"Forgotten" game mechanics

[Astraea]

Let's talk about certain aspects of a past game's mechanics that you liked but haven't seem to carry on in current day games.

I'll start with these two:

Demons Souls - world tendencies
The game environment would change certain aspects of it like enemy placement/optional bosses or items based on whether your world tendency was more to the 'black' or 'white'. You would gain a more black world tendency by dying a lot, making the game harder too. Whereas performing well and defeating bosses would contribute towards a more 'white' world tendency with it's own perks.
I celebrated this mechanics because it was so original and as far as I can remember it was even affected my people invading you, making it an even more relevant mechanic when playing online. Sadly I have never seen this feature again in either the souls series itself or any other game I played.

Call of Duty: World At War - Rifles
Also, the PS3 era. This is when I first got into Call of Duty, not being a huge shooter fan I had to find my niche in multiplayer. And I found it, the game was a looooot more fun to me when I discovered the rifle weapon type, ideally used for mid-long range shooting. It was the only weapontype I enjoyed playing and man what a great online game it was! I decided much later to buy CoD Modern warfare but to my shock it didn't include any rifles...I was stunned. Why would a developer choose to leave out a weapontype that's completely different from all other weapons? It left a hole, because I couldn't find any weapon to fill that hole.
You could argue it's because of the era the game plays in and maybe they didn't really use rifles in the age it was set in, but for gameplays sake why not just put it in anyway?

What's a gameplay mechanic that you liked and missed later on?

[Chris_Ceee]

brain power and skills...

[Sorain]

Not sure if this qualifies as a game mechanic but: Multiple endings and branching based on failure.

Back on the PS1, there was a few games in a little series called Colony Wars. One of the most shocking things to me about playing the first game in the series was when I lost a mission (it was a space flight combat sim.) and the story rolled on. The mission had failed, there were consequences for that failure and the story branched because of it. I barely managed to beat the next few missions and got an ending that wasn't really a happy one but made sense. (basically, my side of the war managed to sign an armistice and get some of their demands met.) I played the game again and beat the mission I'd failed, but then lost another mission on this branch that was totally diffrent and again things branched before I got an ending that was actually worse! (Because this time the enemy had actually felt threatened so their post war retaliation was far more ruthless.) It made getting to the later endings legitimately worth working for, and when the sequel came? I learned it was based on not the BEST ending, but the one I had THOUGHT was the best because the final mission seemed unwinnable. (Colony Wars: Vengeance)

These days if you fail you just reload a save because the plot demands you succeed or you can't possibly succeed because the plot demands you fail. This basic structure, multiple branches and endings where failure isn't the end but changes things? You can apply that to damn near any game with a story. We just don't see it anymore. Imagine if you could start Mass Effect 3 from the ending where Shepard died. That's the kind of massive branching I wish we could see.

[MadMummy76]

Brain power is a barrier to sales i'm sure... if people can't complete a game, they are less likely to buy the follow up game(s)..

You'd be surprised how little percentage of players actually finish games. Even with games like Mass Effect that doesn't require much brainpower, the number of players who finish the game is barely more than half. Bioware released statisctics about this a few years ago:

40% of players completed the original Mass Effect,
56% finished Mass Effect 2
42% finished Mass Effect 3
36% beat Dragon Age Origins,
41% Dragon Age 2,

[vawkil]

Not a game mechanic, but rather design philosophy which for the lack of a good description could be referred to as:

The polar opposite of the modern Bethesda "moar huge=moar better" sandbox approach to open world design.

Thankfully someone more linguistically and rhetorically versed already made a video about the very subject, explaining how it's done right using Gothic & Gothic 2 as the prime (and pioneering) examples in this regard:

[Astraea]

Mike
So much agree. I'm pretty sure most puzzle elements in todays games can be completed with ease by anyone with an IQ of 100 or above. Why put a puzzle there in the first place if you're gonna make it that easy? You wouldn't do that unless you want to create an illusion of diversity of game mechanics. While in reality you there's no diversity at all, you can pretty much just walk trough the puzzle.
The guides and forums problem can be solved by just not looking it up, that's more a matter of setting up some ground rules for yourself to get the most out of your game.

I really wonder what made devs change to a one-size-fits-all mold for games. People online that have been gaming for a bit longer complain constantly about how games have degraded yet they keep churning out these abominable games. There's truly good games sometimes and that's a sight to behold when they release, but i'll admit I sometimes buy mediocre games just to have something new to play.

[IceWolf]

My pick would be games with a point-system or high scores like in Pacman, Galaga, or Donkey Kong to name a few. I miss those days of playing games to try and beat your high score so you could have bragging rights with all of your friends. On that note: I miss arcade game "mechnics" too. When need arcades with new arcade games being released to make a come back like in the 80s and 90s.

[Zenorf]

Brain power is a barrier to sales i'm sure... if people can't complete a game, they are less likely to buy the follow up game(s).

