Every game is the "same"

Post Reply New Topic

Just the same roughly monsters in sequels to Pokemon or Monster Hunter games. (with some new ones tossed in)

open field/city how many of those? RDR/GTA/Witcher/Skyrim

RPG fire/blizzard/thunder attack magic

FPS lazer guns/"real life" guns/rocket launcher type guns

Look another indy that claw at your notstalgia for past systems NES/SNES/N64 looking games.

Mario/Zelda Ice desert level/dungeon

Look flame mario again!

That is probably why game companies sometimes change the theme in the game to make it different. I played Kirby Planet Robobot and I noticed it was the same as Triple Deluxe because of the way you have to collect things on each level to unlock an extra level and collecting medals/stickers. But the earlier games were like the same because you played through each course and collect stars and defeat enemies and defeat enemies in the middle of levels to proceed in the game. Then there is Kirby's Avalanche which is like Dr. Robotnick and the Mean Bean Machine and there are several other games like that. Then there is Kirby's Dream Course which is like miniature golfing. Then there is Kirby's Super Star and Kirby Star Stacker and Kirby Tilt N Tumble so that was different than the other Kirby games and then they made a Kirby Racing game which was a cancelled N64 title but then went back to making it deciding to release it for Gamecube. Then there is Rainbow Curse and Canvas Curse. Both the same. So I know what you mean even if they do use a different theme.

The majority of games will fall into a certain category or genre apart but if you are looking for games that challenge the meta, you should consider immersive sims.

http://www.pcgamer.com/history-of-the-b ... sive-sims/

And yet, every game is different from the other.

Many games have similar graphics and gameplay options, but they also have many many differences!

Pokemon/Monster Hunter = Pokemon has changed a bit over the years, but the same concept of catching and battling is still there. I can't comment on Monster Hunter, never tried that series.

Open field = the open world/sandbox style games generally have different themes and gameplay. GTA is set in a big city and is violence based with silly stuff. Witcher is fantasy based and so on.

RPG = many do use the standard fire, lightning and ice/elemental theme, but there is plenty that don't.

FPS = while many do feature the same weapons usually, there is usually some FPS games that are different. However this genre of games has been super oversaturated for a while now. So many of the games do feel the same, but its what sells.. so the game makers don't change things unfortunately. I swear it feels like every FPS is either based on a war in history or has a science fiction theme. They should change it up!

Indy with nostalgia = its a graphics style. Many people enjoy that style rather than realistic graphics and whatnot. There is plenty of great indy games that make it work. On the other hand- there is many many that are horrible and clearly just a cashgrab to suck in people that like the graphics.

Zelda/Mario = once again, its similar but certainly not the same.


Overall- games do look the same a lot, but certainly don't play the same! People will say "Mario is always the same" or "Pokemon is always the same" when they bash Nintendo. But most of it is ignorance in my view. The series have gone through a ton of changes! Plus if they change the game too much, fans will hate it. Keeping things the same to a point is a great way to do a sequel. The old phrase "if its not broke, don't fix it" rings quite true here.

I think people need to try harder to find games they enjoy, rather than bashing ones they either don't know about, grew tired of or simply don't play.

These games being "the same" is really just how this works alot of the time... and in some ways is easily explained.

Looking at things being the same from one Pokemon / MH game to the next, for instance: One thing that a good designer DOES NOT DO is change things up too much from one game to it's direct sequel. This is most prominent when the characters/elements of that game are well known. You risk angering the consumer by removing their favorite characters or whatever from the game, and an angered consumer is not a money-spending consumer. Hell, I've done that, not buying such-and-such game because certain characters will removed. I can think of one particular one right now that angers the hell out of me and that I will not speak of... and certainly refuse to buy. Devs dont want that. Pokemon gets around this by sometimes shifting "regions" a bit but even then, there's usually some way to get all of them in there even if some of that is post-story stuff. Monster Hunter just wouldnt be the same without things like the Rathalos, or other monsters that have become well known. They're iconic staples of the series.


Indie games: The actual reason why many of them use a so-called "retro" style is actually NOT because they're specifically after that retro appeal, but because it's very, very dramatically easier to create. It takes less time and costs much less to produce graphics of that sort, while at the same time looking quite nice. This is why it's so very, very common to do this. "Minimalist" graphics are popular for the very same reason. Typically, if you encounter an indie developer that isnt doing one of these things with a 2D game, either A: they have more money than usual and are well established, or B: they have a really silly amount of time on their hands, but this also means they probably develop very very slowly. There's the occaisional exception to these rules, but even those exceptions usually are restricted in some way.

