Why is the concept of gameplay density so hard to accept for modern gamers? Is it that hard to accept that games that are actually good don't have filler? Is it hard to believe that games can actually be fun and not bloated messes that satisfy no one?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Modern 'gamers' are allergic to gameplay. You could try to make them play picrel and they would be utterly confused by the simplicity of it, they just can't stomach pure, unfiltered gameplay.
>There are no modern beat 'em ups
>Ninja Gaiden
>shilling cutscene sloppa
No thanks, "bro!"
Disingenuous Black person. You can skip the cutscenes and the game never forces story on you.
It's less dense and you're a casual, have a nice day
You control the gameplay density. No reason to argue that optional cutscenes renders the game to have less density unless *you*, are a casual homosexual. End your life.
If you have to even spend a single frame to skip a cutscene, then it's less dense. Keep coping you casual fricking homosexual, and suck down the cutscene sloppa that you love so much.
You're still a intellectually dishonest moron. It's not "cutscene sloppa" to have cutscenes at the end of levels, 99% of the game is gameplay.
>only 99% gameplay
EEEYIKESS!!!
Sounds like non-gameplay-dense slop to me.
you dont get to post that after you already swallowed the bait five times in a row
Correct, but that particular time it became too obvious and I had to do it. What other recourse is there?
Did it really take you so long to figure it out, moron newbie?
>only 99%
Then
It's
Sloppa
You're admitting for yourself that it's less dense
>be me
>zoom
>sometime in high school NSO NES drops
>see ninja gaiden
>play it
>actually like it, simple but challenging and didn't feel ridiculously bullshit about it
>never got around to beating it though bc i was sidetracked by picrel
what does this make me
I was always Ryan. This game is so much fricking fun
This reminds me of Ninja Gaiden 3 Razor's Edge.
That game stripped out all exploration, puzzles and extra elements in favor of making the whole game a giant gantlet with non-stop combat.
It's exhausting as frick to play because the combat is still complicated.
>posts the very first movie game
Ninja Gaiden constantly had cutscenes homie
An entire catalogue of NES games out there full of gameplay til the moment you power the system off and you chose this one
Jaquio filtered me hard. But was a wild ride up until the fight.
What genre would be a solid blue block?
a fighting game without cinematic supers and with combos that are interactive for the victim.
Melee?
Platform party brawlers are not fighting games
Uh oh!
I don't like how the characters look in 2
>game in which you fight
>not a fighting game
Develop better language for it then homosexual. Deep Rock Galactic is a fighting game.
Genre exists independent of whatever names we give them. Similar items are observedly clustered, the names we use are for categorization first and only at best secondarily for description, much less PREscription.
I Strategize in Real Time when I play fighting games, shooters, beat 'em ups, etc. and there is Rhythm involved in combos in any game that has them. Every genre title can be dismantled in this way if you're a sufficiently disingenuous fricktard.
>beat 'em ups let you stand still between fights, and this is the same as actual downtime between meaningful gameplay
At that point you might as well say anything with a pause button has "downtime"
I'll admit that for beat em ups it was nitpicking but i wanted to be as precise as possible
I did play it but surely didn't finish it, i know how it works though and it does get more difficult because some enemy patterns change
Le poker face
Why is this such a meme argument on this board anyway?
I don't really feel strongly about the issue, but it seems like people like you get really upset by this semantics bullshit
I just don't understand it.
it's like people going nuclear over rouge-like / rogue-lite / whatever
Roguelike vs roguelites is understandable though, roguelikes at least give you nothing for free, if you want to finish them you get no help since permadeath and no unlocks or memeshit like that, though the only roguelike that i would consider to be a good game is DCSS since it makes grinding unnecessary and even potentially harmful.
rhythm/dance games that let you import your own songs (Vib Ribbon, etc)
Competitive RTS titles.
shooters
Shmups
Shmups/rhythm/puzzle/lightgun games since they have literally zero downtime and always require your full attention, every other answer is wrong.
beat em ups you homosexual
Tetris
Every game that has autoscrolling or autodropping (?) is a solid blue block to be quite honest
>the more decisions that need to be made and the more critical those decisions are in order to achieve this the better the gameplay
That is correct, i'd also focus on critical decisions, 99% of AAA titles are snoozefests because you can make a lot of decisions but basically none of them matter either because they lack difficulty or they provide zero benefit, they just there to inflate the game's length.
So by that definition the best gameplay ever made is a button-masher where you get a point every time you mash it and the second you stop mashing it you lose. It has an incredibly high decision-making rate and choosing not to press the button results in a instant loss so the criticality of doing so pretty much can't get any higher than that.
So is this peak gameplay? Like realistically? I'm sure you could do it with neurons to make it faster, or have some guy with a gun shoot you in the head if you fail, but again, realistically.
anything multiplayer and used for esports
single player games don't come close except for rhythm games
>anything multiplayer and used for esports
Shit like Counter Strike certainly isn't, you spend time running around through corridors to set up camping/waiting
The gameplay is all in metagaming and anticipating enemy player movements
What player movements are going to occur in the first let's say 10 seconds of a match? Do you have a crystal ball that let's you know exactly where the enemy team is going to be? No, all the teams are doing is setting up their strategy, its dead time.
Stylish action, fighting games, RTS games, rhythm games
The foxbox in Balan Wonderworld
good puzzle games
physics-based action games
?si=A1GxTYw4uvp5JMjj
None of those options in the image are inherently superior to any other. Saying 'my game has more dots than your game' means nothing.
How would you feel right now if you hadn't eaten breakfast yesterday?
Waa waa buy into my random criteria for what a game should be.
Sorry, I like space between my dots. have a nice day.
Answer the question.
you sound like you play overwatch and complain about pvp
>didn't eat breakfast yesterday
But seriously i get why people get tired of videogames if all they play is open world/western slop, they are starved of quality gameplay.
>ooga booga bix nood neeeguh!
Sad!
Probably the same because I would have just eaten a bigger lunch that day
>food analogy
I haven't eaten breakfast for like 17 years, now what?
And how do you feel?
The same as always. How about you anon, how do you feel?
Alright, glad it's a Friday. Not glad I have 7 hours more work to get through but at least there's enough downtime in it to let me shitpost. I've been annoyed lately because I've been really struggling to get up on time, though.
I didn't eat breakfast, who cares?
You should be skipping breakfast. It being the most important meal of the day is propaganda put out by cereal companies and grocery chains trying to get you to buy a frickton. No one should be eating those absurd breakfasts you see in sitcoms and shit, at MOST it should be like a yogurt in the morning if you're hungry.
bro I never eat breakfast
but i did eat breakfast yesterday
I don't unnastan, I ate breffist yesterday
My stomach would have growled once or twice but overall I probably would not have cared since I've been overeating lately and could use a pause.
I'm eating breakfast right now.
Don't @ me.
Yesterday? The question is 'this morning' moron, skipping breakfast a day ago wouldn't have any effect
i don't get it
is it another one of those forced memes? even worse, will they succeed even for a short time like the "keyed-locked" homosexual did?
Sounds like yesterday me's problem.
How would you feel if you could come up with something original instead of parroting the algorithm you fricking NPC?
im jerking off right now so im feeling really good you stupid twitter Black person
He's saying your game has less gameplay per dollar.
Games aren't solely about being constantly engaged. This isn't the 80s. SM64 could have just teleported you from one level to another, but they realized the movement was so fun that it makes traversing the hub an enjoyable part of the gameplay. Again, these ideas concepts, and executions have evolved since arcade cabinets. Shocker, I know. Truly wild.
Super Mario 64 is a very arcadey game with free form and dense gameplay thoughbeit
Its less dense than 2D Mario games, modern Mario games even less since its open world and it has very low difficulty.
people look for different things. some want a story, some an immersive atmosphere, some to just relax, some pure gameplay and a tough challenge. *that*'s what seems hard to accept for some people.
Modern 'gamers' are allergic to gameplay. You could try to make them play picrel and they would be utterly confused by the simplicity of it, they just can't stomach pure, unfiltered gameplay.
That thing always felt like a necessary update.
The original version with just bop it, pull it, and twist it could be held in such a way that you had a hand on all three parts simultaneously.
Cutting out the travel time of your hands entirely made the reaction time necessary significantly more lax.
have you seen nu bop it
it has motion control commands
one of them is "selfie it"
suck it
>do what the master says or fail
Bop It is the definition of "no fun allowed".
I don't care about quality. I just want more everything to feed my endless hunger.
Modern 'gamers' are allergic to gameplay. You could try to make them play picrel and they would be utterly confused by the simplicity of it, they just can't stomach pure, unfiltered gameplay.
Which game
Thud!
people don't want to pay $60 for a 20 minute game (classic arcade)
It used to be that you'd get a whole compilation disk for the price of a game, during the PS2 era
They hated him because he told the truth.
