Why do 99% of modern games have terrible gamefeel?

Why do 99% of modern games have terrible gamefeel?

I'm mostly talking about the controls and how it lacks responsiveness, directness, intuitiveness, etc.

Games like from the early 2000s had perfect controls and gamefeel. Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, Prince of Persia, Devil May Cry, MGS, Max Payne, Halo, Jedi Academy, etc. The controls were simple, and the characters moved exactly how you would expect them to.

Games nowadays feel incredibly off - I never feel that I have direct control over a character. There are all kinds of intentional limitations to how the character can move in order to make the movements more "cinematic" and "realistic" but it ends up ruining my experience with the game. It is also makes the player feel distanced from a character because the character isn't doing what the player wants them to.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/7XGIiGmr74Q?t=44s
youtube.com/watch?v=Xoz5wqXfpwI
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>gamefeel
Fuck off, Arin.

Do you have a very, very serious case of blinding nostalgia. For every game with good controls there was twenty which handled like shit.
Today you can't find a game with actually atrocious controls.

>Andrew Vestal

I wish he still had a twitter account just to see all the trump salt

Because they're designed for consoles.

developers and publishers learned that people care more about the idea of what they're doing more than what they're actually doing

I just avoid games that force quick time events or cinematic "action finisher moves" on you constantly, or worse, games where your character is constantly interrupted by cinematic cutscenes.

Examples include "games" like Uncharted, The Order 1886, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Bayonetta, Devil May Cry, God of War, Wonderful 101, Xenoblade, and so on.

Simply put, you shouldn't have to accept a game shoving its artistic and/or cinematic boner in your face. Tell them that you want a videogame first, nothing else.

You said it, it's about "realism". Original Quake already perfected FPS camera mouse movement, yet studios make their own methods which end up more laggy than they should be.

Nowadays if you want to move your character in any direction there has to be starting phase instead of instant or almost instant reaction, to show weight to movement and animations. For example Yakuza 5 tried being more realistic and it ended up being more laggy than the other games, fortunately they made it more "arcadey" in Yakuza 0.

>Nowadays if you want to move your character in any direction there has to be starting phase instead of instant or almost instant reaction, to show weight to movement and animations.

I hate this so much.

I've been playing Dead Rising 3 and when my character's attacked from the right and staggers to the left, it can take a whole second from my holding the analog stick right to my character actually fucking turning right.

fuck off ACfag

Because if you made FPS/TPS that was responsive as those you mentioned it would be considered arcadey/unrealistic/"floaty"/too fast or something like that. Especially something like Jedi Academy or Wolfenstein 2001 (and other Q3 engine games). Everything has to be like COD 4 or Souls game.

>gamefeel

Hope I didn't offend you, Neogaf.

wow

What you actually want to do is spin in place by circling the stick around. This is the solution to a lot of stop and turn games.

It's fucking dumb though. Just started playing Mass Effect for the first time recently. Moving with your weapon out actually feels less janky than moving with your weapon holstered. Why the fuck do they have two different movement schemes?

COD4 and Souls are responsive though
COD4 was an arena shooter, albeit watered down compared to Quake and such, and every complaint about Souls boils down to the input queue, which punishes you for pressing one thing, then trying to bitch out of your choice a second later
The issue he's talking about is more prevalent in games like Uncharted

>Games like from the early 2000s had perfect controls and gamefeel
you should play the mean greens. it captures that feeling perfecting and makes you remember why it sucked

Nothing wrong about this. In Witcher 3 after patch you could choose between more realistic movement and responsive video gamey movement.
youtu.be/7XGIiGmr74Q?t=44s

Yeah both of those games are responsive, I've expressed myself bad. I wanted to say that design in past 10 years is go realistic or go home. What i means was about implementing quirks from real life movement like slow down after landing a jump or or slow turning around yaw axis and similar things. Make a game like Jedi Academy or Blade of darkness today and no one would take it seriously due to goofy physics and movement, even if they have fun gameplay.

