"Illusions" That You Would Like Dispelled For the Good of Gaming

[Twintix]

"Nintendo is for babies and filthy casuals and they do nothing but release rehashes"
Dislike Nintendo games all you want. We're all people with different tastes. I just hate the implication that I'm apparently some manchild for liking Nintendo. What's the issue with games marketed for kids, anyway? Games can be fun despite being easy.
(Though the hand holding and assuming I'm dumb can, admittedly, get a bit tiresome. It's like, dude, kids are inexperienced, not outright stupid. Learn the difference. Though Nintendo is hardly the only company guilty of this)

And if you boil their games down to the basics, of course it's going to seem formulaeic. But you can boil other games down to their basics and it'll sound just as "rehashy", you know?

But maybe that's just my fangirl talking. It's the company I grew up with, after all. :/

 

[Mutant1988]

An illusion I want to annihilate: That everything needs to be both bigger and better.

No.

It just need to be at least AS good.

That might sound complacent but we see the negative effect of the "Bigger and Better" attitude from a developers point of view constantly. Except they aren't given enough time to actually make it happen, because the publisher demands a game release annually and want higher and higher profit margin.

End result: We get exaggerations, lies, poor justifications (Cinematic FPS springs to mind) and non-functional products.

If you want to innovate, then great - Go for it. But put your money and time into the development and not the marketing.

 

[freaper]

The majority of escapists present here are NOT the target audience for most games published under the AAA label. Maybe we were a few years back, but with the surge in popularity of videogames as a medium the geeky bunch has widened to include almost everyone. Maybe it's not so much an illusion that has to be dispelled insomuch that it's a good thing to remind ourselves, or maybe my picture of who the escapists are is skewed. I don't know, do you? Maybe.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

You know, the title would make a bit more sense if you just called this thread what it is:

Spoiler

We've had plenty of threads like this; no one will judge you for making another one.

Lol. It's totally not my intention mate. What I'm trying to do highlight elements of games which have become "must have" elements because of said illusions, when they're really not.

That's not saying they can't work in the right context but, looking at the 2 examples I give, we've now tight RPGs such as Dragaon Age and The Witcher trying to include open world elements because of Skyrim's popularity. That's not to say it can't work, but I don't think either game really needs them.

Another example is Batman: Arkham Origins. I'm just playing through it now and I'm quite enjoying it, more so than I expected (an 8.5/10 so far for me). But the bits I'm enjoying the most are the story driven main quests and main side-quests. All the data-packs and sandbox filler type stuff which is included just seems to bog it down a bit. Of course, you can ignore those elements, but say 1 puzzle takes a day to design and implement, I'd persinally sooner see that extra day's effort go into another step in the main story or main side quests.

Of course it's subjective, but for some reason there seems to be this mentality now that certain games have to be a certain way, and personally I think franchizes have become watered down because of that, not bettered.

Witcher 2 is a great game!
Witcher 2...what do we do with you? While the game is mainly on the positive side for many people, it seems to be a game that you absolutely hate or you absolutely love. I for one absolutely hated it [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.403641-What-games-have-you-given-up-on-due-to-difficulty#16689584] and because it's my opinion, I'm right! Take that!

Did you give it many goes? I was exactly the same on my first playthrough. I found it hard to get into and the lore-specific dialogue baffling at times, and I quit after the first chapter.

After giving it another go though, and watching through a few youtube vids about lore, I found it stunning. I've since played through it 10 times and find it better with each playthrough. It's kind of like classical music, a bit hard to get into a first, but layers of quality in depth.

Well, I know this is gonna be a controversial thread!

Anyways, on to some I'd like to see, even if they're not universal.

Dark Souls 1&2: "It's a really hard game, therefore its a great game!"

I guess this is a callback to old 80s and 90s arcade games that milked quarters out of you. And it was either spend $20 trying to beat Dragon's Lair or play with a Bop-It. So I guess I understand the nostalgia of wanting to play a hard game, but holy hell guys/gals! Know the difference between a challenging, yet rewarding game, and a trial by fire for your patience. I consider it lucky I don't have a pet, because playing Dark Souls makes me want to kick a puppy.

