Are we gamers our own worst enemy?

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

And I also blame people like Yatzhee and Jim Sterling for ruining gaming and fostering this utter negative outlook in gaming.

Apparently playing Halo or a Nintendo game is not good anymore because the companies they belong to are the devil

I wouldn't blame Sterling, at least he admits his faults and is usually open minded. With Yahtzee, I can see where you're coming from. I was never a Halo fan, but I never shat on people for liking the series. But that was less Yahtzee, and more everyone else jumping on the "hate it, because it's popular bandwagon". Yahtzee just "officially" validated his opinion with other like minded individuals. Ironically, I remember when people were excited for COD4, because it was something different. Now that the COD series is still popular, it is now that is "everything" wrong with gaming and the new hate target.


Yahtzee is a hyprocrite. He seems to rag on Nintendo even when they do something right or not. For example his E3 2014 video. I'll take a quote right out of his dethroning moment of suck page.

Yahtzee's handling of E3 2014 was kind of lame in and of itself, but his vitriol against (surprise, surprise) Nintendo shows that his hay parachute has fallen apart, and he's grasping at individual straws just to save face. His primary constituents are that Nintendo wanks the Mario and Zelda franchises relentlessly, whilst the majority of the show was taken by stellar entries like Code Name: S.T.E.A.M., Splatoon, Yoshi's Woolly World, Xenoblade Chronicles X, and more, with only Splatoon getting a bare mention by him; he complains about the overload of cinematic cutscenes with nary a demo, whereas the latter was the entirety of Nintendo's performance, with every automated sequence being in-engine; and he omits the Treehouse completely, where the fans got to see more of these lovely games in action. Bad enough on its own, but when added to his history of anti-Nintendo sentiment, it paints a very ugly picture on how much of a hypocrite he's become. Ben Croshaw, do the world a favor and slice the "professional" out of your "professional troll" title if this is how you're going to be. ---Cerotech Omega

Thank you, Omega.

Yahtzee other worst moment with Nintendo was his Mad World review. It's obvious he barely played the game, and it was more of an opinion piece of how much motion controls sucks, and how Nintendo and the Wii suck for making them a fad. Now he did have some point about motion controls, Yahtzee just had to be an asshole about it. Plus, motion controls worked in Mad World for the most part, and even the wonky parts of it could be worked around. The review wasn't even a review. If it was called "Why I Don't like the Wii Nor Motion Controls", then I would be less a hard time about it.

Ugh that was ancient history, and I played and beaten Madworld no problem back in the day and it was a blast for me.

 

[BrawlMan]

I played and beaten Madworld no problem back in the day and it was a blast for me.

The same here. I sunk in about 40+ hours into it. Mad World has one of the best hip-hop soundtracks ever made in video game. Better than most of today's mainstream rap songs. Suck it Little Wayne and Kanye West!

 

[Hawki]

Isn't it kind of Yahtzee's mission statement to hate everything, or in rare cases, only give grudging respect. He did introduce terms like "PC master race" and "Spunkgargleweewee," but while I enjoy ZP, I've never really thought of him as a critic. He's a comedian first and foremost.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Isn't it kind of Yahtzee's mission statement to hate everything, or in rare cases, only give grudging respect. He did introduce terms like "PC master race" and "Spunkgargleweewee," but while I enjoy ZP, I've never really thought of him as a critic. He's a comedian first and foremost.

I prefer to think of him as a commentator who uses humour to get his review points across. Besides he put it one of his earlier videos that his systems is that everything is shit until it proves itself otherwise. He called the Guantanamo Bay approach to reviewing.

 

[Giv9]

Yes. We are. Sometimes, we get so involved in a game that it's bad to take in failure. we get so addicted to it.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

HYPE

-No Man's Sky: How the fuck did anyone think this was going to be the most amazing game ever? I can understand space enthusists being all over it. It was basically a niche exploration game at best (even if it had delivered). How much of the gamer population really digs just exploring? Yeah, it's cool and all to come upon a planet with basically large dinosaurs (which isn't in the game I realize). But there's nothing really to actually do, and nothing in the gameplay videos were actually doing stuff. How long will that hold the average gamer's interest really? Those moments shown were great but there's only going to be so many of those moments and being a huge galaxy and randomly generated, how much uninteresting time and gameplay will be between each of those great moments? No Man's Sky always sorta felt like it would be an extremely stretched out version of Journey in space.

