Poll: What Do You Think Is Currently The Worst Thing In Gaming?

[Fishes]

You know what, I am a happy gamer. I don't think there is a worst thing in gaming. Right now I am bouncing around between Soul Caliber, Impre, Anno, Stardrive, Borderlands 2, Batman, the entire Max Payne franchise, Sins of a Solar Empire, Solar 2, Majesty 2, and Blood Bowl.

I now play video games the way I used to watch TV. I figure out what I am in the mood for, and I put it on. So many options, and I spend less on games then I used to spend on cable. Games have pretty much replaced TV and movies for me. It is even gaining on my oldest hobby, reading.

To me, now is a great time to be a gamer, and the future holds nothing but even more options. Yeah, the Sim City thing might have ticked me off, but I was too busy putting dozens of hours into Anno while listening to a book on tape. It is ever so relaxing. Way too relaxing to be upset about some game I used to play ten years ago struggling with it's reboot.

Key to Nerdvana is a steam account, and an Audible account. Sorry, 4x gamers only

Oh... I bet it might work for you minecraft people to!

 

[Shia-Neko-Chan]

Don't take this the wrong way. I'm not an introvert, but I've gotten pretty annoyed of gamers as of late.

They're trying so hard to be accepted by the mainstream that any and all character designs with sex appeal (well, I should say any and all. pretty much just female character designs) are ridiculed and the creators of such designs are insulted. Care in point, Dragon's Crown. I guess it's supposed to be hilarious how that Kotaku writer decided to refer to the Dragon's Crown designer as "a 14 year old boy".

The community acts automatically dismisses games with sexy character designs as something for the "lowest common denominator" like it makes them more mature or intellectual just because they rejected something for the sole reason of it having sex appeal.

What's even worse is that some will throw the "sexism" or "misogyny" when simply creating a character that looks a certain way has absolutely nothing to do with that whatsoever.

It's all completely unjustified, honestly. Sex appeal is and has never been a bad thing, nor should it be treated as such. If someone does not like a game that has character designs with sex appeal, they could just not buy it and not try to make the people who do like such designs look bad. For example, I don't like that new male swimmer anime "Free" but I'm not going to cry "Misandry!" because of it or try to make myself look superior to its creators or the people who are interested.

It's gotten so bad recently that I've considered not even hanging around gamer message boards.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

There's too many shooters at the moment it would be nice to get some more triple A titles that are exploration, puzzle, dnd tactics, fighter based.

I'm really looking forward to seeing if The Evil Within is actually survival horror because I love that genre.

The fact that my 3DS is quickly becoming my second favorite thing to my PC is not a random occurrence it just has so many INTERESTING games at the moment. Luigi's Mansion and Fire Emblem for example.

 

[Drauger]

Microtransations, I remeber when this was only for mmorpg, it sucked but at least there was a way around it, someone else buys it, then you pay with in ame currency, but now pay to win on a console ugh.........

 

[Daniel Ferguson]

Companions that aren't Elizabeth from Bioshock Infinite.

 

[Adon Cabre]

[HEADING=2]This industry is fast heading into BANKRUPTCY and we're still ticked at DRM?[/HEADING]

Are you all for-real? Emily Rogers of NotEnoughShaders has posted an article on the state of console platforms [http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2012/07/02/the-rise-of-costs-the-fall-of-gaming/] that you should all at least glance through after reading this.

Emily predicts with hard stats that the next gen launch will cripple the industry. This last generation of consoles has killed off over 120 Developer Studios. As publishers invest in more Hollywood blockbuster games (ever sure of a grand slam in sales), this industry will turn into a market bubble [https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+a+market+bubble&aq=f&oq=what+is+a+market+bubble&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l3j60l2.3710j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8]. This is how the US and Europe hit a freaking recession.

[h4]Just like Congress avoiding the economic
plight of the US, the gaming community and media has turned its attention to more
serviceable, socially trendy problems like sexism in gaming,
or how big-bad DRM is ruining the industry.[/h4]​

[HEADING=3]Triple AAA games have budgets bigger than Movies[/HEADING]
It's a great assumption that when a company sells fewer titles than expected, that it will invest fewer resources into one title; but just the opposite has happened. Because publishers need to watch out for the bottom line (i.e investors), they need to take bigger gambles and have bigger payoffs. And this problem has now been amp'd to a whole new scale as triple-A title costs will skyrocket even higher to cover the new and more complex engines.

[h4]

Not to mention the platforms PS4, PC & Xbox720.
So which console gets the most sales?
Who wins the big chunk of the $?
No one. Yeah, that's smart.​

[/h4]​

[HEADING=3]Prediction[/HEADING]
All 3 next gen consoles will flop as they now have to compete with AFFORDABLE premium smartphones, ultrabooks, laptops, tablets and mid-range pc's -- something the PS3, Xbox360 and Wii did not have to do. I personally got my first cellphone in 2006, and it wasn't until 09' that I finally got a Playstation 3 -- two years after launch.