Agree here. I'd have got nowhere without a guide and, whilst I enjoyed it for a certain amount of time and would rate it 7/10, but the repetativeness of the game wore me down when I got to Sten's fortress.

If it was hard and varied I could live with that, but doing the same things over, and over, and over doesn't do much for me.

That storytelling and characters are a pivotal requirement of a great game.

Storyline is the garnish on your burger. Sure it adds to it, but if the burger is a mushy undercooked pile of sawdust, msg, and food coloring, its not going to be saved by some ketchup on top. I see so many reviews of games where they're docking 2-3 (or even more) points out of 10 for things that aren't even *game*play, while games that could be played on a DVD player net 9s and 10s. Having both together is nice, but the game side of games seems to be ever-more pushed into the background while a bunch of people try and lump them in with movies/books.

EDIT : WTF is with those new captchas. It took 8 tries before one finally worked.

Very good shout. IMO GTA is bang on like that, as is Assasins Creed - I feel so detatched from the actual game that I just get to the point where I think "why bother playing?".

Games need to be for everyone.
Just because something isn't to your taste doesn't make it bad, and even things that are largely considered not particularly good may still be enjoyed by some people. Games should be made based on what the developer wants to make. Sometimes that is a commercially tuned widely accessible experience, sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's for an audience of traditional videogame fans, sometimes it's not. That's all fine. Just play what interests you and don't play what doesn't. Once again, there are no real rules for what needs to be in a videogame.

That's spot on. Whilst I talk about my dislike for Dark Souls repetativeness earlier, I would sooner they keep the difficulty high and for that audience, than try and pander it to the mainstream. I guess I'd just like to see a bit more variety that's all. Or maybe even just enemeies who are weaker after you defeat them several times, as opposed to disappearing? Just some way of being less repetative (I have only played the 1st game though, not number 2)

 

[Prince of Ales]

The idea that the hallmark of gaming enthusiasm is the dislike of video games. Online discussions are largely a bunch of people trying to "out-gamer" one another. Somehow people have got it into their heads that disliking a game that's generally liked shows them to have a more refined taste and therefore be on a higher level of "gamerness". But if you follow that to its logical conclusion then the true gamers are the people who don't like video games at all.

 

[Zhukov]

Bioshock 2: Its a terrible game!

I mean it wasn't a great game. Easily the worst of the Bioshock trilogy. But, come on people! Even the worst Bioshock game is league above 90% of the games out there. What, Assassin's Creed: Unity is above Bioshock 2? Gone Home?! Dying Light?! Hyrule Warriors?! Even Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel has a better rep that Bioshock 2, and Borderlands was a fucking map pack at full price!
Look, there's plenty to not like in Bioshock 2. But for all its polish, atmosphere, sold control, game mechanics and far above par writing, if it still gets lampooned, then we seriously need to look at the so-called great games going around and ask some pretty hard questions of them.

Maybe I'm prjecting my own views here, I'm pretty sure you just described the general consensus on Bioshock 2.

"Not bad, but not as good as the others, with pretty solid gomeplay."

There's even the odd nutter around the place who'll tell you it's the best of the bunch.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

The idea that the hallmark of gaming enthusiasm is the dislike of video games. Online discussions are largely a bunch of people trying to "out-gamer" one another. Somehow people have got it into their heads that disliking a game that's generally liked shows them to have a more refined taste and therefore be on a higher level of "gamerness". But if you follow that to its logical conclusion then the true gamers are the people who don't like video games at all.

I disagree with that to a certain degree chap. I think we're at a very pivitol stage with games where there's far more games being produced purely for profit than out of a love for gaming or desire to create something superbly enjoyable. I think, upon release, certain games are liked by many because of hype, expectation & legacy, and quite often those who don't like said games often see elements which some are oblivious too because of said hype, expectation & legacy.

It's not always the case like, I've definitely seen evidence of truth in your claim, but I can also see where such stances are based on genuine concerns.

Great username btw.