I can tell you exactly why there was so much hype for No mans sky. Cause for some reasons those open world survival games are almost a free ride to print money. They are stupidly popular. No Man's Sky did something no other one at the time had really done. Instead of taking place on one planet, it took place on many planets. People really want to experience something like that. The trailers for it looked really good, too bad they were full of lies.

Are they really THAT popular though? In the sense that they sell millions. I just don't see those type of games being that popular to have merited the interest No Man's Sky saw. I just think people imagine games doing things they can't possibly do for some reason. Even assuming everything said about the game was true, would millions of gamers have actually liked the game? Very little of the character actually doing anything was shown. Plus, just the fact that it was a huge and randomly generated meant those great moments of what you saw were probably going to be few and far between. At its best, was NMS going to be anything other than an extremely stretched out Journey in space with light survival mechanics? I just think gamers don't pay much attention to actual known facts. I could tell Destiny was going to be shit from the developer interview when the game was revealed at E3 as he said something along the lines of 'we have classes but they all play pretty similar so you won't have regrets of picking the wrong class'. My initial reaction was what's the point of classes then? The game was built on a fundamentally flawed concept.

And I also blame people like Yatzhee and Jim Sterling for ruining gaming and fostering this utter negative outlook in gaming.

Appearently playing Halo or a Nintendo game is not good anymore because the companies they belong to are the devil

There's nothing wrong with people not liking stuff. Games getting rated in the 90s is utterly ridiculous whether I like the game or not. Ghostbusters (original of course) has an average rating of 8.1/10 with the same amount of negative reviews as FFXIII, GTAV, and Uncharted 4 COMBINED. FFXIII is clearly a love/hate game and has a higher average score by "professional" critics than Ghostbusters, a beloved classic of a movie. Don't you find something wrong with that? How many of just your close friends also love the same movies you love? Moviegoers don't really care about reviews, they go and see movies that get panned by critics and still love them. Why does gaming have to be any different? If someone finds writing to be important to an RPG, they aren't going to like a Bethesda game. I don't see how that's being negative, that's a valid reason to not like a game. Jim Sterling honestly rates a game based on how much he enjoyed it, I think he's one of the few reviewers that rates games properly and I respect that but his tastes don't align with mine so his reviews don't effect me at all.

 

[Hawki]

Moviegoers don't really care about reviews, they go and see movies that get panned by critics and still love them. Why does gaming have to be any different?

Very debatable, on both counts.

The Internet being what it is, it can be exagerated, but with franchise films, debates can get very viscious. Most common is the whole DCEU vs. MCU thing that's going on, where if you like/dislike an installment, you're a fanboy or hateboy by default. Film fans can be just as obnoxious as anyone when it comes to likes/dislikes. This gets less severe the further you move from franchise films, but it's there nonetheless.

Likewise, there would be movies that people would see regardless of critical reception (lord knows Transformers is still going), but outside franchise films...well, let me put it this way. Films cost time and money. Neither of these resources are infinite, and for a lot of people, they can be lacking. Franchise films, you know what you're getting into, but other than that, it's a gamble. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't. And as much as I'd like to claim otherwise, critic consensus can play a role in what I decide to see in regards to what time and money allows me to.

Jim Sterling honestly rates a game based on how much he enjoyed it, I think he's one of the few reviewers that rates games properly

I'm not sure if that is the "best" way to review something though. I'd like to think that a published review is based on as objective an assessment as possible, not level of enjoyment, which is far more subjective.

And I know, back in my top/bottom twenty films list of 2016, I ranked La La Land very low as a personal indulgence, but otherwise, ranking films based on personal enjoyment would generate a different list than films ranked on what I thought of their overall quality - only reason why Deadpool wasn't near the bottom at least.

 

[Worgen]

HYPE

-No Man's Sky: How the fuck did anyone think this was going to be the most amazing game ever? I can understand space enthusists being all over it. It was basically a niche exploration game at best (even if it had delivered). How much of the gamer population really digs just exploring? Yeah, it's cool and all to come upon a planet with basically large dinosaurs (which isn't in the game I realize). But there's nothing really to actually do, and nothing in the gameplay videos were actually doing stuff. How long will that hold the average gamer's interest really? Those moments shown were great but there's only going to be so many of those moments and being a huge galaxy and randomly generated, how much uninteresting time and gameplay will be between each of those great moments? No Man's Sky always sorta felt like it would be an extremely stretched out version of Journey in space.

