.

[metallicfrodo]

On 30/03/2023 at 16:31, CheekyLee said:

an incredible game like Elden Ring drew criticism from Western game devs for not following the rules they like to impose upon players.

Did it? Which western game devs out of interest?

[metallicfrodo]

On 30/03/2023 at 16:31, CheekyLee said:

 

Know what game I couldn't stay away from this year, though? Hi-Fi Rush! In this one, I always felt like I was the one in charge, making the decisions, and tailoring my combat to follow my own style instead of what the game wanted me to because that's what it has planned around. Any challenge the game gave me was one that I could overcome just by improving my own ability.

 

I adore Hi-Rush, but it could be argued that it’s still got some of the gamey things, that for example @Marlowe was riling against. You have a limited set of moves at the start of the game and you need to collect ‘currency’ to buy additional ones. There are other collectibles as well that increase your health and your special bar. You are fundamentally a stronger character at the end of the game than you were at the beginning. I don’t have an issue with that personally as I think it helps in not overwhelming the character when it comes to move sets, but the health/special thing makes the game ‘easier’ arguably on repeat of levels.

Picking on Marlow again (sorry you just expressed it the most forcefully) I do wonder if you hate Metroidvanias, as the main premise of those is enhancing the abilities of you character.

[Yobo Ahoy]

On 29/03/2023 at 16:39, Benny said:

For me the basic essence of the beauty of games is that they *can* drop surprises on you that don't always make sense. As long as the challenge is fair, it's part of what makes them a joy.

 

I'm playing Days Gone at the moment, it's very much a gamey game but I encountered a horde quite early on in the game (before the game tells you what a horde is, and definitely before I was equipped to deal with it) and absolutely shit myself. 

[Gabe]

On 30/03/2023 at 16:31, CheekyLee said:

Videogames have been steadily going downhill since IGN gave God Hand a 3/10 and nobody bought it. AAA has become more about "spectacle", whatever that actually means, and the minute-to-minute gameplay has often seemed to be the least important part of the whole package. Witness this year's biggest game, Hogwarts Legacy. Walking around Hogwarts is amazing, but there is just so much stuff piled on for the sake of being piled on because that's what games have in them now. Collectathons with no actual real benefit. Stats that don't make any kind of difference. Your first duel with your fellow students feels great, but that's as deep as the combat system gets. I personally bounced off the game far too quickly, because it felt more like a checklist than an actual exploration. All of the fun was in the presentation.

 

Know what game I couldn't stay away from this year, though? Hi-Fi Rush! In this one, I always felt like I was the one in charge, making the decisions, and tailoring my combat to follow my own style instead of what the game wanted me to because that's what it has planned around. Any challenge the game gave me was one that I could overcome just by improving my own ability.

 

Whereas HL threw a bunch of spiders at me that I couldn't deal with until I moved the story on far enough to learn the first fire spell, at which point the insurmountable become almost trivial.

 

Both are "games", and while I don't know precisely what you may mean by "gamey", I know what I would mean by the word. My suspicion is that you don't like games that have decided that there is a correct way to do things, and that you are going to do what the developer expects no matter what else you may have in mind. Such games don't respect the player, and it's one of the reasons why an incredible game like Elden Ring drew criticism from Western game devs for not following the rules they like to impose upon players.

What rules does Elden Ring supposedly break?

[matt0]

My own personal definition of "gamey-ness" has always been a positive thing, tied to the development of games through the 80s to the mid 00s.

 

I'm playing through the Wii version of RE4 now because I wanted to play the original before the remake and that's peak gamey-ness for me.

 

Like the merchant seemingly finding the time to plonk down massive blue glowing braziers wherever he sets up shop. You enter an area all tensed up, and you turn the corner and see that blue flame, and you know you can relax. It doesn't make sense, if you think about it, it runs counter to the whole atmosphere they're trying to set up, but it works as a visual component in a game - like an 90s arcade "GO >>>" signal, or the checkpoint pole in a 2D Sonic game.

 

I like the pacing of the combat. Moment to moment it's very slow and deliberate. But with constant sense of time pressure and you need to always be thinking about positioning and what enemies outside your field of vision might be doing. It creates this strange feeling of nightmare logic and inevitably. The game is about stopping the monsters from getting you, but they're going to get you!. So even though it's not exactly a scary game it's always a tense one. Going back I was sceptical I'd feel the old magic but it's still there, mostly because it's such a specific, designed physical reality.

 

It's a fun game.

 

The arcade lightgun game style touches, like shooting the axes out of the air, or the over the top canned hit reaction animations. Or you shoot the  head off an enemy, and they continue along the same walking animation for a few seconds before falling down, House of the Dead style. There's a feel to this kind of action that doesn't quite carry through to modern games, and I suspect I'll find it lacking in the RE4 remake. It lives in the limitations. Enemies that flick between discreet animation states and those restricted controls. You need to either have played it on release or to be able to appreciate what it does with the technology of the day (and still get hyped about that) to get a sense of how exciting RE4 was and still can be. 

 

[Benny]

Amazingly enough the remake manages to recapture that and more.

[CheekyLee]

8 hours ago, metallicfrodo said:

Did it? Which western game devs out of interest?

 

5 hours ago, Gabe said:

What rules does Elden Ring supposedly break?

https://www.sportskeeda.com/esports/horizon-forbidden-west-ubisoft-developers-criticize-elden-ring-game-s-quest-design-ux

 

The Horizon guy got pretty shot down for his comments, to be fair, and has since (wisely) protected the account. But, it wasn't a smart move. Trusting players to find their own way through is one area in which From's games truly shine.

[Camel]

I don’t really feel qualified to comment as I don’t really play modern games these days and don't own a current gen machine, but give me gameyness every time; giant roast chickens in oil drums, big pointy arrows telling me which way to go and logic that makes naff all sense in the real world.