That's a fair point. I'd go so far as to say if people find a game hard, complex, or simply alien to their previous experiences, there is a genuine risk of them reviewing it badly in the first place, often stating that "It's just luck" or "You die for no reason" and other such statements. They aren't wrong either, since from their point of view that is exactly what happens, but from a dev point of view it's frustrating and hurts your sales, So there is a definite inclination to go for something easier, and more familiar in order to minimize negative experiences. It's a major concern for large companies trying to cater for millions of end users. It's still a problem for Indies but visibility is still their biggest issue.

I'm saying this from my experiences as a failed Game Dev.

[Hard Carved Winter]

Reloading forfeits ammo still in magazine
...
Health that doesn't auto refill
...
Cosmetic items as gameplay rewards (instead of microtransactions)
Multiplayer only an optional bonus feature, and not the entire game

You're on to something. 2005: best summer yet!

I kid. It's jarring to see the long list of "forgotten" mechanics that used to be norm. Any one of those would be a notable exception in a modern title.

[Mike]

Anything requiring brain power has been removed. Puzzles are mainly gone, platforming is gone, key finding is gone, labyrinth style maps are gone. Only a few games keep things complicated to this day. Anyone remember trying to beat The Lair Of The Blind Ones in Turok 2 without a guide? It's pretty rough. (not counting remaster which reworked the level to make it slightly easier to navigate)

Brain power is a barrier to sales i'm sure... if people can't complete a game, they are less likely to buy the follow up game(s).

Like how some folks say that Pokemon has always been easy. Only in hindsight... when I was a kid with Pokemon Blue, no internet, no strategy guide, it was a damn hard game and took many weeks for me to complete. I died multiple times and lost countless battles. But when I did complete it the feeling of reward was immense... that is how a game should be. Ultimately reflective of the challenges of real life where you don't have your hand held all the time, or guaranteed outcomes of never losing. Of course Game Freak would never allow kids to "faint" in the new Pokemon games as it might scar them for life!

Heck they even took battling wild Pokemon out of the newest games. And you think it will come back in the next "core" games? Of course it won't.

The other aspect is we are so saturated with games now, both new and old (in form of retro mini consoles) that game devs must fear putting out a game that takes time and patience to complete, with actual skill, as people will get bored and play something easier and quicker. A bit like how board games have become watered down versions with wording on the box like "takes 20 mins to complete". Because no one apparently has time to sit down for 2 hours and absorb themselves in a game. Why even bother at all then?

Instead of dumbing down, games should take risks and challenge the players..and they will still have people playing them in 20 years time. But that doesn't make money right now.

[MadMummy76]

Separate reputation with each and every NPC
Reloading forfeits ammo still in magazine
Wheel+Pedal support in not specifically car sims. (like mafia)
Non-combat introductory levels (ex: Unreal, or HL1) Now games start with the loudest and biggest bang possible, like they're still trying to sell the game by being flashy. But you're already playing it.
Physics based puzzles
Health that doesn't auto refill
Manual save points
Cosmetic items as gameplay rewards (instead of microtransactions)
Multiplayer only an optional bonus feature, and not the entire game

[Hard Carved Winter]

This game did this differently. It had a circle of letters (I think alphabetical) that you used the thumb stick to move around in and it was soooo fast, smooth and precise that writing something in game was actually an option! Why this wasn’t adapted into more console games baffles me to this day.

Radial menus are relatively common in console games and interfaces. For example, Diablo III on Nintendo Switch makes heavy use of the pattern.

[Astraea]

Astraea, well met.

I cannot say in particular much in terms of specifics. However I shall forever pine over the loss of the immense creativity seen among games made for Nintendo's DS game console. Though the 3DS too could achieve such feats, developers sadly shied away from using the unique device for their games. Now with the Nintendo Switch and WiiU I dare say we may never again see multi-screen games, unique touch screen controls as a feature and more.

Remember it fondly, cherish it forever, much as I shall never forget noble Arthur.

Ah I remember my Nintendo DS. I think I had that Yoshi game and a brain training game and a RPG game that was about collecting solar power to fuel special attacks. When it was daytime in the game, your knight would collect energy from the sun that he could spend to fuel special attacks. When it was night time you would need to be fueled up to get around. I completely forgot about that mechanic and the game itself.
I can't say I miss the touch screen, but I did like the games that came out for the DS for what they were, great nintendo games.

[Astraea]

Ah good to hear the newer CoD's have rifles (bolt ation and without scope). But yes, I've had the same feeling , it doesn't seem to be the CoD anymore that I loved back on PS3. It's super fast paced and it seems to be more about the encounter itself than preperation for the encounter/ spotting + the encounter. This was drastically different in World at war.

[Seifer_Black]

Check out Divinity Original Sin 2 or 1

Will do, thanks for the suggestion.