The Sameness of Sequels

Maybe Spore has the right idea.

Maybe it's way past time to have a different type of game altogether, rather than just clever, preferably novel spins on already existing genres.

Maybe not. Who knows. I'm not sure Spore is really that different from existing god games either. Just on a grander scale of achievement. Like all the games that are turning up lately.

Thing is, I'm playing a lot of good games right now. They're all technically excellent in their own way. But I can't help feel like I've grokked the pattern. Already.

An RTS game is going to involve building up some armies, teching up a tech tree of some kind, and then running said armies around a map either capturing points or burninating the opposing forces' armies/buildings. These days, RTS games will also multiple factions with different playstyles, and a satisfactory story replete with cutscenes in between each map setup.

An RPG involves levels and gaining xp to get better skills. The xp tends to flow by doing various quests or beating on living things. If you're creative, games like Mass Effect also award xp for talking to people and poking around 'exploring' by clicking on things to collect an update for one's codex aka encyclopedic deed log. Again, a good singleplayer game of this ilk tends to split up the interactive action bits with cinematic storytelling (often voice-acted cutscenes) and dialogue options (sometimes with meaningful significant choices, and oftentimes falling short of the mark.)

An FPS involves spinning around looking at very high class graphics with mouselook, and normally shooting most of the moving objects with a crosshair in the center of one's screen. A lot of the better games also involve good pacing between action and suspense/storytelling (also done with cutscenes.)

A god-game or citybuilding strategy game involves being the controller from above, manipulating a civilization or faction into conquest of some sort (military, technological, cultural or otherwise). It also tends to involve the construction of a lot of buildings/cities that give increasing reward, and teching up to greater and greater power, not to mention a lot of "next turn" clicking. Some of them are real-time based too, of course, and copy things from the RTS branch.

An adventure game involves moving a player character avatar around a bunch of maps/room locations, pixel-hunting for things to click or otherwise examining objects deeply for revealed story clues. Sometimes there are conversations with NPCs very similar to the style of RPGs, or objects are used on each other to create progress down the particular 'quest'/puzzle. Storytelling and cutscenes are also used. For some, real time plays a factor, for others, it is all turn-based and may not matter.

A 'sandbox' game tends to be done in an RPG style, with either the illusion of choice, or an open area for players to choose their own actions and see the programmed consequences of it.

A racing game is exactly that. Race a car around the track and win. By whatever rules were set. Ditto other sports games with rules.

Hybrid games tend to take a bunch of concepts from all of the above and mush them up. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not.

I'm starting to wonder if there's any point playing these games if we already know most of their basic mechanics.

I suppose you could argue that the story and setting and lore is unique, and therefore it is an immersive pleasure - just like you can narrow down most stories to 36 plots or other such archetypal patterns, in book or movie form - but one still chooses to experience it for the emotional reward of immersing oneself in the story.

Yet one of the reasons why I'm suddenly into rhythm games (Patapon, Dance Online) is that it is suddenly a whole new different set of mechanics to learn and master. Slightly more action arcade-like in its roots.

The Final Fantasy series is also quite classic for varying its combat/magic mechanics greatly between sequels, so that there is suddenly an entirely new system (materia, cards, whatever) to learn.

And I admit to being quite disturbed that the recent spate of 'good' games have all been sort of amalgamating with each other into a sort of diku representation of an RPG with 'good' story.

Heck, even the tabletop version of D&D is suddenly embracing MMO-like roles of tank, melee DPS, healer and what not... I hope 'tank and spank' 'holy trinity' and/or 'heals while fighting' doesn't become the common denominator of all games.

It just seems like in their effort to be something for everyone, to offer everyone a choice on how they like to play a certain game... they are all running full tilt down the road of being exactly the same.