Another thing: statistics show that consumers choose all of those technologies before even considering a new video game system. In other words, why is mom going to buy her son or daughter a next gen console, when she just bought them a Laptop and Galaxy S4? Or what if she gives them a choice? What's more important: a console, a cellphone or laptop.

What gets you more independence?


Another point Emily makes is that there is no way the next gen titles will sell on those platforms when they are being ported to current gen consoles for the sake of publishers breaking even or even making a profit.

My most anticipated game is Watchdogs, and which is coming out for the PC and PS3, which I both have. The same is happening for Assassin's Creed 4: Black Flag. So what's the point of a PS4/xbox720?

And the Wii U does even have a Super Mario Galaxy 3 on the horizon!

[HEADING=1]Wii U a bad omen[/HEADING]
The Wii U failed to sell not because of software; but because there is absolutely no need for it in the market place. There is no need for another console to share 3rd party ports with the PC, Xbox360, and PS3 -- and this was what Nintendo was really banking on, 3rd Party Support.

Not only did this console lack any distinctive quality from its last iteration, and not only did it lack a plethora of major exclusive titles, but it missed completely the point of why the industry asks for a next gen console. Affordability of creating technology (Consoles) and software (titles). Neither of these are happening in the next generation. The truth is, Nintendo needed to rush the Wii U out after a steep decline in software sales for the Wii -- and here it is, an ugly mess from top to bottom, and a bad omen for things to come with the next gen platforms.

The Wii failed miserably after that 3 year golden period because their system sellers were terribly paced, coming out within 3 years (Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2) and 5 years (Zelda's Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword) of each other.

You just... don't do that.

Source: www.notenoughshaders.com [http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2012/07/02/the-rise-of-costs-the-fall-of-gaming/]​

 

[Commissar Sae]

Poorly made DRM schemes. I don't like ubisofts invasive DRM, but at least it usually lets me play the games I want to play. The stuff like Simcity or the Diablo III launch are completely unacceptable. All DRM is kind of a pain, but as long as it doesn't actively interfere with me trying to play my game whatever.

Also the lack of ideas, but more on the producer side of things. They keep trying to make profit with failing models, yet they keep using the model. That is a major problem and one that may cause huge problems for the industry in the near future.

 

[Brogan Cordova]

Didn't see an option for it, so I went with microtransactions since it's closest.

Biggest problem is cost, which encompasses the cost to make a game (too high), the price it's sold at (too high, especially with inevitable price drop), and how the cost is much higher than the amount of people actually willing to buy the games.

 

[Snotnarok]

No one having any middle ground on their opinions, games seem to either be great or shit. Seriously opinions are so black and white it's somewhat unnerving. I don't see many people saying "the game was pretty fun" it's just AMAZING or FUCKING SHIT or in the case of the Escapist threads every week "MASS EFFECT 3 HAD A BAD ENDING! D:"

Devs/pubs not trying other genres pumping AAA budgets into only shooters

Companies trying to push DRM in thinly disguised masks trying to suggest it's good for social interaction no one asked for.

It's all a mess.

 

[Souplex]

The worst thing in gaming right now is that we're in that awkward between generations phase when releases slow to an absolute crawl.
I don't get all the hate lumped on DRM. It's just the industry trying to get the few remaining PC gamers to jump ship to a medium with less piracy where such measures aren't necessary.

 

[SSJBlastoise]

Incoming wall O' text.

This last generation of consoles has killed off over 120 Developer Studios.

Hate to point this out but this is business; companies fail and others begin. You can try and be all doom and gloom and say 120 died off but you shouldn't neglect the 80 or so new ones (that's if wikipedia can be trusted). Yes, it is bad that there are 40 less (not accurate) but it would be better to look at what kind of companies were they. Were they small companies that made niche games? Or studios that released buggy games.

Triple AAA games have budgets bigger than Movies

Now, if you're taking the numbers in the article as fact then you might want to realise that a certain percentage of the game price goes to the retailer which could be up to 30% (it's hard to find numbers on this because valve and other companies don't really like talking about it). I'm also willing to bet that a lot of money is spent towards marketing and seeing as gaming is a relatively new area for mainstream audiences then advertising is needed to get more sales but there is a chance (hopefully) marketing budgets come down as games are more known throughout the mainstream media.

Not to mention the platforms PS4, PC & Xbox720.
So which console gets the most sales?
Who wins the big chunk of the $?
No one. Yeah, that's smart.