I can tell you exactly why there was so much hype for No mans sky. Cause for some reasons those open world survival games are almost a free ride to print money. They are stupidly popular. No Man's Sky did something no other one at the time had really done. Instead of taking place on one planet, it took place on many planets. People really want to experience something like that. The trailers for it looked really good, too bad they were full of lies.

Are they really THAT popular though? In the sense that they sell millions. I just don't see those type of games being that popular to have merited the interest No Man's Sky saw. I just think people imagine games doing things they can't possibly do for some reason. Even assuming everything said about the game was true, would millions of gamers have actually liked the game? Very little of the character actually doing anything was shown. Plus, just the fact that it was a huge and randomly generated meant those great moments of what you saw were probably going to be few and far between. At its best, was NMS going to be anything other than an extremely stretched out Journey in space with light survival mechanics? I just think gamers don't pay much attention to actual known facts. I could tell Destiny was going to be shit from the developer interview when the game was revealed at E3 as he said something along the lines of 'we have classes but they all play pretty similar so you won't have regrets of picking the wrong class'. My initial reaction was what's the point of classes then? The game was built on a fundamentally flawed concept.

They are pretty damn popular, right now 4 are sitting on the top 10 list on steam and none of those are out of early access. Which is also one weird quark of the big open world survival games, they almost never seem to actually launch. I mean Dayz was one of the first big ones and I think its still in beta, it took minecraft forever to actually go gold also. There is a real rabid fanbase for survival games of that ilk. Personally, I don't get it, I don't really like those games, I make my log cabin on top of a hill, look around, ask whats next and go play something else. NMS promised something no other survival or space game really has, a seamless universe. It actually delivered it too, there just wasn't much to it. Really I think pretty much all the lies would have been forgiven if people could actually find other people in the game. Cause people love coop in those games.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I wonder if gamers who claim to want HL3 have even stopped to think what they?d expect from one?

A conclusion to the story.

I wonder if gamers who claim to want HL3 have even stopped to think what they?d expect from one? ?Where?s Half-Life 3? is basically autonomic phrase spewed from the mouth of any gamer 27 years old and up, but the relevance? I don?t think most have a clue what they want, and far be it from a developer to invest the millions upon MILLIONS it?d take to assume and deliver something that will ultimately be torn to shreds for everything it?s ?not? and ?was supposed to be after all this time.?

I kinda concluded that HL3 wasn't going to happen years ago, but since you asked:

I want to know why the Borealis was a gamechanger. I want to see the Resistance and humanity as a whole get its second wind in the wake of City 17 and the breeding screen's destruction[footnote]And get your dang head out of that gutter! I'm talking psychological ramifications, not titillation. With enforced sterility humanity had no future, and in the aftermath of Half-Life 2 they just had that future restored to them, giving them real hope for probably the first time in upwards of a decade. And hope is an incredible motivator which I see as potentially explosively growing the ranks of the Resistance[/footnote]. To see Gordon and Alyx avenge Eli's death. To see a strong push against the Combine and the Combine's eventual retaliation. To see Adrian Shepard mobilized either as a boon to the resistance or the Combine's response to Gordon Freeman. To see humanity take the fight to the Combine. To drive my enemies before me and hear the lamentations of their giant...psychic...grub...things. You get the idea. I want closure for the story.

Of course a conclusion to the story is a given; I meant in terms of game play; what do gamers want from Half-Life 3 as a game? Story aside, Half-Life 2 hasn?t aged very well as a shooter; what it had going for it 13 years ago was shiny new physics which have since been done to death and better; what could Half-Life 3 do to set itself apart in an industry flooded with sci-fi shooters other than ?finally come out? and not be mediocre at best? Because let?s be honest, if HL3 came out tomorrow and was adhered closely to the HL2 formula (long stretches of nothing between character-driven exposition sprinkled with the occasional setpiece encounter,) would fans be satisfied? Don?t get me wrong, I loved Half-Life 2 and Episodes 1 and 2, and I?m not saying Half-Life 3 couldn?t happen, I?m just not sure if it should and run the risk of sullying the fondness with which so many regard the franchise, incomplete as it is. Sometimes, one night of hot, firey passion best ends with the other person kissing your sleeping forehead before slipping out soundlessly into the night versus your waking up the next morning to find them in the kitchen scratching their ass with one hand and digging burnt toast out of the toaster with a fork with the other.