>after patch
This seems like the sort of shit people should put in from the very start.

Cinematic presentation takes priority over responsiveness now.

youtube.com/watch?v=Xoz5wqXfpwI

That was the problem with TW3, that they divided some parts of the game as free DLCs and released them weekly.

It's almost as though they corrected their mistake via the wonder of the digital age, something you couldn't do on the PS1, SNES and such.
People act as though games in the past didn't ship entirely fucked up, they did, and were forgotten, which is why we have stupid people pretending it never happened.

There were games in the past that did that, but on the whole quality was a whole lot better on launch than they were today, more often than not developed to the point where they wouldn't NEED patches.

Bloodborne, Titanfall 2, Bayonetta, Tropical Freeze, and Gears of War all feel exceptional nearly the first moment you get your hands on it. The number of games that do this has descended, certainly, but we are hardly without titles that exemplify phenomenal cohesion between thought and action

devs want to make the character move realistically, that means they make slow 180* turns with realistic looking animations.

Games like TW3 or GTA5 are good examples for this.

>gamefeel
what

you are just retarded
most of those games have very good gameplay and skippable cutscenes

"Movies" don't have good gameplay. The gameplay is often just there to ferry you to the next cutscene.

>but they're skippable!
Oh? Is it like Axiom Verge's speedrun mode where I don't even have to touch a button to bypass them? Or am I forced to skip every single one?

>but on the whole quality was a whole lot better on launch than they were today
Not true.
You're looking through rose colored goggles because now you can go through the SNES library and know what games are trash or not due to word of mouth.
You overblow modern games being trash because you spend 60 bucks on a gamble instead of 5$ on an SNES game you already know is a classic.

"Gamefeel" is a retarded word, but I do agree. I hate how games now always have to have a second where a character stumbles first before running when you press forward, or when you go up to a wall, they'll press their arm against it, slowing you down for a second. That shit is so un-intuitive and unresponsive.

I think I only ever enjoyed this in Ico & Shadow of the Colossus. Everywhere else, I fucking hate this shit.

I've never played nor owned any SNES games. Ever.

I've never called modern games trash, either. Even the ones that I don't like.

Please do not speak as though you know me, or as if everyone on Sup Forums is exactly the same.

There have always been bad games. There will always be bad games. But on the whole, games back then launched a hell of a lot more complete than games today do. Even when talking about PC games, for which patches have existed ever since CD or online games.

Game developers are just taking control schemes from the most popular/familiar game out there and using them in their game, with a few changes for whatever makes theirs different. They aren't designing controls with the controller or input method in mind. This means the entire AAA industry is stuck in "good enough" mode, where the controls are functional but not necessarily good at what they do.

Hell, take a look at PC games which don't even bother to change the button prompts from their console ports.

>gamefeel
what

>gamefeel

I just played Titanfall 2 and DOOM and both those games have fucking great "gamefeel".

Babbies, mass appeal, retards

It's not just games

Is phone touch screens
Digital cable boxes
Even setting a time on an alarm clock (hold button and wait instead of spam it)
Everything has shitty unresponsive feel to it
Cars with turbo lag (all of them, even the new Ford mustangs are 4cyl turbo)

I recommend you play dustforce

I know exactly what you mean and I hate it too.

The new Hitman feels way fucking worse than Blood Money to me, same with the new AC games compared to AC2/Brotherhood. Don't even get me started on how fucking awful the three FFXV demos feel.

Developers seem to be prioritizing pretty animations and small interactions with the environment over fluidity and preciseness. Dark Souls 3 did it great, the second game felt like shit compared to the first one but the third one managed to have both better animations and tighter controls. Devil Daggers is honestly the most satisfying FPS I've played all year, it's baffling that a 500mb indie game can have movement that's so much more satisfying than Doom, Titanfall 2, and Battlefield 1.

Thats some good bait you've got there user, implying that Bayonetta is a movie game like Uncharted, I have to admit, even I almost called you a complete retard

>I've never played X, but they were better
K.
You're exactly the type of retard on Sup Forums I dislike, cocksuck old games you've never played and turn around and bitch about modern games.
Good job ousting yourself.

