u/Severe_Sea_4372

Asking out of curiosity. Might verge on the subjective, but I think there’s probably a close to objective answer to it depending on what you consider archaic. I’m referring to base gameplay design, mostly, but also the code and how the way games are programmed makes them feel (look, I’m not a dev so I’m hoping this is where others can fill this, which is completely out of my knowledge zone)

My two cents, 1 cent each, would probably go to isometric tactical RPGs, or at least the variety that hasn’t been turned into some sort of roguelike. The other would be RTS games.

For isometric tactical games, especially JRPGs, most of the ones I played - Ivalice Chronicles reminded me last year of this - follow a more or less similar design philosophy. In lots of cases almost identical to the one their retro console predecessors did almost 2 or even 3 decades ago. They’re very nostalgic for me personally, and the base design just feels very satisfying if done with care. There’s been experimenting and improvement on it so it’s not really that conservative (lots of tactical roguelikes for example) but there’s something, not even dated, but archaic feeling each time I start playing one - a lot of them take me back to the PS1 days of my childhood.

RTS games, though… I guess their lack of innovation (plus the invasion MOBAs) and their competitive focus is what killed them. I still play only those from like 20 years ago and any new one I pick up is inevitably a recreation of some older goods. Compare to 4X and 4X hybrids like Total War that are still going strong (mix of turn based and RTS battles with pause) or Stellaris, or upcoming ones like Atre Dominance Wars which have a similar strategic base with emphasis on the RPG element and hero-building. In fact, it seems that only those strategies that have embraced RPG elements to some degree are the ones that are thriving/surviving.

Also…uhm, racing games too? I guess.

I would like to hear your take on this