I'm not sure if you're really trying to suggest we give up on everything and just make one platform because to be honest, that is kind of stupid. People like their freedom in being able to choose how they play their games. As to which console gets the most sales, it completely depends on the game. COD and sports games (just a guess but I don't really know of anyone that plays FIFA on a PC) sell excellently on consoles while games like The Witcher and Counter Strike sell well on the PC.

All 3 next gen consoles will flop as they now have to compete with AFFORDABLE premium smartphones, ultrabooks, laptops, tablets and mid-range pc's

I find this bit to be pretty hilarious really. I mean, smartphones being a reason why console gaming dies? You give someone the option of playing a game like GTA on either a phone or a console what do you think they will choose? Now, onto PCs. There have been many threads here about why console gaming will die and such because PCs a better. I will admit, PCs are better because you have more freedom which is great; if you know what you are doing. The point is not everyone is capable of building their own computer (therefore cost to buy a computer increases)and becomes more than the cost of a console for the same graphics qualities (and the possibility it might not even run new games). This is where consoles have the advantage, there is no worrying about "will my console run this game?" because it will (assuming disc isn't scratched).

Why is mom going to buy her son or daughter a next gen console, when she just bought them a Laptop and Galaxy S4? Or what if she gives them a choice? What's more important: a console, a cellphone or laptop.

I'm going to have a guess if a mum can afford a laptop and an S4 I doubt they can't afford a console. The choice thing is really circumstantial and depends on the person and situation. For a child at home they would most likely have a family PC which would eliminate the need for a laptop. Depending on what you use a phone for a simple, cheaper one may be a better option if you only text or call people (or are prone to losing them like one of my mates is -_-). Even then, most people wouldn't need to choose one because if they can afford one then surely, over time, they could afford the one they see as the next important choice.

Another point Emily makes is that there is no way the next gen titles will sell on those platforms when they are being ported to current gen consoles for the sake of publishers breaking even or even making a profit.

My most anticipated game is Watchdogs, and which is coming out for the PC and PS3, which I both have. The same is happening for Assassin's Creed 4: Black Flag. So what's the point of a PS4/xbox720?

Well besides from the most likely fact that the next gen versions will look much better there is also a chance that the next gen versions may have extras in them due to the improved hardware of the new consoles. From what has been show so far of Watchdogs it looks like it is a very complex and ambitious game and I've wondered since the announcement of it if the current gen of consoles will be able to run it as well as it is hoped to be.

The Wii U failed to sell not because of software; but because there is absolutely no need for it in the market place. There is no need for another console to share 3rd party ports with the PC, Xbox360, and PS3 -- and this was what Nintendo was really banking on, 3rd Party Support.

Not only did this console lack any distinctive quality from its last iteration, and not only did it lack a plethora of major exclusive titles

The console has been out for for 6 months and it's already a failure? I'm not quite sure how that is possible when most new consoles take off slowly. the following graph helps put things in perspective.

Another cause of this can be because of what I bolded in your statement. People are waiting for the big games to come out and see what Nintendo will do. Their big sellers (Zelda, Mario Kart, Super Smash Bros and Mario Party) aren't even out yet and these games always sell in massive numbers.[/quote]

The Wii failed miserably after that 3 year golden period

When you have sold nearly 100 million consoles (if wikipedia is to be trusted) that would kind of be understandable because so many people have your console already, why would they need to buy a new one?

Anyway, phew, finally got that all out. Sorry about the wall O' text everyone.

 

[rob_simple]

Nothing is causing me to lose faith in the gaming industry. I watched a trailer for that Monaco game the other day and it looks like a whole sack of fun. I can't wait to get a computer that isn't so shitty it can't run Steam and reap the massive crop of indie games I've missed out on.

Wait, what's that? Oh...you're assuming that the mainstream is the be all and end all of gaming today. Again. Well, I lost interest in AAA titles a while ago, (I've actually had Gears of War 3 since it came out but never played it,) but my faith in gaming is consistently renewed on an almost weekly basis when I see a new project from a developer I love, (I'm looking at you, Suda 51, you mad bastard.)

 

[NecroNinja]

my faith in gaming is consistently renewed on an almost weekly basis when I see a new project from a developer I love, (I'm looking at you, Suda 51, you mad bastard.)

Very nice callout on Suda there, I genuinely get excited whenever they announce a new project. But reminds me of another problem. Shadows of the Damned was a great game and one of the most enjoyable games I've played in a long while. But its sales were terrible. So it is worrying that so much consumer spending is funnelled into AAA games instead of games with more effort and originality as eventually, it is fair to assume that said original games will simply not be able to get made, or publishers will not bother with them. As much as I love indie games, they still need an audience, and I despair at how greats like Shadows of the Damned slip under people's radars whilst everyone seems to have a release date for the latest Call of Duty before a single line of code has even been written for it. At the moment we as gamers are relying on the developers to continue making these great games for enjoyment, despite making a loss on many of them. It can only go on for so long before they call it a day.