 

[white_wolf]

That being male and having nudity is the only way to sell a game by excluding and degrading your customer base with the undertone theme of if you want to play our games here's what we think you're good for. Still the industry pretending its young children and men only who buy their products since inception, they routinely fail to convince me why male is somehow the pivitol point for which the story must be centered on and nudity is the reward for doing certain actions sometimes you don't even need to do something to get it. Making characters that fit the story is a great line yet it always seems its male characters who fit that story unless you're talking about RPGs who still again write the story from males POV. Male AAA characters are the common male trap only heros who are boring and so similar they could be mistaken for brothers or cousins as the key spring board for game stories cuz men are heros women are their cheerleaders, eyecandy, conquest, cargo, care givers, revenge motivators as the dead or to be saved, quest givers, and side kicks.

 

[Mutant1988]

The idea that the hallmark of gaming enthusiasm is the dislike of video games. Online discussions are largely a bunch of people trying to "out-gamer" one another. Somehow people have got it into their heads that disliking a game that's generally liked shows them to have a more refined taste and therefore be on a higher level of "gamerness". But if you follow that to its logical conclusion then the true gamers are the people who don't like video games at all.

That is a pretty universal thing though. Doesn't matter what medium it is, a snob will always do that.

It's the product I think of a subconscious belief that anyone that is content or happy is stupid and that others perception is not as genuine as ours.

 

[sanquin]

That gamers have no social life. At one point this may have been true for a part of the gamer community, but these days that stereotype is basically based on relatively few exceptions.

Dark Souls is hard! No, it isn't. I've been a casual gamer all my life, and though DS took time to get used to, I never encountered any enemy I figured I couldn't beat because he was too difficult. It was always down to me not properly using/timing what I had at my disposal. Almost every fight is fair (at least in DS1), you just have to actually think before attacking. Maybe put up your shield and go defensive for a bit to get a feel for a new enemy's movements. But having to actually THINK before attacking does not equal hard. The game is definitely challenging though.

 

[NPC009]

My complaints are more about the community than the developers. There are so many games available there always a chance someone made the exact game you felt like playing. You miss your classic world map and turn-based battles in modern JRPGs? Check out some of those RPGmaker games on Steam and relive your days of Final Fantasy IV fanboying. Want some Metroid but Nintendo don't make 'em how they used to (as in: 2D)? Several good options coming your way this year.

So, like I said, I'd rather complain about my fellow gamer instead:

You need to play all the big titles to be a gamer
Have had this one thrown at me a couple of times. Okay, not worded exactly like that, but the meaning was clear: I shouldn't call myself a gamer if I didn't play triple A game X or Y. Which is, of course, bullcrap. There are so many worthwile games out there there's not way a single person could play them all. You play what you like. Of course it healthy to step out of your comfortzone every once in a while, but that doesn't mean you should be playing whatever is populair right now just because it's popular. I don't like GTA so I don't play it. That doesn't mean you shouldn't like it. I mean, it's great you found a game you enjoy so much, just don't judge me or anyone else for not sharing your preferences. In return, I won't judge you for not having played Ghost Trick or Danganronpa.

You need to have a big fancy PC/laptop to be a PC gamer
You know what? Screw that. Lots of awesome stuff out there with hilariously low system requirements. While you're busy trying to figure out why half of your RAM is on strike and your expensive new graphics card frickin' hates your other, slightly older components, I'm using my outdated laptop to play some random adventure game I picked up during the Steam sales and I'm loving every minute of it. (Yeah, I know I'm exagerating, but whenever I'm on a gaming forum there seems to be atleast one poster who can't seem to get his new game to run how he wants it to. PC Masterrace my arse.)

 

[Petromir]

.

That's not saying they can't work in the right context but, looking at the 2 examples I give, we've now tight RPGs such as Dragaon Age and The Witcher trying to include open world elements because of Skyrim's popularity. That's not to say it can't work, but I don't think either game really needs them.

Dragon Age and Dragon Age 2 were criticised at release for not being as open as the series they were supposed to be successors to (Balder's Gate), given both are older than Skyrim it can't be claimed its all Skyrim's doing.

