Allow me to explain:

Taking the "Crafting Survival" genre as a prime example, why do they all have the same feeling of being cheap, amateurish, and janky af? There is just this certain something about how every single one feels to play. The differences tends to be more in the grind, progression, and aesthetics while the game feel is exactly the same. The way your character moves, the way combat feels cheesy and unbound, the often minimalisticly artistic UI (like it's just a 50% transparent box with text/icons on it), and almost always riddled with bugs.

Even the big budget ones made by giant, long-lived developers tend to feel exactly the same as the independently made-by-one-dude-in-a-garage games. They might have better visuals, but everything else feels cheap and just to the point of functionality.

The weirdest part of this, to me, is that Minecraft doesn't feel like this and it is basically the grandfather of the genre. It's just every other one built in Unity or Unreal that feels like a janky ARMA module made by someone who just learned how to code. With so many developers making so many games in this genre, you'd think at least one of them would make one that feels more "luxurious." I lament not being able to put into words exactly what I mean; it's really something that can only be described through comparison and experience. But I have to believe others who have played games like Rust, Ark, Valheim, etc know what I mean.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 4 points 2 days ago (6 children)

I guess the crafting survival genre is just one of the bigger "me too" bandwagons, which is why all of them feel cheap. Tho even the original breakout hits feel like that because they actually were made by amateurs. If we could see the source code, I wonder how often we'd see the same systems just straight up copied and pasted from another game. 🤔

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    Extremely unlikely they used the literal same code unless it was from a template or asset pack.

    That's also probably intentional because people tend to like the familiar 'tropes' and if you go out of your way to do it in a weird way, that design may be burned at the stake in the reviews/feedback.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 days ago (2 children)

    Familiarity is okay. Similar systems and gameplay are expected to be copied. But why also copy the awful parts?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

    Sorry I forgot to reply to this.

    Its hard to nail down specifics with general awful parts but I have a few notes on why some things get to be a little janky:

    • Many mechanics/systems in survival crafting games have to work in all scenarios. Because of this, you can't (usually) be 100% certain its always going to happen as intended.

    ...For example, let's say you have a treasure chest, and when the player interacts with it, the game plays a fancy animation of the character opening and while the inventory screen fades in. But as these chests get placed around the world, you can't guarantee they'll always be reachable, at the right angle, or the player doing something dumb (like standing on it while opening it)

    Now those are all 'solvable' but it starts to become a 'just optimize the production' in Factorio style problem where you're chasing edge cases. Even then, players will find new ways to break foolproof designs.

    The general solution is just 'keep it simple' where box pops open (or just makes a sound) and a UI pops up. Not great... And sometimes kind of sucks.

    • Secondly, many of these games are online/multiplayer. This normally shouldn't be a huge deal but networking has a few quirks that tend to show up. For example, networking infamously doesn't like replicated physics. Games like Rocket League are actual magic on how they figured out how to make that work.

    Anyways the end result is a lot of fairly static world objects, and when you do get physics, they tend to have a lot of potential jank involved if you're not hosting the server.

    • Regarding UI, making a good UI is honestly a difficult and rare skillset. A lot of engines have some built-in tools (You most definitely have used an Unreal Engine Uniform Grid Panel at some point) that work out of the box but sometimes have quirks or design issues that crop up as games get more advanced.

    Making it work for gamepads and KB/M, readable on big screens as well as SteamDecks, and do background tasks like asking the server what my character's inventory or whatever is tends to be a feat when it all works correctly.

    • Open world (which many of these games are) means a lot of content which means a lot of work for sometimes diminishing results. I think it was a developer for Destiny(?) who once said you might work on an area for a month only for the player to fly through it with a Sparrow in like, ~2 seconds.
    • A lot of survival crafting games tend to be early access. This is 'fine' but some very vocal players are ravenous and burn through years of content in a solid weekend and still want more. The Early access effect is easy to see in these games where some mechanics are not well thought out or abandoned in later updates because rather than reiterating on them, devs are pushed to move onto new content, so you end up with weirdo design decisions or new game directions or whatever.

    You also have devs who perceive something as more popular or more true to their vision or whatever and neglect certain aspects while focusing on others.

