Gaming has been going downhill for the past years. Companies don't seem to have the slightest clue what makes games "games", and instead waste their budgets making what seems to be animated 3D movies.
I:
Games should be designed around gameplay elements that catches player's interest. Take for example Pokemon franchise: you get to collect monsters, breed, train and battle with them. That's a solid concept right there. It's no wonder the series sells so well. On the opposite end you got games like Guild Wars 2, where the developers try to market it with arguments "it's like mmo except..." . And indeed the main selling points seem to be that the game doesn't have monthly fee and doesn't have tedious fetch quests. Is that really the inspiration for making new stuff? For someone who never liked MMOs in the first place are quite reluctant to pick up MMOesque title. On the other hand hardcore MMO-players may find something missing.
All in all, new gameplay ideas are rare. "It's a tower defense". "It's RTS with ancient Egypt units instead of ancient Greek units as usual". "It's a Diablo clone with more skills! If you want Diablo clone with character customization instead, hang on. We'll make another title"
II:
My second gripe is that graphics seem to be the end instead of means to an end. In my opinion, good graphics are symbolistic. To see what this means in practice, take a look at the charm of Super Mario series. Whenever you see [?]-box, you know it's containing goodies. Heavy rock monster's characteristics are just what its appearance implies. You can't knock it out with fireball. Symbolistic principle works regardless of resolutions and color depth, but many developers get carried away trying to get perfect surface texture that they forget all about symbolism.
Trying to create as realistic game as possible is way too ambitious goal. No company can afford to put enough resources to make it work. For example if you're creating an office map for FPS game, offices usually have rooms and props and doors. That doesn't mean rooms and props and doors contribute anything to actually enjoyable team game. Too high expectations create some annoying situations. For example the map can't be too big, but sense of aestetics says there has to be a window at some part. Thus you get a window at the edge of map that can't be shattered. Or a door that is just a decal in wall. Symbolism is broken - what is implied cannot be done.
These are just a few things, but I think having top-down approach like this could make many mediocre games good.
I:
Games should be designed around gameplay elements that catches player's interest. Take for example Pokemon franchise: you get to collect monsters, breed, train and battle with them. That's a solid concept right there. It's no wonder the series sells so well. On the opposite end you got games like Guild Wars 2, where the developers try to market it with arguments "it's like mmo except..." . And indeed the main selling points seem to be that the game doesn't have monthly fee and doesn't have tedious fetch quests. Is that really the inspiration for making new stuff? For someone who never liked MMOs in the first place are quite reluctant to pick up MMOesque title. On the other hand hardcore MMO-players may find something missing.
All in all, new gameplay ideas are rare. "It's a tower defense". "It's RTS with ancient Egypt units instead of ancient Greek units as usual". "It's a Diablo clone with more skills! If you want Diablo clone with character customization instead, hang on. We'll make another title"
II:
My second gripe is that graphics seem to be the end instead of means to an end. In my opinion, good graphics are symbolistic. To see what this means in practice, take a look at the charm of Super Mario series. Whenever you see [?]-box, you know it's containing goodies. Heavy rock monster's characteristics are just what its appearance implies. You can't knock it out with fireball. Symbolistic principle works regardless of resolutions and color depth, but many developers get carried away trying to get perfect surface texture that they forget all about symbolism.
Trying to create as realistic game as possible is way too ambitious goal. No company can afford to put enough resources to make it work. For example if you're creating an office map for FPS game, offices usually have rooms and props and doors. That doesn't mean rooms and props and doors contribute anything to actually enjoyable team game. Too high expectations create some annoying situations. For example the map can't be too big, but sense of aestetics says there has to be a window at some part. Thus you get a window at the edge of map that can't be shattered. Or a door that is just a decal in wall. Symbolism is broken - what is implied cannot be done.
These are just a few things, but I think having top-down approach like this could make many mediocre games good.