People who say arcade games are shit, are shit themselves. They don't even attempt to have fun with the game, they play with savestates every 5 seconds and try to beat it as fast as possible without exploring the mechanics at all. They want the thrill of beating a game without having to play it, so their opinion on the game is automatically wrong. Its like if I watched a movie but refused to look at it and just listened for most it, then skipped any scene without any dialogue, and then fast forwarded through the fights. Its just a moronic way to enjoy the thing. But its considered normal for arcade games. Any game that demands more than 2 braincells gets called "Artificial difficulty" and "quarter muncher". Modern players think failstates are bad game design.
They're not shit but they objectively involve a lot of trial & error. Whether you consider that artificial difficulty is up to you.
>Have to memorize enemy spawns to avoid the various "gotcha" moments
>Have to memorize enemy (boss) attacks
>Realistically, you're forced to restart time and time again, each time making it a bit further, until you learn all of this
>Additionally a skill check of 30 minutes to a few hours where screwing up again sends you to the beginning
>Skill transfers poorly between games due to varying mechanics
For the most part, I don't feel like actually using all that time to beat the game, memorizing things I will never have any use for again, and learning mechanics I will never have any use for again. Sometimes I still do. And with something like shmups you just kind of get better at the genre overall so there's SOME skill transfer, which feels rewarding.
Funnily enough, completing especially an old arcade game most probably still takes you way less than 100%ing some modern open world game, though. But also
>Old games did this so they could squeeze a lot of time spent/replayability into what little storage space they had to work with or so you'd spend a lot of money at the arcade while trial&erroring this shit, not because it was fun/good
you don't HAVE to do any of that. Thats your limited skill deciding for you. There are VERY few unavoidable enemies in arcade games.
>For the most part, I don't feel like actually using all that time to beat the game
so... don't play the game.How is this such a hard concept? The game is too hard for you, you lose, move on. don't go online and shit on the game.
>There are VERY few unavoidable enemies in arcade games.
You're full of shit if you're seriously claiming that there isn't a lot of trial and error involved in old arcade games. I'm talking about things like shmups and platformers like Super Ghouls 'n Ghosts.
>Be in wrong part of the screen when some gimmick enemy/stage thing shows up and you just get fricked
Wow I really should have foreseen that with my superior gamer skills
>Be in wrong part of the screen when some gimmick enemy/stage thing shows up and you just get fricked
you see it as a gimmick because you lack critical thinking skills. You equate dying a few times to dying over and over.
You expect to be able to beat a game without dying once, so you're just wrong. I'm sorry but this isn't really an argument. In every super ghouls and ghosts fight you can hang back and look at the boss pattern. Its hard but that's not the game's problem, its YOURS. There's just no other way to put it than Get Good. Games expect a certain level of patience and critical thinking ability to enjoy, you can die a lot and still have fun and learn from the experience, or you can see it as "trial and error" and play the entire game as an arbitrary series of inputs without a narrative or flow.
You're not really even disagreeing with much of what I'm saying. You're just assuming things about me and trying to attack me by shooting to see what sticks.
>you can die a lot and still have fun and learn from the experience
Yes you can. You can just also not, depending on the game. And dying to the wave on the first stage of SG&G doesn't teach me anything about Joe&Mac 2, in terms of learning from the experience.
As usual on this site, you have a really black&white view of everything. There are plenty of older and newer arcade (style) games I find fun and have completed, both as an adult with or without save states and as a kid certainly without any. There are also many I just don't find worth the time and effort because it doesn't feel fun and the game just isn't that good.
I like challenge in my games and there's plenty of games I like improving in because it's fun to LE GIT GUD in some games, especially ones I regularly play because that's rewarding and I have further uses for said skills. And sometimes I play things that are just relaxing because I don't feel like actually trying and just want to unwind.
>Yes you can. You can just also not, depending on the game. And dying to the wave on the first stage of SG&G doesn't teach me anything about Joe&Mac 2, in terms of learning from the experience.
lol
No, arcade game design IS genuinely outdated in the sense that the overwhelming majority of arcade games and arcade-style games would not lose out on anything if they were structured around checkpoints rather than having to beat the entire game in a single 30+ minute go. There's no reason why games like Dodonpachi and Streets of Rage couldn't have some kind of checkpoint mode.
I'm saying this because only a rare handful of arcade games are actually designed to take full advantage of their long runtime and actually justify making you replay the game from scratch each time you die. You wouldn't put checkpoints in Tetris, because Tetris is designed around your decisions literally piling up.
Meanwhile most arcade games are already very divided up in a way that they wouldn't lose anything if they took the Meat Boy/Hotline Miami-structure of high difficulty combined with little margin of error and very frequent checkpoints. They would even benefit from it, because by splitting up the game into many smaller chunks, such a structure would allow for more intense iteration of the game's own mechanics while also providing more space to have a smooth ramp-up in difficulty and teaching you how the game actually works now that they aren't limited to having 30-50 minute runtimes and existing in the arcades. Kusoge like Gradius would work better as a puzzle game with 1000+ rooms, rather than having to 1cc 50 of them.
Imagine if the only way to play Hotline Miami was the arcade way. You'd start with three lives and keep dying because you don't know the routes. The only way to make any progress is to enter Practice Mode and autistically grind routes for each mission. Then you hope you can do it all consistently in one go, because otherwise arcade cult groomers will unperson you. That is what it is actually like to 1cc your average STG, but the tah-pir cult will gladly force everyone to buckbreak themselves into doing this just to strike back at modern gaming.
>The only way to make any progress is to enter Practice Mode
there you go again with your definitive statements. You talk as if you represent the average gamer, when you're actually the average casual.
You're actually moronic and I doubt you've ever set foot inside an arcade in your life.
Arcade games for consoles exist you know
arcade ganes are designed to take your money one quarter at a time
>it's a treadmill
Arcade design is infinite!
THIS.
thank you, anon.
These are the same people who can't wrap their brains around even the easier fighting games
Or the easiest shmups, that's why they ultimately try an euroshmup and then quit.
I've got my own
>F2P phone games
Take out a third of the dots and replace them with ads
>f2p
You're being too generous
pretty smart
Funny thing is this still makes arcade games look better
Zero depth?
Depth in videogames doesn't mean what you think
For the reasons i mentioned, sure you could speedrun it but that's not the intended way to play it
>you could speedrun it
bruh it was first playtrough, while listening to sound bites and outro
Then its a piss easy game
Beat em ups often do not have forced scrolling and the time limit is only a big factor is some of them
the only thing AAA companies got is graphics
they are glorified movies and tv shows with famous actors
gameplay will always come after story in AAA
if you want pure gameplay then indie games got you covered
>classic arcade
Add a coin every other gameplay ball and you got something realistic
OP is a moron that has been trying for months to push this dumb ass narrative in the hopes of getting one of the plethora of ecelebs who rip their content straight from Ganker to make a video on it btw
The picture in OP already comes from a YouTuber
Helldivers 2 is basically the block on the right but Ganker won't say it
didn't expect people here of all places to be nostalgic for the original microtransactions
access the whole game for a quarter vs. access a new outfit for one character for $30
if someone asked me if I would rather spend a quarter to play my favorite game every time I booted up versus there being an outfit in that game which costs a million dollars, im choosing the latter every time. I can just not buy that outfit and save thousands of quarters.
That's because you're stupid
Do you really think people ITT actually seek out real arcade machines? No, they just play them in mame and press 5+1 for free
IGNORE TWITTER THREADS
>more reasonable and well-argued
Look I arranged the dots on MY side more tightly! That means its better!!
Yes because arcade games are typically 20-40 minutes long but with more mechanics, depth, and challenge, than the average bloated 40 hour AAA game
Literally nobody here can counter his argument.
It's like this picture, it still can't be refuted to this day.
>10min
More like 25-50 minutes.
whats complex about 626?
Arcade Games are the "Ow, My Balls!" of gaming.
You sound like a gay and your shit's all moronic.
The accuracy of that twitter post is surgical.
idk what he's saying
I just enjoy playing games with my mom
literally who, and whats his point?
Stick to platformers and side-scrollers then you autistic moron.
>what don't modern film viewers get?! Sound and color only degrade the experience!
This is what you sound like, stupid homosexual.
This, there is a reason no one talks about loading up ghouls n ghosts in their free time.
Because people that have enjoyed Ghouls n Ghosts are satisfied with the deep and rich experience that it provides and move on to enjoy other high density games. Not everything needs to be artificially prolonged to last hundreds of hours.
>deep and rich experience
You speak as if you haven't played it. We're not talking about Super.
They do though
arcade games are so simplistic, you can create an infinite amount of content. of course, unless you're going for a high score or are an autist, you'll be bored after 10 mins.
after you learn it maybe.
using 10 continues means you didn't beat the game
See what happened? The further video games strayed from the arcade the more it appealed to women.