 

[CaitSeith]

I'd like to think that a published review is based on as objective an assessment as possible

Only if you are aiming for mainstream broad audience (which definitely isn't Jim's). IMO context is more useful than objectivity (specially when lots of people seem to confuse the former with the later). In this case is: the closest his tastes matches yours, the more enjoyable the games that he scored high will be for you.

 

[DoPo]

Of course a conclusion to the story is a given; I meant in terms of game play;

What you said is what is the expectation. I stated what mine is. If you are asking for gameplay, then I am, not really bothered. I'd expect it to be an FPS and have smart-ish opponents... Other than that and the story, I don't think I have much else I'm looking forward to. I certainly don't expect it to revolutionize all games everywhere, because that's a silly thing to want.

if HL3 came out tomorrow and was adhered closely to the HL2 formula (long stretches of nothing between character-driven exposition sprinkled with the occasional setpiece encounter,) would fans be satisfied?

Maybe not all of them but why are you talking about "fans" - your initial question was individual, hence I answered as one. If you want me to speak for "all the fans", I'm sorry but I can't - there is no great hivemind of them.

 

[DoPo]

I'm not sure if that is the "best" way to review something though. I'd like to think that a published review is based on as objective an assessment as possible, not level of enjoyment, which is far more subjective.

Jim has done objective reviews [https://www.destructoid.com/100-objective-review-final-fantasy-xiii-179178.phtml]. I still find the subjective ones he does WAY more informative. And I don't even get the big deal with scores - it's also something Jim has spoken against many a time. I don't particularly care for a score - I've played and enjoyed games that he didn't (low scores or bad reviews) and I've found some he scored highly boring. In fact, that's the case with every single score system in the world. What does it matter if a game is objectively 4/10 or 7/10 if you like it? In fact, how would you even derive such a score to begin with - let's say Might and Magic 7 is rated as 8/10[footnote]Managed to find one review [http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/might-and-magic-vii-for-blood-and-honor-review/1900-2542599/]. Annoyingly the Heroes series finally caught up in numbers, there are a lot of hits for that[/footnote] - would that make it equivalent to Deus Ex: Mankind Divided [footnote]Metacritic [http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/deus-ex-mankind-divided], for the record, I just picked the first game I found with a similar score and, roughly, genre[/footnote] or FIFA 17[footnote]Metacritic [http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fifa-17]next game I found of a different genre[/footnote]? If you compare M&M to them it would feel like a lesser game, since technology has marched on, so how come they deserve the same score? If we only compare to games of the same era, it would be more fair, but then isn't it admitting that games cannot be really be judged objectively as they need to be kept in a specific context?

Back in the day, I was a fan of reviews that did breakdowns of scores - e.g.,

Sound: 6/10
Visuals: 9/10
Story: 9/10

Overall: (9 + 9 + 6) / (10 + 10 + 10) = 8/10

I felt like it's more fair because a game is a bit lacking in one department does not necessarily suffer but if it does severely lack, then the overall score would reflect it. But then there is the question what criteria do you even have? Sound, visuals and story are fine, but there are other "components" of a game - say, performance, so an overall pleasant to look and play game that is plagued with performance problems or crashes will also get a lower score. You can then add more things, as you see fit - depth, replayability, etc. So, for one, there is a problem of deciding what are important parts of a game. And even then, there is another problem - a game is more than just the sum of its parts. Sire a game that looks and sounds gorgeous (10/10s) but doesn't play well, has atrocious story and crashes every 5 minutes can still get an overall rating of, say, 5/10 or 6/10. Does that make it an average game? I wouldn't say so, I'd say it makes it a very bad game, yet the score won't really indicate that.

But what of the scoring system that avoids the "piecemeal" scorage and just does an overall score? It should avoid this problem but I don't think it does - what's 7/10 in one place could be an 8/10 in another. And neither of the sources could even be wrong because they could just be using the same criteria even if they see and experience the exact same content in exactly the same way. There is no universal definition of what scores mean - it's pretty much 1-4 very bad, 5-6 mediocre, 6-8 above average, 8-10 good. Or something along those lines - it can vary.

