It's interesting how game mechanics evolve and become more refined over time.

For any modern game you like, you can trace back the lineage of its mechanics, just like you could trace back the evolution of a school of philosophy or a musical genre.

If you could go back in time and create, for example, Slay the Spire on the SNES, you would blow everyone's mind and be hailed as a visionary genius.

The best new games are often the ones that advance their genre mechanics in some meaningful way.

What do you think?

>>11800448 (OP)
>If you could go back in time and create, for example, Slay the Spire on the SNES, you would blow everyone's mind and be hailed as a visionary genius.
Just googled that and it seems like a card game with a mario rpg-esque combat thing?

>>11800465
It's a very refined example of turn based rpg style combat. Every choice in every encounter feels meaningful but it couldn't have existed without iterating on years of turned based games and roguelike mechanics. Just an example but there are good examples in every genre

>>11800448 (OP)
I wouldn't use words with positive connotations to them, such as 'evolve' or 'refine'. But yes, there's certainly a rich genealogy to explore, albeit a highly dysgenic and incestuous one.

>>11800484
Could you elaborate?
I think it's generally a good thing that mechanics have become more refined. It's often hard to go back and play some older games because they are primitive in some sense, lack QoL, or lack meaningful choices.

The bad side to this is that negative/predatory concepts have also been refined like loot boxes, season passes and so on.

>>11800496
>It's often hard to go back and play some older games because they are primitive in some sense, lack QoL, or lack meaningful choices.
Such as?

Fuck off, frog posting retard.

>>11800508
Just some examples off the top of my head

Souls like: you take into consideration how many souls you're carrying, or how difficult it would be to get back to collect your souls when evaluating taking risk. In an older action rpg you might just die and get a game over, less tactical depth.

Slay the spire: every point of health lost is meaningful since you can't go and grind and restore health to full between encounters, so every encounter and every turn is important.

>>11800517
Those are examples of modern games that put a spin on classic formulas, not older games that are hard to go back to due to lacking "QoL" or "meaningful choices".

>>11800476
I dunno it just seems it mixed some ideas from semi real time turn based combat and card-based RPG mechanics (such as in the Famicom DBZ RPGs)

This thread is a pretty shitty approach to an otherwise interesting topic. Rather than talk ii time travel bringing modern games back you could be listing how gameplay actually evolved:
>the first game with bssic jumping
>the first game where running jumps and momentum mattered
>the first game with jump power based on how long you press the button for (tap for low jump, long press for high jump)
>the first game that let you move around while in the air after jumping, instead of a fixed movement arc
>the first double jump
Etc
All of these gameplay innovations happened over just a few years from 1981-1985 as action games rapidly evolved

Fuck off, chatgpt

>>11800496
>Could you elaborate?
Based on your response to me, and what you've shared about Dark Souls, it sounds like we have very different visions for the medium. To such an extent that I'm not sure if an in-depth conversation would be productive.

I don't think platformers got any better than Super Mario World honestly.
Games like Ninja Gaiden or Mega Man X added some interesting stuff like wall jumping or dashing, but I still think the sheer volume of physics possibilities in SMW's controls is just the peak of the genre and all devs can do from here is do things differently but not surpass it.
I think the only other game that I would consider more complex than SMW (strictly talking about controls/physics) is Mischief Makers with the jets and the amount of speed/trajectory variables, and of course also has the grabbing and throwing aspect (that can and does affect the platforming), but despite MM being amazing and honestly with an endless skill ceiling, I still think of SMW as the king.
There's a reason it's SMW that's the most popular romhack platformer game ever.
I've played more modern indie games that kind of embarace the kaizo culture, such as I wanna be the guy, vvvvv, meat boy, dustforce, they all are clear followers of old school platformers but I wouldn't necessarily say they are better or more refined than the old games, they just focus more on certain aspects.

>>11800543
it does those things about 100x better, to the extent that people playing it on the SNES would be mindblown
No offense but your 30 seconds of musings based on a trailer are kind of meaningless

>>11800565
>it does those things about 100x better

>>11800565
>it does those things about 100x better
Can you explain how, or why you think that?

>>11800569
>>11800573
Because it has monster trucks and sniper rifles

>>11800583
ok auster

>>11800517
>Souls like: you take into consideration how many souls you're carrying, or how difficult it would be to get back to collect your souls when evaluating taking risk. In an older action rpg you might just die and get a game over, less tactical depth.
This stops mattering as soon as you realize that souls are fundamentally worthless, since the game is only mildly more difficult on SL1 compared to a normal playthrough. If failing doesn't meaningfully impede your ability to progress, the risk/reward dynamic is entirely illusory. In short, this is not good game design.

>>11800598
>only mildly more difficult
>being able to take 3 hits instead of 1 from the boss is only mildly easier
Nice one man!

>>11800569
>>11800573
>>11800569
>>11800573
Sorry but anyone with a brain is going to assume the modern indie genre-redifining title has more refined gameplay than some licensed shit no one has thought about in 3 decades. Burden of proof is on you

>>11800448 (OP)
Why are you overly verbose? I agree with >>11800547