This homie don't know shit about how much b***hes loved Pac-Man
Tetris on og gameboy was extremely popular with women too.
Gameplay is more than just combat therefore this premise is moronic.
Open world in practice just makes the character a cursor that takes 5 minutes to select the next point of interest.
Filler and padding is not fun.
fun =/= gameplay
>I hate games that require me to actively engage with them and only "play" movie games
We know.
morons, that's not the point.
Do you find combat fun in every single game? Probably not, some games have shit combat and everyone has different tastes but that doesn't make it not gameplay.
Then these games are just shit, but a game with no gameplay is just a movie or a visual novel.
Yes, but that's not what you said, is it?
Game with 100% gameplay no filler can be just shit and no fun so "gameplay = fun" is something only a moron would say.
>NOOOOOO YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO AGREE WITH ME ON CERTAIN POINTS
If a game has bad gameplay then you should skip it. Don't tell me you want to play it for the story right? Wrong industry
>Do you find combat fun in every single game?
If the game has shit gameplay why the frick would I play it?
The problem is if its a movie game with mediocre combat, you can digest all of it, in a 4k rendered youtube video.
Go watch "GoW ragnarok full movie" on youtube in 4k and it will look pretty much indistinguishable from the game on 1080p.
So what if you miss out on some press X interactive events?
fun = gameplay
if you think otherwise you were a child with downs who favorite game is minecrap
go buy some real legos
Bad example, minecrap is actually pure gameplay with 0 cutscenes, 0 forced walking sections, and 0 pointless dialogue.
minecrap is 0 gameplay unless you are playing creative but since everyone who plays that crap has down syndrome and autism they play survival so they can build shit 400 hours later
you dont get to decide what gameplay is or isn't dumb Black person.
yeah I do
walking simulators aren't video games now go have a nice day
>arcade games lost to this
And now people in the west are wondering why pozzed studios and sony are failing to make sales and laying off employees.
McDonald's is popular because people are too stupid to cook their own food
>10 second climbing section
Wow what a horrific waste of time!
In the original if i remember well you went up a ladder and that was it, its fake gameplay just there to keep the player awake.
Yes, now put 500 of these sections throughout the game.
Holding your analogue stick to one direction for 5 minutes between actual gameplay parts isn't gameplay. Many open world games has auto ride horses in the first place.
>cutscenes
>slow walkie talkie sections
>riding horse through an empty world
>holding analog stick as your character automatically climbs and scales terrain
>gameplay
Absolute state of modern gamers
I don't necessarily think a game needs to be dense, a game just needs to know when to stop.
I've posted before but I consider Metal Gear Solid 3 to be the longest (in terms of "content runtime") good game, and honestly, you aren't engaging in the mechanics, or even playing at all for a large chunk of that.
It is just ridiculous to think anything can sustain these gigantic 50+ hour runtimes and it isn't "bad value" if a game elects to trim the fat and adopt an all killer no filler mindset.
But gamers are brainlet ass motherfrickers who try to reduce everything to a price/longevity ratio like they are buying a frickin washing machine or something and it aggravates the frick out of me.
>morons don't understand a game is boring because it's 20-300 hours long and most of it is doing literally nothing
Why is classic arcade a Black person fix that shit jamie
If your gameplay is shit (which is the case for 99% of old arcade games) then having high gameplay density means you only have a lot of shit.
When I was a kid I thought who the hell is going to be watching movies in the future when we can play them. I like games across all 3 densities, the less dense ones effectively make action movies and TV obsolete.
>WAAAAAAH ARCADE GAMES ARE SHIT EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NEVER PLAYED ANY OF THEM!!!!
>proceeds to pay $69.99 for pure unfiltered AAA slop
Man, I was so hopeful that FF7R would learn from its mistakes for the second part, not embrace the mistakes and double down.
Well it's still being directed by Nomura so I'm not sure how you could think it would improve
Hope isn't rational.
I just hoped for a better game than what we had last time, despite all evidence to the opposite.
>hey you know that part of MGSV everyone hated
>yeah, lets do that but make the movement even slower
Dense gameplay != good game.
>no plasma example
weak
Why does Ganker love to pretend single player slop which is designed for a person to beat is ever hard?
Are you the same homosexual from last thread?
Post the games you play and rank.
Lead by example.
Bullseye
still waiting for your replies
Post rank.
>claims to be good at every fighting games
>refuses to post his rank
>refuse to even MENTION what games he currently plays
>admitted that he browses every arcade/shmup threads just to shitpost and seethe in them
>doesn't post rank
Let's be real
You can be done with a "classic arcade" in an afternoon
This. Everyone's always like "YOOOO arcade games are the greatest thing eva!!?!!" but if you gave 99.9% of people the option of being locked in a room and playing Pac Man for a weekend or Red Dead Redemption 2, they're going to pick Red Dead.
But now give them Metal Slug, or TGM or Dodonpachi, or Cadillacs and Dinosaurs, or Battle Garegga.
Then consider that the budget for Red Dead 2 could have produced well over 100 high quality arcade games in the same time.
I want to play metal slug and eat a hot dog
I wouldn't play battle garegga even if I was paid for it, frick that game, batrider is cool tho.
Learning issue
Its the same decision repeated over and over, i already said that even a very basic game like fricking Pong has way more than just one decision, you are dumb and you are trying too hard
Ok but the other side of that is if you’ve got a 30-minute train ride and you want to kill time you’d probably rather play Pac Man than Red Dead Redemption
>Arcade games are suited for casuals
Say less!
Do hardcore gaymers play MMOs and gachas?
The moment you finished RDR2 you will never, ever want to touch it again, since its a "game" that people "play" for the cutscenes not for the gameplay. A good arcade title is something that even after you have finished you want to pick up again, it does not matter if you have already seen everything it has to offer since the gameplay/music/what actually matters is addictive enough.
>A good arcade title is something that even after you have finished you want to pick up again, it does not matter if you have already seen everything it has to offer since the gameplay/music/what actually matters is addictive enough.
We both know that basically never happens and the only people who replay arcade titles are either people speedrunning it, scorechasing for bragging rights or just showing off.
>We both know that basically never happens
Sure there has never been in the history of mankind someone that played arcade games thousands of times, they never went for a high score nor do they ever tried 1CCs.
Speedrunning is also something that doesn't exist for many arcade genres so yeah you don't know what you are talking about
damn you can 1cc doj in an afternoon?
show me
>in an afternoon
I can complete a number of them on my lunch break.
could you give an example?
Examples break the narrative sweety.
Non-dense AAA game: Elden Ring
Moderately dense modern game: Mario Wonder
Dense Game: Dodonpachi
>modern gamers
= filthy casual normies. Thats why.
Because "Open World" is the standard video game genre and it is inherently sparse and boring.
Right is unironically Gacha games
And why I love them and think they're the highest form of gaming.
Layers of complexity, drop chances excitement, most gacha games have beautiful non israeli artworks.
You've been brainwashed by western "reviewers and video essays losers" to hate it
The Chinese are israeli.
>Runs out of energy
>Modern, bloated combat systems
>in an arcade style game
Imagine
Who made the rule that maximum density of gameplay is a superior experience? As Tomonobu Itagaki helpfully points out (paraphrasing)
>if you just want gameplay, go play Backgammon. No video game ever made can compare to the game design of Backgammon. What makes video games special is that they’re not just games, they’re also “video”.
Generally in most genres really matters in games in gameplay and music, everything else is secondary.
Wrong. Nobody would play Ninja Gaiden if it wasn’t a game about a ninja slicing soldiers arms’ off, but rather a game about a collision capsule doing box overlaps against other collision capsules.
Ganker works way too hard to prove to itself that it hates movie games. Yes, putting visuals above gameplay makes for a bad game, but you cannot reduce a game to just its gameplay. The visual feedback is an integral part of the entire mechanical experience. Visuals matter a shitload. Hence “video games”.
Says who? The best games have been made with technology that is primitive at this point, graphics advancements could help gameplay evolve but usually the opposite has happened, they bloated the gameplay but essentially made the games unfun and tedious, in modern games you often spend hours slowly walking/grinding/crafting/doing menial work until you reach a boss fight instead of you know being tested/engaged in your way to the stage boss, shit like Monster Hunter is the best exampel of that garbage, everything in those games is purposefully intended to waste the player's time, not surprising that the games are also made for multiplayer since they would be a complete snoozefest if they were singleplayer, "its fun with friends" lol.
Absolutely none of what you said reinforces the idea that “graphics do not matter”. At all. It only proves that high levels of graphical realism/fidelity won’t make players overlook bad gameplay.