I think the truth is that scores are quite meaningless. There is no way to regulate them, for one, and there is not much to them being "objective" because, really, what is an objective way to score them? I can say that, say, Lucius is objectively not a very good game. Not terrible but a score for it would probably be 5 or so. Yet I really liked it despite it's problems. At the same time Gemini: Heroes Reborn deserves an objectively higher score than that but I barely finished it and I because it's a 4 hour game. Would scores for those games really mean much, in the end? One was a bit bad, but enjoyable, the other was the opposite. How do you even express that with scores?

 

[Xprimentyl]

Of course a conclusion to the story is a given; I meant in terms of game play;

What you said is what is the expectation. I stated what mine is. If you are asking for gameplay, then I am, not really bothered. I'd expect it to be an FPS and have smart-ish opponents... Other than that and the story, I don't think I have much else I'm looking forward to. I certainly don't expect it to revolutionize all games everywhere, because that's a silly thing to want.

if HL3 came out tomorrow and was adhered closely to the HL2 formula (long stretches of nothing between character-driven exposition sprinkled with the occasional setpiece encounter,) would fans be satisfied?

Maybe not all of them but why are you talking about "fans" - your initial question was individual, hence I answered as one. If you want me to speak for "all the fans", I'm sorry but I can't - there is no great hivemind of them.

Sorry, but my questions were largely rhetorical, for each to ponder unto themselves, not directed at you or any one individual, then I put my own thoughts out there. I reference ?fans? as those gamers who?ve played Half-Life up to now and have been anticipating the third installment and, again, I wasn?t asking anyone to speak for all fans, simply keeping in spirit with the OP?s title question ?Are we gamers our own worst enemy?? We gamers have a reputation for displeasure; not all, not half, not most, no definitively quantifiable amount of us, but a given amount of us are vocal enough often enough in our displeasure when anticipated games don?t meet our expectations or hype that it?s perceived, from within and without, that nothing is ever good enough.

My question, again, answerable differently for each?s own and hopefully less apparently directed, is are gamers, fans of HL1 and 2, blind in their desire to simply have HL3 exists since they?ve wanted it now for 13 years, or do they have a reasonable understanding that HL3 would most likely be held up by the story alone and will otherwise most likely be a technically mediocre Sci-Fi FPS? I personally feel the former to be true, that there?s a not unreasonable sense of entitlement as the franchise *ended* so abruptly and more than anything, gamers want what they were promised. Valve would be doubling down on the expectations of 13-years jaded folks who can?t be satisfied; ?tis a bed of their own making and I?m not giving them a pass, just trying to see thing realistically from all sides.

 

[KaraFang]

I want to know why the Borealis was a gamechanger. I want to see the Resistance and humanity as a whole get its second wind in the wake of City 17 and the breeding screen's destruction[footnote]And get your dang head out of that gutter! I'm talking psychological ramifications, not titillation. With enforced sterility humanity had no future, and in the aftermath of Half-Life 2 they just had that future restored to them, giving them real hope for probably the first time in upwards of a decade. And hope is an incredible motivator which I see as potentially explosively growing the ranks of the Resistance[/footnote]. To see Gordon and Alyx avenge Eli's death. To see a strong push against the Combine and the Combine's eventual retaliation. To see Adrian Shepard mobilized either as a boon to the resistance or the Combine's response to Gordon Freeman. To see humanity take the fight to the Combine. To drive my enemies before me and hear the lamentations of their giant...psychic...grub...things. You get the idea. I want closure for the story.

This... so SO SO much this.

I want to Avenge Alyx's Father's death, i want her to be happy. Hell, I want her to hook up with Gordon FFS. Considering how much of Humanity in that world is dead, if she fancies him, then hell.. let them BE together.

Emotively, it was good, but I felt the original Deus Ex still had it beat, except for animation quality.

Deus Ex was a classic for a reason... I agree with that. But then for me HL2 was as well with what IT did.

I think the reason I use the word "generic" is because none of the weapons felt "special" or "interesting" aside from the gravity gun, which was often limited in use outside of ravenholm. Well, ok, and the antlion gland. That was nifty.

The missile Launcher where the missile followed the laser pointer... and Enemy AI that would try to shoot the rocket down so you had to weave it around to hit them? That was cool...

