Lost Gaming Arts: Simple Core Loops

Once upon a time I re-wrote every article at least once, this is why I’ve created a style that is best described as “too swift for any precise consideration.” I’ve never thought extremely well of my writing, but sometimes I’ll catch myself before I let an unspoiled idea go ahead half-written. That is not to say that my opinion from here on is of any prominent importance, or that it is going to be the most groundbreaking thought either. In fact, the self-deprecating segment of me wants to say that for as half-baked as this might turn out, it was once worse. I know it was once much worse off, either expressed poorly and phrased inappositely with anger, because I am having to re-write it under my own disappointment.

You see, following my review of Experiment 101 & THQ Nordic’s Biomutant, I had to ask myself if game designers had joined together to beat each other over the head with lead pipes. At its core, a game is based on integral mechanics that create a loop, something that is creatively called “the core loop.” Beyond the story telling you where to go, there is no core loop in Biomutant. It seems to have forgotten to create a loop and instead created a long boring line. I mean, the world is big enough that the scale alone is daunting, which begs the question: why make a game so big without that core when you could do something smaller with a fun focus?

Effectively, what I said before with this topic was that everything has been homogenized over the years, with crafting and RPG systems embedded into everything. Of course, some would argue that’s not an entirely bad thing, and I’d tend to agree. Dying Light doesn’t have an original thought in its arsenal, but it is still a fun game. A large number of games following 2007 have moved towards the open-world, crafting, RPG, and survival elements; later adding in Souls-like combat and maybe a Rogue-like element too. Alone they have created fantastic new series and sub-genres, but some have morphed into the synthesized standard triple-A game of the modern-day, becoming that “play how you want to” game.

Once again, I’ll admit, I do like a bit of Dishonored. However, there is something missing when a large portion of the big games released over these past few years don’t slap you about for doing it wrong. That isn’t to say I agree with the people who bemoan accessibility features, though let me put it this way: A game with a focus is far more interesting than a game spreading its legs as wide as an ocean. Ok, crude metaphor aside, you wouldn’t go into Dark Souls asking for a sniper rifle, just the same as you wouldn’t go into Sniper Elite 4 and ask for melee combat. Sometimes a game needs to concentrate on its own core loop instead of trying to be as broad as possible.

Some would argue that this philosophy just doesn’t work with an RPG. Those are also the same people who have never heard of JC Denton. I’ll admit, there are a lot of problems with older games, but if you tried to complete Deus Ex or System Shock with all your points in bread making, you’ll be spread about the place like jam by the final boss. I have a lot of love for Fallout 4, some might argue that I adore it too much given they hoist their knickers up the flagpole of New Vegas. Detour to take a dig at New Vegas fans aside, Fallout 4 will practically let you complete the game even if you put all your points into luck, the most useless of skills. That is an example of how broad we’ve gone in the genre.

Some of you might be confused about the term core loop, so let me explain simply: In Space Invaders, you shot the aliens to get points to the next stage. In Far Cry 3 (outside the story), your goal was to liberate all the outposts. To do that, you needed guns and ammo. To buy guns, you needed money, which you can earn from selling animal skins that you take from animals you’ve killed with the guns. You can also use those skins to upgrade ammo pouches or weapon holsters, but you can also feel up men and get money from them once you’ve killed them (or slept with them). You could also climb towers and get free guns too, alongside some money. The loop here is guns, violence, and money. Through additional mechanics, you have a larger system creating a complex loop.

Let’s take a later edition of Far Cry, Far Cry 5, as an example of how to screw that up. In the Great American Cultist Bash, you can still skin animals, but they are no longer used to create ammo belts or satchels for your syringes. All you do is sell these pelts and get money to buy weapons and ammo. Instead, you have challenges to do, which provide skill points for you to climb through the tech tree and get those same upgrades. The challenges are nice but somewhat simple. At least compared to going out hunting, which fed into a fun smaller core of its own and not a chore. A checklist of stunts and little bits I’m never going to do again means that the challenges are a tacked-on piece doing nothing.

The point I am trying to make here is that while there are still guns and violence, the larger and more dynamic portions of the loop are broken off into tangents. Where I think one of these divergent loops comes from is the push for realism, adding extraneous challenges and needless mechanics. All of these are pushed into that realm inhabited by people who love the idea of doing something but don’t want to do it in reality. I am one of them, in a small portion. I’ve said countless times that Red Dead Redemption 2 is beautiful, wonderfully dark and mysterious, and the world is akin to the theme park of Westworld. However, I never want to be in it, and I never want to do what I do in it.