>It only proves that high levels of graphical realism/fidelity won’t make players overlook bad gameplay
The majority of casuals tend to only care about graphics albeithough, it has always been this way
So? That doesn’t mean your response needs to be a purely contrarian 180 in the other direction to declare that graphics are utterly irrelevant.
A game is the sum of its parts. You can’t make a good game with bad gameplay. But that doesn’t mean “nothing but gameplay matters”. It means everything matters, and gameplay matters a lot.
I understand “graphics don’t matter” as a shorthand for “photorealistic backgrounds cannot replace engaging game mechanics” the problem is it gets repeated so often people start to believe the shorthand as gospel truth. And then a game comes out that’s absolutely ruined by weightless animations, goofy-looking enemies, rainbow vomit particle effects, uninspired environments, etc., and you go “this game sucks, it looks like shit”, out pop all the Ganker memesters to go
>ACKSHUALLY graphics don’t matter lol what are you casual
Graphics are basically irrelevant, artstyles matter but graphics literally do not
You clearly don't like videogames, just watch a movie, trust me they have much better graphics and require zero inputs
I am pretty sure I play through more video games a month than most people on this board combined. Why are you so desperate to project your negative stereotype onto me Anon?
If a game is fun, I'll play it, the exact degree of "gameplay" required is not my prime concern. It is fun.
First of all, the idea that you can divorce artstyle from graphics is dumb as shit, “graphics” refers to the visuals you see on the fricking screen, it isn’t a synonym for “photorealism”. Second of all ANY artstyle can be executed badly, and a game can suffer for that failure.
I get it anon. You are really, really adamant about thinking games which “look like real life” but suck to play not as good as games which look cheap but have great gameplay. Nobody is disagreeing with you. But that does not mean a game is necessarily improved by slicing out literally everything that isn’t gameplay because of some moronic ass “gameplay density” metric someone made up. Games are holistic experiences and should be evaluated as such. Allowing narrative or visuals to impede gameplay in a way that detracts from fun is a bad thing, but reducing a game to states and inputs and removing all of the context and style means every game is fundamentally poker or chess. If that’s all you want, video games aren’t for you, go play real games, they’ve been refined over literally hundreds of years and the mechanics are always better.
Games should have remained as they were in the 90s, this is what technological """evolution""" transformed the gaming industry into
>I claim graphics are not irrelevant, they just can’t be used as a substitute for good gameplay
>posts a webm of boring, unengaging gameplay
>”and that’s why graphics are irrelevant!”
I feel like I’m replying to ChatGPT. Pay attention to the content of the conversation, please.
Better graphics brought more casuals into the industry and that's the result, do you get it now?
That isn’t true though. If games looked like shit they’d still be popular. Family Guy has less visual fidelity than Michelangelo’s David, which one has a larger casual fanbase? In fact, frick that analogy, which games from each pair are more popular?
>God of War remake
>Fortnite
>Last of Us 2
>Pokemon
>Cyberpunk 2077
>Angry Birds
>Resident Evil 4 Remake
>Candy Crush
Even the “next gen hyper-budget graphically polished” titles can’t hold a candle to the popularity and mass appeal of cartoony art styles. The fact is, the casuals didn’t come for the graphics and get games dumbed down, the casuals just came for the dumbed down games.
>weightless animations
If anything modern titles have animations that have too much weight, to the point that they take away control from the player for that sweet cinematic experience, sure they look amazing to the movie watcher but we are talking about a videogame
At least we could agree that a videogame is more than just gameplay but its quality its certainly dependent mostly on the gameplay, grinding/walking/waiting/picking flowers simulators have bad gameplay, it doesn't even matter how much gameplay they have since its of bad quality, you make no purposeful decisions to make, you aren't challenged, you are not engaged in those games.
>If anything modern titles have animations that have too much weight
Hard disagree. Reloading in Call of Duty is way cooler than reloading in Max Payne. That isn’t a commentary on the quality of the games as a whole, but Max Payne would absolutely be improved by the addition of WHAM SMACK CHUNK THUNK ass reload animations. It adds to the feel of the game and even though it’s fun to joke about, that weight and presence is satisfying. It makes it more fun to push buttons. And if you aren’t having fun pushing buttons you’re probably playing a bad game.
>gameplay
Could you define this term and how you evaluate it by degree, Anon?
It's probably a bit of a challenge but I feel we'll see more eye-to-eye if we can agree on the fundamental terms or if we can at least discuss the topic from agreed upon definitions.
>grinding/walking/waiting/picking flowers simulators have bad gameplay
>you make no purposeful decisions to make, you aren't challenged, you are not engaged in those games
And to specify, turn based games can also have great gameplay as long as in every turn you have to make meaningful decisions and they never become tedious
Okay, so "gameplay" are decisions that the player must make in order to reach some value set by the game (for example beating the campaign, or getting a high score or defeating the most opponents), the more decisions that need to be made and the more critical those decisions are in order to achieve this the better the gameplay.
Is that too twisting, or is that a correct definition we can agree on?
I'd be open to an alternative suggestion if I've missed your point.
Arcade fans are some of the most insufferable homosexuals around, that alone makes me disagree with this image.
>hurr, grinding the same 20 minute game for 30 hours because I have autism does make me better than you
No it doesn't. It makes you autistic. There's a reason why the shmup community is full of trannies.
One important lesson speedrunners have to teach us:
Any game is an endlessly replayable arcade score attack if you are autistic enough
>heh... can't beat dark souls? git gud casul
>w-what? you enjoy arcade games?! AUTISM!!!!
>Dark Souls
this shit is not even hard, it is fricking easier than GoW in max diff which everyone complained being too easy back in the day, if you area masochist go play the willy stages of a mega man game or fricking hollow knight
>hollow knight
Only 1 area and 3 optional bosses are hard, what are you talking about?
which area is hard? On replays, the only boss that gives me trouble is NKG. Never tried all of the godmaster shit though.
The other day I watched an old as frick Youtube video and the guy showed the first Shadow Warrior and said something like: "guys, look at this, I've just started the game", and immediately a enemy would jump out of the window and the action would start, like, in 2 seconds after the game started.
FPSs were so bad at the time, there was so much talk, so many cutscenes, so many scripted scenes, that a game where you immediately got into the action was enough to get guys excited and make videos about it.
Now, at least in FPS, things have improved significantly.
Because of the longer game=better game meme, it doesn't matter if that longer game is some boring slop, they want it to last forever so they don't risk feeling buyer's remorse.
I put "fun" over "gameplay". It is that shrimple.
If you think "fun" is bad gameplay then you are part of the problem
My degree/amount of fun had is more important than frequency of inputs.
Just watch a movie, they are much better made than moviegames and they will provide with much more enjoyment.
>Just watch a movie
I do what I want.
>they are much better made than moviegames
Most things are.
>and they will provide with much more enjoyment
Very rarely.
What does that mean though?
DMC5 was more cutscenes than gameplay
Most modern Crapcom games are more cutscenes than gameplay and their most famous game is a grinding simulator, so not even the gameplay is good in those ones.
The vidya equivalent of brevity is wit.
this was an originally an image for children to understand different states of matter (gas, liquid and solids)
cool, and who the frick edits it to apply to games, and why?
>who the frick edits it to apply to games
>why?
because he is a homosexual e-celeb wannabe
Funny thing is the image wasn't make as ragebait, but Ganker still gets angry at it
It's not ragebait. You don't know the context of the image nor do you have any concept of gameplay density as you are a zoomer homosexual who has only ever known dumbed-down, soulless, pozzed goyslop media
this is literally just time between mechanics
longer cooldown = more casual game
all games have some sort of mechanics
mental calculations fall under mechanics
so do the physical execution of commands
it is very simple
slow = casual
Nah, it’s more than that. It’s also about levels of recursion in consideration of each choice; how many choices down the line does it affect? Guitar Hero 3 on expert has more inputs/decisions per second than Starcraft II, does that mean Guitar Hero has “more gameplay”?
They are both high on the gameplay scale since in both you make important choices constantly, there are no "go collect 5 notes to get a new skin for your guitar" or "march your units towards the enemy base but don't attack it to unlock a new lootbox" type of horseshit.
Bayonetta has “replay a mission 100 times to unlock a weapon”, and “grind 999,999 coins to unlock a boss fight”. Alan Wake doesn’t have any of that. Does that mean Alan Wake has more gameplay than Bayonetta?
No because Alan Wake is a movie/walking sim and Bayonetta overall is much more of a videogame, what question is that? Everybody can cherrypick but at least do it in a more subtle way.
The purpose of extreme examples is to highlight how your reductionist, oversimplified stance is inconsistent even with your own common sense. Obviously Bayonetta is a better game than Alan Wake, now ask yourself if you can pin down exactly why that is. It’s not as simple a question as a stupid idea like “gameplay density” makes it out to be.