FPS: The genre exploded. Too popular = repetition, when it comes to the AAA guys. Until the current trends stop working, they're GOING to keep doing this. That being said, recently there have been a few more games than usual where the devs seem kinda fed up with those trends, and they're going in different directions instead. The recent Doom for example basically just said "SCREW THAT ALL TO HELL" and utterly ignored damn near all of the trends that evolved since the previous games (heck, you dont even reload). Except for it's multiplayer mode, but.... we dont talk about it's multiplayer mode (which was made by a seperate developer). Indie games in particular often do bizarre things in this genre, and there's actually ALOT of them (and when it comes to FPS games, these are almost all of what I play, as I'm tired of "realistic" war games, and the AAA guys aint doing much else outside of Doom and Overwatch) but you're not going to hear about it, because the big FPS games are too busy dominating. Want a good example of an FPS that isnt the norm? Look up a game called "Heavy Bullets". That's just the start.


RPGs: Yeah, even to me these really do look the same. But then I dont give a fart about story-focused games, so.... of course they're going to look the same to me. I typically just see these as a boring pile of cutscenes that I'm not going to bother watching. I wish friends of mine would stop yammering about the damn things at me (heck, I've been avoiding all of my friends for like 3 weeks straight because Steam points out that ALL of them are playing Skyrim over and over, and if I go near them, they'll NEVER SHUT UP ABOUT IT, and I cant stand that game). I dont know what the hell they think they're going to accomplish.... but that's a different rant.


And games like Mario/Zelda, well... established mechanics/worlds and stuff like that. That being said, even those series shift things around from one game to the next in various ways. Just not really huge amounts, as that would probably just hurt things.

Um, you guys are all missing the real reason: repeating things with minor cosmetic changes is CHEAP. You don't need to hire a ton of programmers to develop new mechanics, you just slap a few new skins on pre-existing crap, fix a few bugs and call it "new". Yes, the game franchise you're into now probably hasn't changed mechanically in half a decade-- that's how the industry churns profits.

Edit: games aren't a perishable product-- the industry knows you'll buy decade old, rotten, molding Mario if they package it in a shiny box and make it the new "have to have" with a media blitz.

I don't agree with this completely.

Yes things don't change because its what sells. However- if many people enjoy the game, why should the game maker change? For the small amount of whiners? I don't think so. Selling well means they are doing something right, even if whiners and/or trolls don't want to admit it.

As for your reference to Mario- yes Nintendo does re-release Mario stuff a bit. Original Mario was on many many things, as were its sequels. Plus the NES Mini is coming soon with plenty of old classics. The media will promote it but people DO have minds of their to decide. Commercials, websites and everything else do make a difference when it comes to sales. However most people do know what they like, so they arent going to blindly buy stuff just because its hyped up (yes there is exceptions- parents buying random games for their kids, certain gamers that literally buy any AAA title because their friends have it, etc). I think the fact the original Mario games still hold up to this day is a good sign that classic games can be sold still.

I do agree somewhat the industry has gotten lazy. It's easier to pump out a remaster of a last gen game. It's easier to add a few new things to a game and call it a sequel. However the stuff does sell and has worked. So I highly doubt its going to change anytime soon. I honestly think people should just move on and enjoy more indy games, replay games you do enjoy, etc. There is a million (or close to it) different games on consoles, PC and mobile at this point I would bet. You are bound to find a bunch you can enjoy!

Yep.

It's not even just that it's easier for those big companies though... they've actually hit a point where they almost have no choice at all. The games have gotten to the point where the cost is so ridiculously high, that trying to make a NEW thing is just too much risk to do very often. Because they'd have to spend a deeply stupid amount of money making a new thing at that level... but "new" things are untested. They have no idea if the consumers are going to react well, or even care. So they're unable to do that very often at all.

....But yes there's also the laziness. Why get off the easy-paced treadmill to get on the fast, hard one when you dont have to?

Whenever people start bringing up this whole "repetition" and things-getting-old topic, I always say the same thing: Try out more indie games. That's where the real variety is, and there's about a squillion of them. Of all genres Even I, negative as I am, find so many of these that I buy games FREQUENTLY now... and I'm rarely disappointed.

Not that anyone ever actually takes that advice, mind you. I cant remember even one instance where someone did.



Though again, in response to the post above yours, I'll reiterate that repetition is not always a bad thing. It works out for the consumer sometimes. Mario games for instance. I love Mario's platformers. I'll buy them. I know that what I'm going to get out of them is almost always good, even great. I know how they work, I know the formula, and I tend to like (usually) the new bits that are inserted into each new game. Some franchises are like that... where it's something that GENUINELY works instead of just being lazy. Pokemon and Zelda (though I dont play Zelda) are like that too.