Re:Game sameness - churn and politics (Score 1)

For me being busy means there's even more pressure for games to be as deep as possible - more hypno-bang for the buck. I realize not everyone - in fact a distinct minority - wants this. But it makes it all the sweeter when a multifaceted gem like, say, Arx Fatalis or Morrowind appears.

It seems to me like most of the current games out there are built (at least the AAA aimed titles) under this assumption. I truly lament the disappearance of side scrolling shooters, and relatively linear adventure games.

I think part of the problem is that most designers seem stuck in the complexity == depth mold of design, and while it may be true that it's easier to obtain depth by layering on complexity, I don't think it's necessary.

Neither Go nor Chess nor Tetris are complex in any way, yet all are ostensibly fantastic games. I think a lot of my problem with the current game landscape is that most design houses have quit trying to distill games to their essence because they can't figure out how to do so and maintain complexity (a failure of the original design, I think). The few cases where they do so, however, tend to be very hit or miss. It's a fine line between boring and repetitive without enough variety, and simple to pick up, difficult to master. I think most big game houses long ago gave up trying to figure out how to end up on the right side (or in fact, anywhere near) that line, and instead tend to focus on the realm of "These X features in these games were good.. let's see if we can meld them all." It's a valid approach to depth, but I don't find it to be a particularly elegant one.

Of the major players still running around out there, I think Nintendo is the closest to this ideal still, but even then it's giving them problems. Sega used to be, but they couldn't come up with compelling enough games to justify their business model, and recently seem to have buckled under to a more traditional model.