Because its more of a videogame than Alan Wake and that is dependent on the quality of the gameplay, damn that was easy
What makes Bayonetta’s gameplay “higher quality”? After all it’s full of grinding, cutscenes, and QTEs, and loaded down with tons of superfluous shit like visual effects, voice acting, etc.
Surely Bayonetta is moviegame trash, right?
Its more of a videogame compared to Alan Wake, i mean should we start debating if walking around is quality gameplay? You should use a worse example like a Yakuza game since they are 60% cutscenes, 20% walking around and even the beat em up gameplay isn't good.
I think Yakuza 7 and 8 are like 90% cutscenes, they're so fricking long, 200 hours of cutscenes between the two, but there's less gameplay than the old action games.
Trash series. Should've just been a shonen TV show.
That's why i don't believe Sega would have been better for the industry than Microshit if they remained in the console business, between Shenmue and Yakuza they aren't that different in mentality from a lot of westernslop developers
What the frick
Yeah i'll take that one instead of the demake, at least the gameplay interactions aren't fake
>interesting gameplay is lootboxes/slotmachines/seeing new shit and item drops every 2 seconds that i don't even need
>interesting gameplay is lootboxes/slotmachines/seeing new shit and item drops every 2 seconds that i don't even need
Who are you quoting, you dumb homosexual?
>shonen TV show
Excellent bait
Just watch some electric underground videos and educate yourself shitter
he's too rambly and inchoate. i couldn't finish the thing OP image is from.
That's an oversimplification, as i said before turn based games can have great gameplay even though they are "slow", you have no time limits and you can take all the time you want but if the actions that you can take are meaningful then its good gameplay
>i'm silly
Read what i said above
How is it silly if it fits the definition we agree on?
If all a game takes to be good is good gameplay, as we defined it, how have I not just "solved" gameplay with my button-masher?
I'm sure it looks like it, but I'm not trying to troll your or belittle you, I'm just trying to convince whoever else might be reading this that there is more to a game than gameplay. Even by our definition I don't think a lot of people would enjoy my button-masher, even if the gameplay was as close to perfect as it can be (without attaching a bomb to the failstate, but now I AM being silly).
Because you are taking it to an extreme, its not "solved" because you didn't talk about the rewards and you didn't mention any variation in the gameplay flow, there is also no skill challenge in just pressing one button over and over until you stop, its just a test of patience and a bad one at that.
>Because you are taking it to an extreme
I wouldn't say that it's particularly extreme, plenty of games have "mash X to run away" or something similar.
>its not "solved" because you didn't talk about the rewards
I did talk about the rewards, you get points per button tap.
>didn't mention any variation in the gameplay flow
True, but variation was not a part of our definition of gameplay either.
>there is also no skill challenge in just pressing one button
You mash a button for a couple of hours and I assume you will start to approach skill-issues when your thumb cramps up.
>its just a test of patience
And finger muscles. What's wrong with that? The only evaluation we decided upon was criticality and and instant-loss is pretty much as critical as an input can be isn't it?
>and a bad one at that.
Who are you to judge? Does our entire conversation boil down to you having "the good taste" and everyone else having "the bad taste"?
>but variation was not a part of our definition of gameplay either
I said decisions, plural, you provided only one which is just do that thing over and over, even in a very basic game like Pong you can make many decisions and you can only move up and down and a set speed, stop being silly.
I make a decision every time I press that button. That is a decision. When you press a button in your favorite game, is that not something you have decided?
What if I push the button half way down, but then change my mind because my thumb is getting sore, is that not a decision?
Don't dismiss my point because you think it's silly.
Since I feel that I'm losing you; my overarching point in all this is that either "gameplay" is so difficult to define effectively that we are clearly no authority on the matter (and if not us, who?), or that gameplay is a part of a video game but not always the most important part (which I'm not sure if you agree with or not).
Don't worry though, we don't have to force the conversation forward beyond this. It was fun talking about though, thanks for playing along.
I tried to play modern gow and it has 0 gameplay in the first 4 hours. What a horrible fricking introduction
>gameplay density
is this the new gayme journalist buzzword? what the frick does that even mean? is tetris effect less dense when the music calms down?
Gameplay density is the new counter culture term. For those against bloated pozzed cinematic garbage.
why don't gameplay chuds understand that videogames are one way of expressing value, but value exists independently of videogames and can be expressed in many other forms? chudding out about gameplay density is the equivalent of getting angry that people mix eggs into other ingredients to create a variety of different dishes instead of eating them raw every time
AAAAAAAAAAA I'M GAMEPLAY DENSITYIIIIIIIINNNNNNGGGGG
TOO MUCH LUDOKINOOOOOOO
Just play quality JRPGs with actual gameplay then.
The frick is this? Its like a SaGa game on crack
Hat World. It has a Genocide Heart homage as a boss.
Where is the gameplay? It's all just cutscenes and numbers go up
>Arcade Games
Are boring. Good distractions, but after a couple of games you seen basically everything the game can throw at you.
Dense gameplay doesn't mean interesting or unique gameplay.
zoom zoom
Is that why they're called Boomer Shooters lol
It's the opposite in fact. Arcade games reuse much less stuff in comparison to other action games.
>Arcade games reuse much less stuff in comparison to other action games.
I know Ubisoft tier open worlds with copy and paste assets exist, but all arcade games build a few different enemies, add some variations to the ai, and call it a day.
Modern shitty games copy and paste more, but it also has more things to do than an arcade game. They're just as bad.
A small puddle as deep the mariana trench or a mile wide lake that's an inch deep are both bad options if all you want is a good swimming pool.
It has more things to do that aren't fun nor do you need to do them, meaning they don't have value. Oh you got 100 quests in your games that are all piss easy to finish and the rewards aren't even worth it, such amazing amounts of khantent.
>that aren't fun nor do you need to do them
True, and same argument can be made for arcade games. Sometimes a story hook is more motivation to beat a game than a highscore. Sometimes simple fun gameplay is better than 100 generic fetch quests.
I think both extremes are bad and the niche lovers of both genres have too much influence on what games are made. I want games designed to be experienced and put down, otherwise there's just too much temptation by devs and publishers to add a bunch of time wasting bullshit. Sometimes it's to increase the target audience to the point that nobody likes it, sometimes it's to steal quarters
>True, and same argument can be made for arcade games
Wrong since they usually force you to interact with everything that they offer, no time wasting, no carrot dangling
>Sometimes a story hook is more motivation to beat a game than a highscore
Go watch movies homosexual
>they usually force you to interact with everything that they offer
Which is a bunch of repeating levels and actions. For a highscore or bragging rights. Boring.
>Story Hook
That's not a movie game problem. Even arcade games sometimes have a story hook.
That's like having a princess being captured and you're asked to save her. As long as the characters involved have a personality, there's a situation of some sort, and there's a ending, then you have a story. Story can sometimes be more motivating than playing another level to see the same enemies with the same AI with the same gameplay.
>Which is a bunch of repeating levels and actions
As any game but the longer ones give you the "content" slowly piece by piece, what is fresh is usually just the cutscenes and the locations
>Even arcade games sometimes have a story hook.
No one in the history of humanity has ever cared about the story in an arcade game, no one has ever asked himself "mmmm what is the story of Space Invaders?"
>no one has ever asked himself "mmmm what is the story of Space Invaders?"
Earth is being invaded by invaders from space (hence the title) and you are trying to shoot them all down before they can succeed? It’s not Melville but it’s a story.
Basically all video games require context. Some games are truly 100% abstractions (breakout, tetris) but really the vast majority of games use a combination of some form of narrative and graphics to create context for gameplay. Any game where you control a character, some sentient thing, has this contextualization. Because your button presses make them do actions, and actions imply purpose and agency. Human brains are wired to work this way; as soon as you put a little man on the screen we want to know what he is doing and why.
Now, am I a movie-game loving slop-consuming casual plague on video games for thinking Sekiro is a better game than Tetris? If so, fine, then I’m happy to be one. If not, then recognize that even though harm can be done by overemphasizing them, story and visuals are a critical component of making gameplay mechanics interesting and satisfying.
>Nobody has ever cared about story in an arcade game.
Donkey Kong set the story, not only of Mario saving the girl, but for Donkey Kong Sequels. Even Donkey Kong Country references the old arcade game's story with Cranky Kong being the original DK.
Donkey Kong would even help name Kirby since it was John Kirby who helped defend Donkey Kong from a copyright lawsuit from Universal Studio who claimed Donkey Kong was too similar to King Kong. That whole lawsuit proved people really, really cared about the story of an popular arcade game.
>I am literally moronic and I don't know what pacing is
Not everyone wants to sit down and grind out super meatboy for 5 hours. It is not a problem for a game to break up intense sections with easier or trivial ones.
