This has been cropping up a lot recently on my YouTube suggestions after I had a Thief soundtrack binge a few weeks back. Hadn’t watched it until yesterday but it made me think of this thread.
While I don’t agree with some of the broader opinions expressed here, I think there’s plenty of interesting observations which tie in with @TurinTur’s original post. Of course, Thief and Thief II are some of my favourite games of all time so it’s always nice to hear someone expressing why they’re (still) so good, but it’s contrasting them with AAA gaming’s terrified design (in that it’s terrified of confusing, upsetting, forcing, discouraging, inconveniencing and ultimately losing the player–hardly surprising given the budgets and importance of return on investment) that made me realise why I’ve been mostly playing indie games for the last 10 years or so. Granted, plenty of indies are guilty of me-too design but for the most part it’s a much more exciting and interesting space if you want to venture off the beaten path and get a little lost in the dark.
The big problem I have is that as much as gamers make out they want something different, the truth is, when something different does come along they start dragging their expectations in from other games. They want this and they want that, regardless of what the game is aiming for. It’s a very selfish perspective. Miasmata is a perfect example to illustrate this point.
Miasmata had some divisive and much maligned mechanics but they all served a purpose and shaped the very structure and flow of the game, from the triangulation mapping system, the severe carry limit, your character’s unwieldy momentum and inertia, to the monster hunting you down, the piecing together of clues, the disease you had and the resulting need to stay hydrated. These things were not forgiving and you had to make concessions and plan around them. They were the essence of the game and defined the tough moment-to-moment decision making and memorable situations you found yourself in. Now head over to Steam and most of the negative reviews are people wanting backpacks, a traditional mapping system, a sturdy character, cooking and crafting, base-building… basically moaning because it’s not like other survival games. It’s infuriating and disappointing. Homogenization you say?
So yeah, as easy as it is to point the finger at suits and design committees, gamer expectations are a big problem in themselves. Where there’s a game doing something different, there’s legions of gamers wanting it to be like other games. There’s no wonder we end up with lots of games trying to be everything to everyone and resembling each other in the process.
To be clear, I’m not saying games should be different for the sake of being different or ‘good’ design practices should be ignored, but misunderstanding or overlooking or not engaging with the intent of a perfectly fine design and it being thrown under the bus of history because it didn’t resemble or behave like something we’re familiar with is just a shame and a waste.
This goes the other way too, carrying bad/lazy design practices forward, like GPS and Ubisnot objective markers being sneezed all over maps. It makes sense in some games, but Thief 4? I’m surprised it wasn’t panned more for that bollocks. And look at the praise for Breath of the Wild’s blank map and discovery-based play! I’m not a fan of BotW but I’m glad Nintendo are leading the charge out of those perfectly surveyed woods.
Perhaps not disappoints (at least in Prey’s case), but fails to shift units, which is all that matters really. But your point’s spot on. Everyone I know who’s played Prey has really enjoyed it, including @tomchick it seems. Looking forward to playing it myself at some point.