I get what you mean, but I suppose apart from making the guns modular (meh...) guns are guns... though I do miss the Gauss Cannon from HL1. THAT was cool as (beep).

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Jim Sterling honestly rates a game based on how much he enjoyed it, I think he's one of the few reviewers that rates games properly

I'm not sure if that is the "best" way to review something though. I'd like to think that a published review is based on as objective an assessment as possible, not level of enjoyment, which is far more subjective.

And I know, back in my top/bottom twenty films list of 2016, I ranked La La Land very low as a personal indulgence, but otherwise, ranking films based on personal enjoyment would generate a different list than films ranked on what I thought of their overall quality - only reason why Deadpool wasn't near the bottom at least.

Art can't be reviewed objectively though. I can come up with plenty of objective reasoning for why I think Witcher 3, GTAV, Uncharted 4, and more are average at best games meaning I'd score them somewhere in the 4-6/10 range. Just look at any other medium's reviews and then compare it to gaming. Game reviews are very similar across the board and it's very much a hivemind mentality. It's OK for one critic to find a game bad and another to like it. Yet constantly you see someone say Game XYZ is at worst 8/10 and that 6/10 review should be removed. How does that at all make sense? That wouldn't be said anywhere else but gaming. How about FFXIII having a single negative review yet that was clearly a love/hate game with both sides having legit reasons for their opinions? The only legit gaming criticism going on in gaming is outside the professional community. For example, Errant Signal did a video on how role-playing is basically absent from Fallout 4, which is kinda a big thing for a role-playing game to have. There's quite a few YouTube gaming channels that do game analysis far far beyond any "professional" reviewers.

They are pretty damn popular, right now 4 are sitting on the top 10 list on steam and none of those are out of early access. Which is also one weird quark of the big open world survival games, they almost never seem to actually launch. I mean Dayz was one of the first big ones and I think its still in beta, it took minecraft forever to actually go gold also. There is a real rabid fanbase for survival games of that ilk. Personally, I don't get it, I don't really like those games, I make my log cabin on top of a hill, look around, ask whats next and go play something else. NMS promised something no other survival or space game really has, a seamless universe. It actually delivered it too, there just wasn't much to it. Really I think pretty much all the lies would have been forgiven if people could actually find other people in the game. Cause people love coop in those games.

I guess I underestimated their popularity. Just how hyped NMS got seemed far beyond something like even DayZ to me.

Gamers in general seemed put in their minds games are going to do stuff they just aren't capable of. I was really grabbed by the reveal of The Division for example as I was expecting gameplay similar to Watch Dogs and Ghost Recon Future Soldier in the shooting mechanics kinda combined with how Mass Effect 3's MP worked with each class having unique skills and guns needing to take down varying enemies. I played the beta and The Division was nothing like that and I was done with the game after an hour. When you have lengthy gameplay walkthroughs and betas, I just don't get how so much hype exists.

 

[Worgen]

They are pretty damn popular, right now 4 are sitting on the top 10 list on steam and none of those are out of early access. Which is also one weird quark of the big open world survival games, they almost never seem to actually launch. I mean Dayz was one of the first big ones and I think its still in beta, it took minecraft forever to actually go gold also. There is a real rabid fanbase for survival games of that ilk. Personally, I don't get it, I don't really like those games, I make my log cabin on top of a hill, look around, ask whats next and go play something else. NMS promised something no other survival or space game really has, a seamless universe. It actually delivered it too, there just wasn't much to it. Really I think pretty much all the lies would have been forgiven if people could actually find other people in the game. Cause people love coop in those games.

I guess I underestimated their popularity. Just how hyped NMS got seemed far beyond something like even DayZ to me.

Gamers in general seemed put in their minds games are going to do stuff they just aren't capable of. I was really grabbed by the reveal of The Division for example as I was expecting gameplay similar to Watch Dogs and Ghost Recon Future Soldier in the shooting mechanics kinda combined with how Mass Effect 3's MP worked with each class having unique skills and guns needing to take down varying enemies. I played the beta and The Division was nothing like that and I was done with the game after an hour. When you have lengthy gameplay walkthroughs and betas, I just don't get how so much hype exists.