>good pacing is having 10 minute of gameplay and 1 hour of cutscenes/walking
Who are you quoting?
>intense sections
Here you go
>easy sections
Here you go
That will be $70 plus tip.
It's all gacha gamers coping to not be seen as hypocrites
Gachas gameplay (if they even have gameplay) is linked to the most predatory, unbalanced mechanics in the history of gaming, they want you to either grind eternally or pay up to compete with others
I just know
>gameplay density good
>Arcade Games are the "Ow, My Balls!" of g-AIIIIIIEEEEEE MARY JANES TASUKETEEEEE
>gameplay density
Why did you post a picture of a modern AAA game?
also
>food analogy
I bet you buy digital games like a pleb.
Zamn, you really cooked him spiderbro.
The last spiderman game I bought was the first on on PS4.
I bet you don't even own any arcade hardware you poseur.
I just don't get it. Why does OP keep making this thread every week where he pretends he plays arcade games just to shit on all modern games?
we just need more of these arcade/extra mission/bloody palace/score attack/survival type modes in modern games that let you play with the mechanics uninterrupted and show off your skills. story modes are limiting.
I don’t think this is a bad idea but I also think a sense of progression really is important. When you go back to DMC3 after 3 years away, do you replay the story or go right to Bloody Palace?
I don't want nonstop high density. I want high density punctuated by periods of low density
So mostly just arcade games, the low density is the moment you change the stage
No I want a non-discrete ramping. Arcade games are just not as compelling to me as something like Elden Ring
Having downtime to break the tension and explore is nice to have, instead of playing strictly by the rules set by the game. As much as I love The Typing of the Dead, I'd rather have the freedom to fool around than to be put on rails from start to finish. SM64 just as an example is not only "dense" in its gameplay, it also breaks the tension often enough to be fun by just fooling around instead of being a mostly linear shot to the end, where you're either making objective progress or you're dead. Players should have the choice to fool around, that's what PvP modes in fighting games are for, what easter eggs are for, what bonus stages are for. Fricking around is great, meanwhile some beat 'em ups keep you on a timer where you're either always advancing even in down time or you gotta fork over another quarter, or otherwise let the next guy play. Having to put more quarters in when playing fighting games with a friend sucked and you know it. We were robbed of Sake in Tekken because of this shit.
it's a tutorialisation issue.
rogue lites are hugely popular, and they're kind of a kin to arcade games. but the rogue lite structure paces out the mechanics more evenly so you aren't bombarded with them from the get-go.
>rogue lites are hugely popular, and they're kind of a kin to arcade games
WRONG since the challenge lowers every time you start a new playthrough, roguelites are comparable to pay to win games, by unlocking shit you make your life easier.
i like when the games have good gameplay.
Mark is living RENT FREE in your heads HAHAHAHAH
He's right
Games don't have "density", they have average play time. How that play time is accomplished can vary dramatically. For instance, "classic arcade" games can put you in a single screen sidescroller and throw 20 to 500 enemies at you, a completely arbitrary amount, and only allow you to proceed to the next screen once you clear them all, where it happens again. And again. And again. Then you start over at the very beginning of the game when you fail, only to have to repeat the process, probably for hundreds of hours, before you finally beat the game. The problem with this design is that generally you have long since mastered the first level by the time you reach the last level, yet failing the last level forces you to replay the first (and every other level), making this portion of the game a massive time sink compared to the end of the game which is the part you really need practice with to master. It's designed to waste your time. More accurately, it's designed to get you to pump more quarters into the machine. If all that's left to master is the last level, you should just be able to play the last level until you master it. Anything else is bad design
On the same token, endless fetch quests don't add density either. Most of them are not compelling in terms of gameplay, nor story, nor character design, nor anything else. They simply pad a game out and make it longer.
As such, how many hours you can pump into a game tells me very little about it. What I find matters is the amount of unique content, how many unique places are there, how many unique enemies and encounters are there, how long can you keep me entertained before the game ends up feeling like filler? The answer to this question is generally around 10 hours, and it's very rare for a game to stretch out beyond that and not feel like worthless bloat. This applies to modern game as much as it does old ones
>a completely arbitrary amount
You are fricking moronic for saying such nonsense and i won't even explain you why
>The problem with this design is that generally you have long since mastered the first level by the time you reach the last level
You never heard of practice modes?
>It's designed to waste your time
Says the guy that clearly only played open world slop and working simulators
Oh and forgot
>What I find matters is the amount of unique content, how many unique places are there, how many unique enemies and encounters are there, how long can you keep me entertained before the game ends up feeling like filler?
No its the importance of the content that matters, you are the literal donkey that gets tricked by a carrot dangling in front of him
>You are fricking moronic for saying such nonsense and i won't even explain you why
Because you don't have an argument
The amount of enemies that you have to defeat in sidescrollers to proceed to the next screen is arbitrary. It's not based on any logic or principled rule. It's the result of some guy deciding that's the amount of enemies that will spawn that you need to defeat, because they're bean counting and figuring out on average how long the game should last
Because i don't want to make your donkey brain smarter, there is a chance that is going to be an impossibility anyway
>figuring out on average how long the game should last
As opposed to any other game that is literally dragging its length out? Like every 10 hour+ game? The difference is that those encounters are there to offer a proper challenge while in those long games you have a pretty high chance of encountering padding, literal filler that offers less than zero challenge. But obviously that padding is "unique" and so according to your donkey brain its amazing.
>As opposed to any other game that is literally dragging its length out? Like every 10 hour+ game?
I don't think you read my original post at all
I was criticizing both modern and arcade game design. They both padded games out arbitrarily but for different reasons. You just got offended because you prefer one form of slop when I'm calling them both slop
Come back when you can form an argument. Protip: don't play the intelligence card when you're clearly a fricking midwit.
Arcade games literally didn't pad a game out, unless you think anything that involves the player in a meaningful way is "padding", with that line of reasoning everything is padding. Not like i would expect reason from a donkey.
>most had infinite copypasted levels
Ok its just shitposting
>you're just wrong, ok?
You clearly never played an arcade game so its shitposting, now back to the open world game of your choice virtual wagie.
>ai slop
AI?
>your average AAA game
>if you say anything bad about it you're a heckin sexist racist transphobic fascist
>Arcade games literally didn't pad a game out
Ghouls 'n Ghosts.
arcades aren't dense
They're simple games full of bullshit for you to use all of your quarters trying to get to the end, like getting faster until they aren't humanly possible (most had infinite copypasted levels)
Honestly, I prefer the middle option here. I like it when a game can keep you on task through engaging design, but I also like it when a game rewards curiosity and observational prowess with little detours that don't matter beyond them being there to find. I would much rather have a game of the former than the latter if I have to draw a line, but I like when the former is designed well enough to fit some of the latter in without losing the plot.
>but I also like it when a game rewards curiosity and observational prowess
That is also present in arcade games, Darius titles , Metal Slug or Border Down to name a few, the difference is that those secrets/alternative routes can actually be useful to get an high score or just finish the game, its not fluff but a proper reward
>Needing to be "on" from the start to finish gets surprisingly taxing
An hour or less is taxing? There are people that play multiplayer games for hours and hours on end, maybe at a high level too. And technically you can always pause.
My favorite part of these threads is how they always devolve into a difficulty purity spiral.
>X is actually easy, Y is a challenge
>casual, Y is for babies, Z is a true challenge
>lol Z isn’t even hard, not anything like Q
The only true mistake one can make on Ganker is expecting sincerity. One you let go, you have the keys to the kingdom.
If you're being sincere, and afraid of trolling, you'll see shitposters tearing your thread apart. If you've made your peace, then the shitposters are actually based, freeing you from discussing vidya.
I could name you properly difficult games and anyone could agree
>Stylish action
So modern action?
Doom Shiternal proper way of play is to stun enemies and press the "do the cinematic animation" button, plus its not "non-stop", it has a lot of downtime and there is no time limit
there's plenty of original doom and doom 2 mods I would call non stop action even if you cheesed them you still have to actively play the game and avoid getting hit
and arguably that's more of a challenge than doom eternal's strategy of run in circles and press X to awesome
I thought about it more and I really think games do need some downtime. Needing to be "on" from the start to finish gets surprisingly taxing.
Now this doesn't mean I think games should have massive amounts of filler, but some amount of filler to let the player breathe isn't the end of the world.
Fire Emblem I think is a good example of this. Lunatic difficulties of the harder entries like Conquest gets really fricking brutal, you can be on a map for over an hour. So it's nice to be able to pump the breaks once you finish a map and focus on prepping for the battle ahead and doing trivial things like reading supports rather than jumping right into the next hour long engagement.
there's almost 0 games today where you can get little to no down time
doom eternal is a dogshit game because it's so bland and predictable and the gameplay just isn't interesting even if there's "non stop action" it's meaningless because the game gives you a good 10 seconds every time you get hit once and that's ignoring the hidden extra health bullshit when you get down to 50 percent hp
modern game design is unironically more scummy than arcade games
Roguelites replaced classic arcade in the gameplay density segment, and they're great. Middle can be good as well but the open world walking simulator nonsense I don't really care for. Same with movie games. I do like VNs though.