I've never found games like MGS and DMC to be all that offensive. Because even though they have a lot of cutscenes, none of them interrupt the gameplay with cinematic moments all to often.

I can take long cutscenes, because then I can just sit back and relax whaching some shit going down, and skip it if I want. It's the "oh no, this thing broke and now I'm tumbling down a ravine how thrilling" every five steps in games like Uncharted that makes me angry. By all means have cutscenes, but don't shove them right in the middle of your actions and pretend they are part of the gameplay.

>falling for the b8

I never talked about SNES games. You were the one who brought them up. I was talking about old-ass PC games you nitwit.

K...keep me posted.

>make the movements more "cinematic" and "realistic" but it ends up ruining my experience with the game. It is also makes the player feel distanced from a character because the
Basically this.
But to answer you further, it is in a attempt to casualize games further so that more people can feel like they are "doing good", they make things automatic to attract more casuals who want to play a interactive movie.
Realism and graphical fidelity> User input/lag because it is easier to market.

It's usually not so much an issue in FPS games since they have no player animations(most of the time). But it's gotten really bad in third person games.

The pinnacle of "animations before gameplay" was probably GTAIV and RDR. In those games it can be fucking challenging to walk through a doorway because it takes like 10 minutes for something to happen after you press a button.

>getting pissy and passive aggressive at me because you made a massive assumption then proceeded to get mad over something I never made reference to
Yep, I'm on Sup Forums alright.

Answer me this then if you think I'm "baiting":

>does Bayonetta have hours of cutscenes
>does it have quick time events (it doesn't matter how many it has, even one is disgusting)
>does it have finisher moves where you press a button and a cutscene plays out
>regarding the gameplay quality, do game journalists love it or hate it? Remember, game journos HATE anything that's good. I present you Uncharted's metacritic as exhibit A.

Please, answer me these few questions before you call bait.

I found them extremely offensive because you couldn't skip every single cutscene in the entire game with just one button press. You had to manually skip every one individually, and with some of the games having upwards of 30+ hours of cinematics, that became unbearable, and dragged the gameplay pace to a halt. Worse yet, I still had to pay for the entire game. I was never given an option to pay only for the gameplay.

Amateurs (indies) became developers

Because for some reason people think that realism makes for good game feel. The amount of animations and attention to detail is somehow more important than responsiveness too. A character just can't snap from one animation to the next anymore, they need some kinda bullshit transition that slows the pace down. Then you have shit like Uncharted where it hadly feels like you're controlling anything at all since the character's sliding all over the place.

>I found them extremely offensive because you couldn't skip every single cut...
Is it really that hard pressing a button or two every once in a while?

It's the unskippable "walk while someone is talking" that is the real enemy. It really drags down MGR replays. But I've never had an issue with skipping cutscenes.

I could ask the same about MMOs. WoW is the only one that actually feels responsive.

Only because back in the day people actually tried different things with their control methods depending on the game they wanted to make. Now they just copy & paste the same control scheme in every game whether it fits or not

>halo
Is this a joke? My mouae feels Horribly clunky in that game.

>It's the unskippable "walk while someone is talking" that is the real enemy.
And that exists in every single game I mentioned, since they all have the disgusting plague that is voice acting.

Again, unless you mute your TV, you can't skip their noisy expository dialogue or unfunny "banter", so even if you're actually playing the game during, all you hear is some whiny british voice actor reading off of a script.

To be fair. That's one of the better things about the Uncharted games(well, at least the first two, haven't played any others). They managed to blend solid input and animations fairly well, I never felt like I was controlling a tank like in say GTAIV, but the animations still looked fairly smooth. Shame they ruined it with never ending cinematic moments that took away your controls though.

I don't mind turning animations, but I absolutely hate the "realistic" way a lot of new Rockstar games control. There's something about it that feels stiff and unresponsive. Outside of R*, I haven't had much of a problem with modern game movement, off the top of my head Bloodborne, Bayo, DmC, Warframe, & MGSV all have nice movement.