I don't really get it either, but I think some of it is also that most survival games like it tend to just come out. There usually isn't some huge lead up to them, they just suddenly appear on early access or something. Maybe there is a patrion or some kinda crowd funding but nothing like the marketing push NMS got.

Well it isn't being helped by marketers who will actually lie to sell a product. They do everything they can to hype a product. The way they justify it is because there is so much out there, they need to so people see the product. I think that will slow a bit after just how hard NMS was hit for false advertising by fans.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I don't really get it either, but I think some of it is also that most survival games like it tend to just come out. There usually isn't some huge lead up to them, they just suddenly appear on early access or something. Maybe there is a patrion or some kinda crowd funding but nothing like the marketing push NMS got.

Well it isn't being helped by marketers who will actually lie to sell a product. They do everything they can to hype a product. The way they justify it is because there is so much out there, they need to so people see the product. I think that will slow a bit after just how hard NMS was hit for false advertising by fans.

There's not much lying going on though. Yeah, you had NMS and Aliens obviously, but beyond that I don't find much deception going on besides for in the graphics department but graphics don't make the game. And graphics do legitimately change during the development of the game as more and more systems come online, especially in regards to open world games. I admit that the NMS trailers grabbed me, but I was still waiting to see how the game played moment-to-moment especially when it was going to be at least a decent time sink.

 

[Asita]

Of course a conclusion to the story is a given; I meant in terms of game play; what do gamers want from Half-Life 3 as a game? Story aside, Half-Life 2 hasn?t aged very well as a shooter; what it had going for it 13 years ago was shiny new physics which have since been done to death and better; what could Half-Life 3 do to set itself apart in an industry flooded with sci-fi shooters other than ?finally come out? and not be mediocre at best? Because let?s be honest, if HL3 came out tomorrow and was adhered closely to the HL2 formula (long stretches of nothing between character-driven exposition sprinkled with the occasional setpiece encounter,) would fans be satisfied? Don?t get me wrong, I loved Half-Life 2 and Episodes 1 and 2, and I?m not saying Half-Life 3 couldn?t happen, I?m just not sure if it should and run the risk of sullying the fondness with which so many regard the franchise, incomplete as it is. Sometimes, one night of hot, firey passion best ends with the other person kissing your sleeping forehead before slipping out soundlessly into the night versus your waking up the next morning to find them in the kitchen scratching their ass with one hand and digging burnt toast out of the toaster with a fork with the other.

It doesn't have to reinvent the wheel in terms of gameplay. A game with average gameplay and a great story is as much an above average product as a game with great gameplay and an average story. Don't get me wrong, actually being bad in any given field can turn a decent product into a bad product (See Mass Effect 3), but by the same token, excelling in any given field can turn a decent product into a good one (see Undertale).

That being said, if you want gameplay ideas, a fairly simple one plays strongly off the fact that the Borealis was in a teleportation mishap at Aperture Science. Picture, if you will, the ability to employ Portal technology against the Combine. Gimicky, certainly, but I feel it would be immensely satisfying to use it to flank Overwatch forces that just moments ago had you pinned down with suppressing fire[footnote]Provided, of course, that the AI had reasonable stealth mechanics that meant that the enemies didn't instantly track your VERY sudden and dramatic movement[/footnote]

 

[Worgen]

I don't really get it either, but I think some of it is also that most survival games like it tend to just come out. There usually isn't some huge lead up to them, they just suddenly appear on early access or something. Maybe there is a patrion or some kinda crowd funding but nothing like the marketing push NMS got.

Well it isn't being helped by marketers who will actually lie to sell a product. They do everything they can to hype a product. The way they justify it is because there is so much out there, they need to so people see the product. I think that will slow a bit after just how hard NMS was hit for false advertising by fans.

There's not much lying going on though. Yeah, you had NMS and Aliens obviously, but beyond that I don't find much deception going on besides for in the graphics department but graphics don't make the game. And graphics do legitimately change during the development of the game as more and more systems come online, especially in regards to open world games. I admit that the NMS trailers grabbed me, but I was still waiting to see how the game played moment-to-moment especially when it was going to be at least a decent time sink.

I don't know, we had gearbox lying out their ass about colonial marines. The trailers they had up till launch of NMS also was very graphically misrepresentation. If early trailers show something different from launch thats fine, things change as dev goes on, just don't relentlessly pimp things that will be cut.