Sure but you're supposed to do harder things each run. Depends a lot on the game, but you can unlock higher difficulties in Slay the Spire for instance.
You do also unlock cards and relics, but since they're just added to the pool of possible drops that just means more variety, it doesn't necessarily make the gale more easy. An ascension 20 run with everything unlocked is infinitely harder than A0 with nothing. With Hades you get a higher score the more malus you take, etc.
Tl;dr it's great I love it.
They are also way more reliant on RNG, people seem to think arcade games are bullshit, well what does that make games where lady luck is deciding your destiny?
It's just one of many ways to make each run unique. I don't feel entitled to a win everytime, that being said it usually takes very bad luck to lose if you play perfectly. Nothing feels better than pulling yourself out of a bad luck situation too.
Go play fricking pacman then, moron
Good reccomendation
Yes Pacman is a good and dense game.
And yet you suck wiener at it.
I don't know why this isn't common knowledge, but this shit dates back to the time when the big wigs were saying that games will be the next big form of entertainment. What this actually meant was
>shit, we've hit a wall on how much money we can squeeze with television and movies
>i know, lets start making games too
>great, we've already got all of our movie staff, tell them to get on it
And thus the modern AAA industry was born and games became mainstream rather than a nerd hobby (+sportgame gays) since the existing normalgay movie audience just switched over.
You do know arcades were designed to drain as much money out of the players as possible, right.
Reading comprehension anon. I'm saying it the reduction of gameplay is due to movie producers getting into games
You're saying fricking nothing becuase nothing you said has anything actually backing it up. Games started getting more cinematic back in the SNES days with shit like FF6 and kept getting more cinematic as technology improved, not as some imaginary "movie producers" took over. Also, there's no reduction. Arcade games were empically less complicated and complex than even the most shallow of AAA slop. Hate it all you want but AC Valhalla is a much more expansive and complex game than Turtles in Time even if it's not a better game. You're just saying baseless shit because it sounds good to you. I don't know what fricking homosexual e-celeb made a video to trick all you moronic fricking zoomers into glorifying 90's arcade games as these perfect examples of gaming but I hope all of you have a nice day.
There are 2 major flaws with this premise. One is simply that constant intense gameplay can be exhausting and allowing the player some level of breathing room in between major action sections let's them recooperate. The second is that this image and presumably the youtube video you got it from only accounts for one form of gameplay. Consider puzzle games for a moment. When I enter a room in portal I'm not watching a cutscenes or doing some sort of scripted narrative sequence, but I'm also not directly engaging with the games mechanics much at first, I'm just observing the environment which is the gameplay. Action games ask you to take in lots of (ideally) clear information and respond quickly whereas puzzle games ask you to take in more obscured information and simply respond with the appropriate action one time. This is oversimplifying things a bit but thanks for reading my blog post on Ganker dot org.
>One is simply that constant intense gameplay can be exhausting and allowing the player some level of breathing room in between major action sections let's them recooperate
Not if the game potentially lasts only an hour, modern gaymers aren't that weak right?
You should take a break every 15 minutes for your own health, anon. Just light a smoke and pour yourself some whiskey while you recover.
>for your own health
>just light a smoke and pour yourself some whiskey
There is no such thing as a "8 hour game with excellent gameplay"
It's called re4. I'm sorry you hate good video games.
Pfffffffffftttttttttttttttt
metal gear rising
>There is no such thing as a "8 hour game with excellent gameplay"
Any metroid game
Super Metroid kinda low-moderate difficulty and loads of downtime makes sure it can't be excellent gameplay and that's by far the best one in the series
Difficulty is subjective and constantly diminishes during every second of playtime as the player comes to internalize game mechanics, this means that every game is not difficult to a theoretical TAS level player, making difficulty a worthless metric. Regardless, Super Metroid’s skill ceiling is higher than almost every arcade game due to it’s analogue, nuanced movement system, ergo “perfect” Super Metroid play is more difficult than say, “perfect” shmup play
>Super Metroid’s skill ceiling is higher than almost every arcade game due to it’s analogue, nuanced movement system, ergo “perfect” Super Metroid play is more difficult than say
That's not how it works, the game is only hard for an handicapped player, a supposed god gamer would make Super Metroid piss easy, if you gave that god player Tatsujin Ou he would piss and shit himself for days from the rage.
No, that's wrong. See the shmup documentary about how that's not actually depth, and is instead restricting fundamentals.
Megaman
🙂
Sure but is it not preferable for the game to last longer than that? I'll take 8 hours of excellent gameplay with 2 hours of relative downtime over 1 hour of excellent gameplay personally.
>One is simply that constant intense gameplay can be exhausting and allowing the player some level of breathing room in between major action sections let's them recooperate
That's why most shmups are 20 to 50 min long and should never go beyond this range.
>The second is that this image and presumably the youtube video you got it from only accounts for one form of gameplay. Consider puzzle games for a moment.
3 actually, Portal can be considered as "modern action" or right in between "modern action" and "classic arcade" as you can choose to interact with the game as fast as you can figure out the solution in each room, meanwhile arcade type puzzle games like tetris, puyo puyo, lumines live, etc, fit in the "classic arcade" category.
I think the only reason why morons people get mad at that picture is because they assume that left means bad and right means good so they feel like their tastes are personally attacked but that's not what the picture is about, it's only about engagement, how much attention does the game requires from you, besides the guy who made that pic plays plenty on non-arcade games.
Portal is actually a modern AAA type of title, you have no real punishment for failing, you have infinite time to solve puzzles and the game has lots of "nothing happens" moments where you just listen to the robot talking. A puzzle that is something in the middle would be anything with limited lives
>QTEs out the ass
>cutscenes in between combat
Its modern action and the gameplay is fine but nothing mindblowing
Ah yes all the money that is flowing out of my pockets when i play them on a console
>you have no real punishment for failing
The only way a game, any game, can punish you is through lost time.
so all videogames are punishment
Video games attempt to punish the player through lost time, however it is only the player who punishes themselves through their own mentality. If every instant of gameplay was equally enjoyable to a player, a game could not punish the player. Until the physical barrier between the game and the player is broken down, it is impossible to comment on a games punishment without making wild assumptions of player motivation.
how can portal be an AAA game when it's 2 hour long game for people decent at vidya?
Play spelunky 2 or you're a hypocrite and a shitter, and no, spamming credits is not playing an arcade game properly
I would rather have 30 minutes to an hour of constant intense gameplay and then move onto other things instead of spending 3 hours wandering around talking to npcs, messing with menus and watching cut scenes as a way to "wind down" after a day at the salt mines
This is why gacha games caught on the way they did.
Hell, most of the people that play them just turn on auto battle and frick off and do other things.
Super short bursts of gameplay broken up by extreme amounts of tedious bullshit is just enough to get some people to go "I wanna see what happens next".
That's also why so many people love and hate the souls games or combat heavy games like devil may cry. It's ALL gameplay, with some story. And normalgays hate any sort of difficulty when it comes to entertainment.
I've always thought, normies have so many problems with pure meat and potatoe games.
In my 200 hours of Slay the Spire, I've had more strategical deep, rich, choice matters type of gameplay than all the only gacha card games I've had were I'm playing a shit deck against pre-determined solved meta deckers or grinding for imaginary currency, yet every time a shallow new card game releases normies jump on the bandwagon.
>In my 200 hours of Slay the Spire, I've had more strategical deep, rich, choice matters type of gameplay
Its full of RNG, next you are going to say mahjong is also full of strategic depth.
Than how come lifecoach has a 96% winrate on A20 watcher?
mahjong is both rng shitfest and 'full of strategic depth', both concept are not exclusive
You probably suck dick at Uno and think it's all pre-determined RNG, most likely because you don't play with human beings and cannot read them. If you can't strategize with what you're dealt, then you might as well never do anything in life because that's also all RNG.
Elden Ring is one of the highest rated games of all time, and DMC5 videos on youtube have tens of millions of views and is absurdly popular in the memetic sphere. It’s truly bizarre how people like you are under the impression that these series are not widely enjoyed by casuals.
If you're talking numbers, look at how many people bought Starfield. Or Fallout 4. Or Dragon age Shitquisition. Or the Assassin's Creed games. Or Farcry 4. Or the Last of Us 1 and 2.
What "impression" are you talking about, exactly?