Overwatch is incredibly casual but it has excellent and responsive movement/controls

I don't remember any of that in MGS 1-3.

The first time I played Witcher 3 I almost stopped playing, felt like Geralt walked around on ice or something. Thank fucking god they fixed it in a patch and made it just control like shit instead of being borderline unplayable.

Half the time you can't progress unless you open up the codec, or listen to guards spewing expository dialogue.

You very much can. There is this handy little button often called "start" you can press.

Yes, and then you have to press it again. And again. And again. 50 hours of that isn't fun.

Most characters are now using state machines for their animations which have transitions which are longer than 0 seconds, so your input will be received but the time it takes to actually start the new state is more than 0 seconds, hence the lag. Devs need to set that shit to 0 dawg

>start game up the first time
>mouse is extremely fast

>move mouse
>character turns with noticable delay

>can't turn off mouse acceleration

>"Enter OK, Esc CANCEL"

>floaty character movement

What are your video game red flags?

what is the steam controller supposed to be an amanglement of

No. Not really. But even so, pressing a button every once in a while isn't what I would call game ruining.

And I thought I was bitter and hated video games. You must have some seriously ridiculous standards.

>sprint with character
>delay for character to start running
>turn character around when running
>have to stop all my momentum and wait forever to go in other direction

cinematic shit needs to die. People play videogames for fun not realism.

>longer than 0 seconds
What you mean 1 frame?

On the contrary, I love video games. but I hate "story driven" cinematic drivel. If any of the games I listed were good, for example, then why even have the story? Surely the gameplay could carry it all by themselves, right?

Yeah, they are set to a fixed time. More than 1 frame innit

>turn character around when running
>have to stop all my momentum and wait forever to go in other direction

TRIGGERED.

Honest question. For everyone making fun of the term "gamefeel" how else would you describe the difference between walking in a tight circle in GTA4 and doing the same in Super Mario 64?

this is the best OP in Sup Forums I've seen for a decade.

I hate this shit so much. Makes it feel so sluggish and unresponsive. But it's okay because it's "cinematic", right?

Doesn't have to be, can be just 1 frame like with everything else

They have no idea, they just like to shit on it because some ecelebs they don't like used it even though it refers to a very real thing that's discussed all the time

What? Yes I know, that's how it should be, at the moment it's probably set to a fixed time. Are you in need of help with some big boy words user?

I'm amazed by how successful your bait chain turned out. Have a (you) on me.

Controls, responsiveness, elegance, controller layout, control scheme, input delay, whatever else is a more accurate term for the meaning you are trying to convey.

I just use "the way the game feels," or "the feel of the game."

"Gamefeel" sounds like the dumbest term I've ever heard.

Oh okay my bad, misinterpreted what you said

You're free to call it bait all you want Neogaf, but that doesn't make it any less true.

you not familiar with ACfag? At this point I'm not sure he's even baiting. He's getting to me.

So literally the same fucking thing but in more words? Contrarian dumbfuck lol

Gears of War still places controls over realistic animations, which is why the multiplayer is so well liked. Ironically I saw negative criticisms over this, because it's goofy seeing the realism of Gears 4 on UE4 but seeing people bouncing and sliding everywhere.

why do you call everyone who finds you fucking retarded "neogaf"?

>gamefeel

There's already a word for it, faggot. Has been since the 80's. It's called playability.

10/10 post. I've been wondering the same, it really seems like devs think that making character movement look natural is hugely important for some reason. It's probably either them thinking that the game has to look good in Let's Plays for maximum playerbase, or then smooth animations makes the game higher art or some retarded shit.

One example would be going from Thief 2 to Thief 3. Thief 2 has great movement, but one of the first things you notice in Thief 3 is that you turn in a radius. It feels so insanely unnatural that I almost dropped the game there and then. I never got used to it despite completing the game.