    • Basebuilding has quirks, and its name is navmeshes. AI has to navigate through buildings using a mapped out mesh, basically. When you handcraft a location for enemies, you can tell them to do specific things like jump handrails or step off this platform to fall behind this fenced area, etc. When players can freely build bases, you need the AI to account for a lot of ridiculous things the player might have done, like build massive dirt walls in Valheim, which causes the AI's logic to stumble.

    This has a side effect too though as now your AI has to account for terrain/location/etc before considering to do things. (Unless you built two different AI logic sets for each enemy, which is oof) Such as, the player is in range, but is the player standing on something? Is the player crawling under a wall and stabbing at AI's shins? What if the player is somewhere the AI can't reach at all, do they run away or throw rocks or what?

    End result is sometimes you see AI doing funky/janky things in unintended cases.

    (There are more issues but this post has gotten a little too long as it is)

    All of these issues contribute to jank feel and can actually be kind if difficult to solve, which is why many open world survival crafting games stumble here.

    All this being said, I agree with you, the genre has a lot of jank and it gets ridiculous sometimes. I have a joke saying that its a design law for all survival crafting games to have some serious game-breaking quirk, and so each new one that comes out, its not about if its flawless or not, its if you can handle whatever inevitable serious quirk it does have.

    I have played a lot of games in the genre and always hope one of them will eventually nail it but it hasn't quite happened yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    I can't help but notice the generality statements like "I lament not being able to put into words exactly what I mean" and "why also copy the awful parts?".

    Do you know "Chesterton's fence"? It's the metaphor that you walk across a meadow and come upon a fence that's in the way. That's bothersome for you from walking there, so you want it gone.

    But, the lesson supposed to be that if you don't know why it's even there, you shouldn't remove it until you learn why. Might be that there are sheep there that need to be kept from running away or something like that, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago

    Don't get me started on the survival genre where 99% thrown into it are nothing more than just games with superficial survival elements. I'm going to stop myself right here before I write a whole essay on survival games. I'll talk about crafting instead.

    I think the issue why most crafting games feel the same is because crafting, as the process of putting things together, isn't particularly fun especially when done in repetitions. I imagine most people don't enjoy putting together IKEA furniture, but even the ones who do probably won't find it enjoyable when you're putting together the same piece of furniture for the 10th time. That would be in game crafting in a nutshell. You'll be repeating the same moves over and over and over until all that is left of the crafting process is tedium. Factor in that for developers that would mean making a minigame within a game and it becomes pretty apparent while developers prefer to not implement the process of crafting into games. So what can developers do to replace the process? There are two options. You give players the tools to automate crafting and that's how you get the factory builder games. The other option is to rip out the entire process and you get "in menu crafting", which is what 99% of not factory builder crafting games use. Since crafting boils down to 1) find materials 2) craft the thing and you remove step 2 all you have left is step 1 and that again is not something you can do in a particularly interesting way. That leads to almost all crafting systems feeling the same.

    I don't think developers are copy pasting the systems, I think there's just not a lot of design space unless you tip your toes into tedium.

  • source
  • parent
  • For me there are two different kinds of cheap: There's no budget but creative use of tools cheap. I've seen some awesome results coming from this.
    And then there's "I wanted to publish fast and maximize profit" cheap. Never seen something good coming from this.

    And also reusing stuff is totally fine, if it's actually the right fit. Some titles still feel different to me. E.g. Don't starve (together) wasn't that early to the survival craft party and I also think it's not a very outstanding title as in being innovative gameplay wise but I just love it.
    It has a very specific charm and it just makes me feel like this game wasn't created to earn as much money as possible but to make an idea come true.

    Or when I think of the early Harvest Moon Games that look quite boring and repetitive compared to newer comparable titles. They still have some appeal to me. They feel authentic.
    While the newer games feel more sloppish and generic like a joke that was told a thousand times already. They look even worse compared to titles like Stardew Valley that actually tried to develop the existing ideas of the genre slightly further instead of just regenerating them in different styles. While it still relys heavily on existing ideas and mechanics and extends them.

    It kind of boils down to the question whether the developer / author / whoever ideated the whole thing had to add anything of their own at all or if it's just a remix of existing things.

    I mean, you can even sell the same game over and over by just changing the number on the title.. looking at you fifa

  • source
  • parent