Once more, that Westworld comparison is ringing true, as between writing the prior version of this and now, I’ve gone sea fishing. Well, I say I went and did it. I was out for two hours, and I was mostly calling for Hughy across the port-side. Yet the number of times I go fishing or hunting in games should be illegal. I’m sure I’ve destroyed the American wild rabbit population far enough that they’ll go extinct at some point. “What is your point, you fool?” Well, for all that “realism” pushed by Red Dead Redemption 2 and its ilk, with survival that requires eating well from time to time, it doesn’t make the game fun. The fact my pony’s genitals might shrink (if she had that kind of plumbing) doesn’t matter either. Yet that and the fact she does the plop plops is heralded for “an attention to detail.“

Does it add to the experience? No, but does it take away? This is where I need to explain: While I’m holding up Red Dead Redemption 2 as the example of tacked-on rubbish, it doesn’t really make a difference for Rockstar. There are hundreds, even thousands of names connected to that game, and the resources the developer has are akin to that of a small country’s government. I’d assert that it would be unreasonable to say that having developers create shrinking horse testicles in Red Dead Redemption 2 detracted from the overall experience. However, a much smaller studio trying to generate a large world, much like that of Biomutant‘s development, is a fair criticism when they have fewer resources and they are being wasted while producing something of such scale.

To cement the point of the lack of focus in slightly smaller (but still large) games, you need not look much further than Horizon Zero Dawn. Calm down, it is only being used as a wide-reaching example. I.E, that game with the ginger lass who… and that’s it. That is Aloy’s character, in a nutshell, she’s a ginger lass who can do whatever you decide she is. She can be stealthy, or dive headlong into fights with a dishwasher with legs. It is not a bad game, and I’m not saying that it is. I’m saying that when you are given RPG elements in a game, it should reflect the person’s character. 2018’s God of War doesn’t have a single stealth-based ability because it wouldn’t work for Kratos’ character.

So when you give me a new character, like Aloy or someone else, why are you giving me the option to style her abilities in any which direction? It is one of those broad-appeal things that have crept into major games that I don’t understand. Like still having the male character in Assassin’s Creed Odyssey because “women don’t sell” despite the fact that I almost exclusively play as women when given the option. Yes, sometimes those options do provide an interesting or fun bit to the game, but does it aid the core loop or make everything as broad as possible? Or does it, more often than not, hamper any idea of a well-told cohesive narrative?

Yes, a core loop is almost entirely about the mechanics, but all the same, it is a video game: A thing that has to blend the narrative with gameplay to create the experience. Of course, there is no 50-50 in that respect. Some games require more mechanics in that soup, while others need more story, and there is no perfect mix for all. So the loop should reflect the story. Ok, the analogy is a little messy, I must admit, but for every comparative mix of a game that you can think of, there is one or a dozen that seem to forget the core loop or let it be bloated. For example: When was the last time you played a triple-A title that didn’t feature the following: Burgeoning RPG elements, crafting, or walls scuffled up/painted a specific color to force you that way?

This isn’t a blanket critique of every game that has ever had one or more of those elements. Over the last few years, I’ve grown to enjoy more RPGs. Plenty of games I have stated I enjoy, one of which is Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, have either watered down a bit of something or broken that core loop to accommodate this “however you want” style. I’m not just (metaphorically) going to sit in an ivory tower throwing stones. I’m throwing them at myself here too. One of the core elements of Watch Dogs: Legion is that you can play as any character, which meant that every location had to have a spider-bot where required, and characters are as blank as a sheet of A4. Yet, I still love it.

Of course, there is an argument that can be made that while this is all fine and dandy, asking to trim that fat will never happen. Games are made to take up more and more time, with Assassin’s Creed run times inflating so much the critique of too many map markers seems quaint now. I don’t think the triple-A market will constrict itself in such a way as to have that focus once again. There will be the occasional experiment, something this industry tries to hex away every time someone suggests it, and it will possibly show a small appetite for smaller, focused triple-A releases. However, we’ll return to whatever is the latest trend just as quickly.

By no means am I saying that games are getting too complicated or that I don’t understand them. You can have large worlds, complex systems, and countless other modern design choices, but the core has to be exciting to me as a player. You can focus your game around a gun(s), but if it is not satisfying to fire while it is more satisfying to pistol-whip someone, I’m going to do that instead. The visceral feeling you get from guns in Doom, the comfort of Spider-Man 2‘s web-swinging, and the weight behind Kratos’ axe in God of War (2018) are memorable because of those mechanics and their loops.