It looks much more like Skyrim gave the devs the leverage to make it more open world than anything else.

Open world is by no means a requirement for an RPG, but I'm not sure I buy the argument that it's nesserially a detriment. If your tight RPG can't survive a open world around it then it's likely got issues that the lack of open world was masking, surely better to fix them than confine a player to cover your failings.

 

[NPC009]

There are no female characters because sexism/Gaming is geared towards males because sexism
You could say patriarchy or misogyny all you want, but in the end male gamers are the main money spenders in gaming market, so of course games are geared more for them.

Which doesn't make all that much sense, really. Don't most men like looking at women?

Look at the other extreme: Japanese games with a ton of moe. Cute female characters everywhere. Some even keep their clothes on.

In any case, the thing we should really be fighting is:

Male gamers only want white males age 20-45 as protagonists

 

[baddude1337]

"You can build a computer very cheaply and easily, you're an idiot if you buy a pre-built computer, even more so if you get a laptop"

Sure, it may be technically true, but you REALLY need to know your shit when it comes to components. It can still be damn expensive making your own computer, and then you need to get things like M+K, monitor, speaker system etc which if you don't want crap ones add to the cost very easily. Then their's the technical knowledge, which you basically either have or don't. If you aren't that much of a hands on or tech-savy person building your own can be a nightmare. As someone who has a gaming laptop who got it for convenience (I go from house to house with it quite a bit) it annoys me to no end when someone takes offence to me having a gaming laptop and think I wasted my money. I don't care I can't play the most recent games on ultra settings at 4k resolution with 60fps+, it plays the games I want it to play and I'm fine with that.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I'm going to get shit for this one but I wish people would get over M+KB being the best control scheme.
It's so much less natural and comfy. I wanna shoot dudes not strain fingers trying to reach control with my pinky.
And the slight increase in accuracy with the mouse doesn't make up for the sheer inconvenience of a keyboard.

Other than that, I guess I wish less people would praise bad or mediocre games just because they have a decent story.
This is more personal opinion, stop liking what I don't like sort of thing but seeing games like Half Life and Mass Effect being put on pedestals annoys me. They might as well have made it a movie rather than force you through stale combat or that damn boat section between the only worthwhile points in the game. A good story is a great thing to have in a game. But people seem to forget the game part of it a little too often.

 

[Prime_Hunter_H01]

"You can build a computer very cheaply and easily, you're an idiot if you buy a pre-built computer, even more so if you get a laptop"

Sure, it may be technically true, but you REALLY need to know your shit when it comes to components. It can still be damn expensive making your own computer, and then you need to get things like M+K, monitor, speaker system etc which if you don't want crap ones add to the cost very easily. Then their's the technical knowledge, which you basically either have or don't. If you aren't that much of a hands on or tech-savy person building your own can be a nightmare. As someone who has a gaming laptop who got it for convenience (I go from house to house with it quite a bit) it annoys me to no end when someone takes offence to me having a gaming laptop and think I wasted my money. I don't care I can't play the most recent games on ultra settings at 4k resolution with 60fps+, it plays the games I want it to play and I'm fine with that.

Thank you. My gripe run along the line of PC Gamers who can't get out of their own world when it comes to other people.

Every time someone says that the new consoles are useless, or cannot fathom how all gamers are not pc gamers, and I'm not just talking about the extreme end, even here on this site I will see people be so condescending toward anything they perceive as "well on a pc...".

Building a PC no matter how cheaply requires technical knowledge, just like Baddude said. No matter how easy it seems to you, really think about how much you had to learn to be able to make a PC as powerful as the 8th gen consoles for the same price, how much time investment to hunt down all the components, there is a barrier of entry in skill and in giving a shit to even hunt down a pre built pc or a laptop.

You have too much bias to see no matter how you sell it, a console is easier and cheaper than a pc in every way, because its a guaranteed 500$ or less for at the minimum 5 years of guaranteed game playing ability, even with the new consoles, and I can admit their drawbacks.