Controls are THE first thing of importance that you note in a game, so when a game has shit movement it's a massive putoff. Witcher 3's movement system was fucking horrific at launch, and even the alternative movement feels very sluggish despite being a massive upgrade.

>2008, GTA4 comes out with insane hype
>Niko practically puts his torso parallel to the ground when changing directions while walking
most games feel pretty good to play these days, black ops 3 might've had the best movement mechanics in any game I've ever played, too bad it gets shit on purely because it's call of duty and deservedly so, that game was ruined with RNG crates that had special weapons in them

>Contrarian dumbfuck lol
Not really all that contrarian when nobody uses the term "gamefeel" in the first place.

>it's goofy seeing the realism of Gears 4 on UE4 but seeing people bouncing and sliding everywhere.
I hate this shit so much with modern games. They want to look more realistic and grounded but want to be over-the-top and video game-y at the same time. The end result is something that just looks ridiculous. Just look at FFXV as an example. The devs go to painstaking degrees to make the basic movements look realistic and have a similar real-life weight to them, then you can do air combos and shit where you're floating around in the air and it just looks odd.

Pick one or the other.

Neogaf is one of the only sites that thinks that being too "videogamey" is a bad thing, and that games need to advance as an art form with cinematics and "Artistic license" and "character drama".

That's not the same at all though. Game feel is a broad term that's made up of everything from the control responsiveness to sound design.

So if someone doesn't share with your extreme view then they must hold the opposite extreme view?

>hours of cutscenes
Yes. All of which are skippable.

>quick time events
The first more than the second. Some of which are player-initiated.

>finisher moves where you press a button and a cutscene plays out
They have finisher moves where you press a button and initiate a quick time event to finish it off, if you count that as a cutscene.

>do game journalists love it or hate it
It was extremely controversial, as early on it was considered one of the primo examples of sexism in gaming although that's not particularly true.

The issue with you, and why people always call you bait, is because
>on a scale of 0 to 100, you treat 1-20 as being exactly the same as a 100, where 0 is all gameplay and 100 is all story
>It doesn't matter how good the base game outside of a cutscene is, it doesn't matter if the cutscenes are skippable, it doesn't matter how much time passes between cutscenes, you treat it like it's a movie, even if it's a game with literally 300+ hours of gameplay versus 3-4 hours of cutscenes, meaning you'll see maybe one a day if that
>it doesn't matter if it has ONE quick time event compared to having like 50, or how well done the quick time events are, you'll treat it like absolute shit

Let's take, for example, Wonderful 101. It had quite a few QTE's, admittedly. Yet many people consider it to have some of the best QTEs in the industry because they take forever to run out of time, are typically given ample warning, set you back mere seconds and restart quickly, and will sometimes have funny endings if you fuck it up somehow, meaning it's not a complete loss. Furthermore, more than a few were player-initiated.

Yet, you, most assuredly, won't take this into account at all. You'll treat it as being exactly the same as a game with a QTE that comes out of literally nowhere, gives you next to no real reaction time, sets you back several minutes, and may even have multiple stages.

This sort of shit is why people call you and your posts bait.

Say whatever you want about the game, but MGSV has perfect controls

Responsiveness/tightness of controls. That's the thing you're attempting to convey. "Gamefeel" sounds like something a four-year-old girl would come up with because she doesn't have real words and can't explain concepts more complex than "Feels good/bad".

>you want games to be videogamey? Wow what an extreme view!

Are you saying wonderful101, bayonetta, dmc, etc. don't have good gameplay? Is that what you're saying?

In that particular case: snappiness? It's basically the difference in time between the moment you want the game to play and when it decides it can do it. The higher the worse.

By the way, I'm surprised at the responses in this thread. I made a similar complaint after I was recommended Grim Dawn as an alternative to Diablo 2. GD suffers from the same: acceleration to get moving, to stop, no hitstop when beating an enemy, etc, which made it feel far worse than D2. When I said I thought those areas could be improved I was told I was an autist for caring about such things... but it does make all the different in how well a game feels.