Devil May Cry was always filled with cutscenes and as an action game its pretty button mashy, at least on what is supposed to be the normal difficulty, don't know about Elder Ring since i didn't play it yet but since its open world i can only expect the worst, the Souls games have fine gameplay, not that much downtime and nearly any enemy that you encounter isn't a joke that you can just ignore
Mainline megaman games don't last 8 hours though
That game didn't pad itself
>b-b-b-but you need two loops to actually finish the game
Yes and the game changes in the second one, now i'm not gonna defend it further since i think its not that good of a game, its quite poorly balanced and rewards tedious work
>Yes and the game changes in the second one
The game is fundamentally the same, except the second loop is actually engaging. The first loop is the padding to the actual meat. You did not play it.
Pacing is incredibly important for longer games. People will quickly fatigue and not want to play a game if it's constant peak action the entire time. Imagine resident evil if there was never more than 30 seconds without shooting. Or zelda if there was a monster every 5 feet to fight. You need downtime to appreciate the intense moments, ups and downs maximize human interaction because we remember transitions with the most emotion and clarity.
The reason why arcade games were popular with such density is because you only played them for as long as you could before you were satisfied or out of quarters. Never more than an hour for a singe playthrough. Modern games have to last tens of hours, and the only way you can have a single coherent experience that long be playable is to have good pacing.
>People will quickly fatigue and not want to play a game if it's constant peak action the entire time
Is that why all those games are boring slop? No pacing isn't good pacing
>Imagine resident evil if there was never more than 30 seconds without shooting.
The Mercenaries mode?
>Modern games have to last tens of hours
Because they pander to the lowest common denominator that wants a movie instead of a game
Nobody on this board has actually sat down and spent hours grinding the same few minutes of gameplay to practice for a 1CC. That's on a level of gay autism not even this board does.
That's like saying no one on this board ever beat a retro game with finite continues
That's different. The kind of person this thread posturing about muh arcade games isn't willing to play them for hours because it's the most tedious and banal shit imaginable that isn't outright speedrunning.
How is playing great games that are worth replaying tedious or banal? You mentioned speedrunners before, they exist because the games they play often aren't challenging or replayable enough to offer a good experience to people that want something more, you know what games don't have speedrunning? Arcade games
Ganker is mostly made up of casuals, woah
I know you're being hyperbolic, but this board is FILLED with people who make the exact same thread every day for years straight. This very thread has been made by the same person 100-something times now, and that's low by this board's standards. Is it really so unbelievable that someone would spend hours playing a 5-minute stage over and over?
>Is it really so unbelievable that someone would spend hours playing a 5-minute stage over and over?
Making this thread over and over is more engaging.
>How is playing great games that are worth replaying tedious or banal?
Doing the same thing for hours is tedious. Hence nobody in this thread actually does it.
>Doing the same thing for hours is tedious
Brainlets grind even zero depth, zero challenge bullshit like gacha every day for dozens of hours, tards that play multiplayer games play on the same maps over and over for years and you b***h about some people retrying a short stage a dozen of times?
What makes "soul" aka what is lacking from modern games is good music, what you are referring to as "soul" must be lootboxes or bloom filters
soul is fun areas to explore and do nothing in. Kino games are fun to play even when you're not "doing" anything, but the jaded boomer can't accept such a notion
>Kino games are fun to play even when you're not "doing" anything
And people wonder how the gaming industry died, it must be the SJW!
>gacha
Gambling addict mechanics add variety to those with an addictive personality
>multiplayer games
Same as above but also adds variety due to the unpredictability of PVP gameplay
>retrying a short stage a dozen of times
Zero variety, objectively tedious with the only reward being bragging rites
It's easy to see why nobody actually grinds these games out.
There is nothing to grind, they are perfect videogames after all.
>There is nothing to grind
You don't even play arcade games. Like everyone else posturing in these threads.
There is nothing to grind in a shmup, rhythm or puzzle game for example, grinding is the peak of tediousness and it wouldn't fit genres that are primarily intended for the arcades where people want fun from the first second to the last
>There is nothing to grind in a shmup, rhythm or puzzle game for example
You could at least pretend you actually play these games.
You can stop being a crying b***h now because replaying a game=/=grinding no matter how much you want to make people believe it is.
>playing the same exact sequence for hours for an extrinsic reward is not grinding
>for a reward
There is no reward actually, nothing in the games is given to you if you play them over and over even for ten thousand hours straight, you posting moronic shit over and over in this thread is also not grinding, its just entertainment for me
The extrinsic reward is the highscore or 1CC nobody will ever care about. That's why people grind out the same five minutes of gameplay for hours on end.
Its not a reward of the grinding since there are no grinding mechanics in the games, do you get it now?
Doing the same thing repeatedly is grinding. The phrase doesn't just describe games with experience points.
Do not move the goalposts on me, as i said those games do not have grinding because there is literally nothing to grind, items/weapons/equipment unlocks or levels, none of that exists. Your definition of "grind" is just playing the game multiple times which could define every game in the world that is played an undefined amount of times, its meaningless.
My definition of grinding is doing the same thing for hours for an extrinsic reward. If a game takes 30 minutes to complete and you practice sections of that game for hours then that is grinding.
You definition of grinding is moronic and you are moronic, at least we can agree on that
Every game is doing the same thing repeatedly every open world is hold W and look at the same boring biomes
when a game is good and has mechanical depth you enjoy the process of getting better. high scores are just a measurement of that. it only becomes a grind if you suck and are hitting your head against a wall.
>when a game is good and has mechanical depth you enjoy the process of getting better
Only to a point. Nobody actually enjoys grinding brief arcade games for several hours.
>Is it really so unbelievable that someone would spend hours playing a 5-minute stage over and over?
Yes, because such people wouldn't have time to sit down and play an arcade game for hours when they spend all day posting here instead.
Ganker has a top 100 games of all time every year that is full of movie games and jrpgs and hardly has anything gameplay dense in it the closest thing in it is probably Mario kart LMAO
>Ganker collectively has horrible taste
Yeah, no shit, the board is entirely comprised of 2016 tourists and literal children. News at fricking 11.
old games were impossible to inject with soul/immersion so you just had autistic
>shoot gun
>jump on things
as the entire medium. Obviously most AAA games have neither soul and ambience nor good gameplay, but a game doesn't need to be dense to be good.
i'm starting to want a game without interactivity
imagine a DVD but all its visuals being rendered in real-time on a graphics card as opposed to being pre-rendered like most FMVs
e.g. think FF7 Advent Children, but exclusively on PS5
Arcade games were basic garbage that's only fun for the gimmick of it.
Everyone in this topic is moronic number one
Number two the modern action and AAA would have different sizes, shapes, and colors of gameplay while arcade would be the same repeating blue dot.
Zoomers who didn't live thought the arcades, don't @ me, I don't give a frick about your dog shit opinions
Arcade isn't the same repeating blue dot. Guilty Gear characters go from shmup to moba to pool all in one game. There is more complexity in the character Venom than there is in the entirity of some AAA and indie games like Assasin's Creed or Palworld.
You know damn well when people say arcade game they're not talking about Guilty Gear Xrd.
Guilty Gear X, XX, and Xrd are all arcade games first
We are talking about classics like DoDonPachi, Alien vs. Predator, Elevator Action Returns, Cadillacs and Dinosaurs, TGM, Outrun, Battle Garegga, Shock Troopers, In The Hunt, Puzzle Bobble, Metal Slug, Darius Gaiden, Sunset Riders, Klax, Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo, Raiden, etc.
Idk why moronic zoomers have this mindset that arcade games are just some cheap disposable quarter munchers. They were the most premium entertainment of their era that were deep, challenging, replayable, and timeless.
Modern games are made by and for people who don't play video games. They watch streamers and the empty space between doing anything is filled with youtube, twitter, tiktok, porn, or rambling from the streamer.
They like having nothing because then they can consume other braindead content in the mean time.
Making perfect games is pretty easy, but they don't because of normies. Only Nintendo (Mostly) and smaller games like Hi Fi Rush manage to pull this off
>Nintendo (Mostly)
Only if you're not counting Breath of the Wild and its glorified DLC.
Nintendo games are quite bad, but that is because they are poorly designed.
I wouldn't call them poorly designed but modern nintendo games tend to do everything in their power to make you play the "right" way and stomp out all forms of emergent gameplay, which is pretty ironic given what you could do in many of their older games
That is bad game design, arbitrarily limiting player skill expression is bad design. They're making a conscious decision to give players mechanics and building in systems and level designs to knee cap those who reach greater heights with said mechanics. Nintendo loves their invisible rules and has for a very long time.
Formulaic game structure in the vein of this image is no different from Michael Bay movies where once you play one or two of them, they all feel the same and drag on. It's excessively cultivated goyslop meant to cater to the largest audience, and that includes the dudebros and "gaming should be like hollywood" homosexuals that ruined shit 15 years ago and continue to ruin it to this day.