Most of the PC specific "advantages" are only advantages because you actually give a shit about them.

In the end the only superiority of a PC is applied to yourself only, because guess what, all you did was invest more in a hobby. To give an analogy, your the kid who builds Gundam Models and cant fathom why other kids are having the same amount of fun smashing Transformers in to each other, to use the enabling factor of your entertainment as a source of pride is stupid.

And this really can apply to anything, using the enabling factor of your entertainment as a source of pride is stupid.

 

[Strazdas]

Myth: Storytelling and narative are most important parts of a videogame.

Reality: If you want a story, you read a book. if you want pretty graphics, you watch a movie. Games are unique in that they have gameplay. Why forgo that to turn a game into a book?


Myth: Online communities are toxic

Reality: Just because there is 1 loudmouth and 14 silent people in the team does not make it 15 loudmouths. Dont forget the people that ARENT abusing you.


Myth: Indies are going to save gaming

Reality: No they are not. Indies always existed and will always exist. they are always the more risky and niche thing whereas AAA will always be more safe bets. Theres a thing Indies cant do - afford to polish the game.


Myth: We need gamers as CEOs

Reality: Most gamers are terrible CEOs and most CEOs are terrible gamers for a reason. you need a complete different skillset to survive in capitalist market as a CEO.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

Dragon Age and Dragon Age 2 were criticised at release for not being as open as the series they were supposed to be successors to (Balder's Gate), given both are older than Skyrim it can't be claimed its all Skyrim's doing.

It looks much more like Skyrim gave the devs the leverage to make it more open world than anything else.

Open world is by no means a requirement for an RPG, but I'm not sure I buy the argument that it's nesserially a detriment. If your tight RPG can't survive a open world around it then it's likely got issues that the lack of open world was masking, surely better to fix them than confine a player to cover your failings.

Wouldn't you say that DA:I was heavily influenced by Skyrim in terms of design choice? These make me think it was:

http://gamerant.com/dragon-age-inquisition-theme-keep-rpg-skyrim/

http://www.polygon.com/2014/11/3/7151567/how-skyrim-is-helping-to-shape-dragon-age-inquisition

I don't think it's always a detrimental thing, I just think DA:I is a great example of a game which would be better if it had less open world "filler" elements, and stuck to it's previous DA:O roots.

It's a fine balance, but we do seem to have devs gearing RPGs like this to fit a certain template, as opposed to running with an idea, and choosing the best template which fits that.

 

[Petromir]

Dragon Age and Dragon Age 2 were criticised at release for not being as open as the series they were supposed to be successors to (Balder's Gate), given both are older than Skyrim it can't be claimed its all Skyrim's doing.

It looks much more like Skyrim gave the devs the leverage to make it more open world than anything else.

Open world is by no means a requirement for an RPG, but I'm not sure I buy the argument that it's nesserially a detriment. If your tight RPG can't survive a open world around it then it's likely got issues that the lack of open world was masking, surely better to fix them than confine a player to cover your failings.

Wouldn't you say that DA:I was heavily influenced by Skyrim in terms of design choice? These make me think it was:

http://gamerant.com/dragon-age-inquisition-theme-keep-rpg-skyrim/

http://www.polygon.com/2014/11/3/7151567/how-skyrim-is-helping-to-shape-dragon-age-inquisition

I don't think it's a detriment, I just think DA:I is a great example of a game which would be better if it had less open world "filler" elements, and stuck to it's previous DA:O roots.

It's a fine balance, but we do seem to have devs gearing RPGs like this to fit a certain template, as opposed to running with an idea, and choosing the best template which fits that.

Oh it almost certainly was, but thats because once they looked at re-introducing open world to their games, it's natural they looked at the most popular one out there.

I'm just saying Skyrim isn't entirely to blame for the idea it should be, more that it's shown it could be worth the effort.

DA:O often felt like a game that the reason that greater freedom wasn't there was largely a resources issue rather than a deliberate aim. DA2 felt like a game that the modelling team were gain not given the resources to flesh it out.