I particularly like someone's comment from earlier about dialogue between gamers and publishers/developers. I do agree that the industry needs to attend to feedback from their audience, and in turn the audience should give constructive and achievable feedback. It'd be interesting to see if that made a difference, particularly with bigger companies like EA and Activision.

I recently read an article in a British magazine (FRONT - if you were wondering) about indie gaming and it mentioned an upcoming wave of what I can only call Mini-Consoles dedicated to indie games that anyone can develop and share. Whereas this is a cool idea in theory, can these games really offer much and do that well in an industry where far higher budgets and more advanced tech is more widely used?

 

[Shoggoth2588]

It seems like a lot of DLC today is what you would get for free in the past. I know, I know, I've seen how DLC works and is made but that doesn't excuse some of the stuff we do see. The worst thing about achievements and trophies are the fact that it basically killed cheat codes. There are a number of games that allow you to use codes I know but they were a lot more prevalent in the before time, in the long-long ago. The idea of paying for content that you can unlock by playing the game seems weird to me but I understand it. The idea of paying actual, real-world money for a cheat code that you can download is stupid.

Also Multiplayer again. The game with the best multiplayer ever is the game that allows you to access every multiplayer mode offline and with bots in addition to offline and with friends in addition to online and with friends who are right there with you and, online, and with physical friends and, with people you meet online and, with bots. That game doesn't exist (unless it does, I think there's a Quake on the 360 that people have told me I should play but there should be more than one game in this day and age). The best example I can think of when it comes to how multiplayer should be is Time Splitters: Future Imperfect. A ton of playable characters who you unlock by playing the game (including monkeys, robots, etc), bots are enabled, you can play with friends AND bots and you can play the game online. This was done under the EA umbrella too...what the Hell happened between then and now?! I think the second best multiplayer game based on my criteria would be...Mario Kart Wii! I'm unsure if couch-co-op players can take their party of 2-to-4 online or not...

 

[Hazy]

Developers/journalists who act as if treating gamers with a modicum of decency is taboo.

"Oh, you don't want Day 1 DLC in your game that you payed full price for? Stop being so entitled!"

And then you have people like Phil Fish who think their games are so goddamn sublime that we should be bowing our heads in praise that he graced us with a $9 price tag for a year old game like FEZ, instead of charging us $90 - and then proceeding to call his fanbase "fucking ingrates."

Give me a fucking break.

 

[rob_simple]

my faith in gaming is consistently renewed on an almost weekly basis when I see a new project from a developer I love, (I'm looking at you, Suda 51, you mad bastard.)

Very nice callout on Suda there, I genuinely get excited whenever they announce a new project. But reminds me of another problem. Shadows of the Damned was a great game and one of the most enjoyable games I've played in a long while. But its sales were terrible. So it is worrying that so much consumer spending is funnelled into AAA games instead of games with more effort and originality as eventually, it is fair to assume that said original games will simply not be able to get made, or publishers will not bother with them. As much as I love indie games, they still need an audience, and I despair at how greats like Shadows of the Damned slip under people's radars whilst everyone seems to have a release date for the latest Call of Duty before a single line of code has even been written for it. At the moment we as gamers are relying on the developers to continue making these great games for enjoyment, despite making a loss on many of them. It can only go on for so long before they call it a day.

I particularly like someone's comment from earlier about dialogue between gamers and publishers/developers. I do agree that the industry needs to attend to feedback from their audience, and in turn the audience should give constructive and achievable feedback. It'd be interesting to see if that made a difference, particularly with bigger companies like EA and Activision.

I recently read an article in a British magazine (FRONT - if you were wondering) about indie gaming and it mentioned an upcoming wave of what I can only call Mini-Consoles dedicated to indie games that anyone can develop and share. Whereas this is a cool idea in theory, can these games really offer much and do that well in an industry where far higher budgets and more advanced tech is more widely used?

I agree with your concern about great games that don't have mass appeal slipping under the radar, but I don't think it means they'll stop getting made. Many of the games I've enjoyed most this generation have been either PSN or XBLA games, precisely because they buck current trends and harp back to a time when games were primarily concerned with being fun. Because of the massively reduced budgets on these smaller games, they can afford to take a lot more risks creatively, and that same small budget makes them easier to fund, especially now that we have things like Kickstarter which allow the developers of classic games to make the sequels both they and the fans want, without being beholden to the publisher whims that inevitably turn every reboot into a futuristic and/or military-based shooter. Things like Kickstarter also provide a brilliant potential for the dialogue between consumer and developer that you mentioned.

Also, on the subject of dialogue, I think the internet has forced developers/publishers into being more open about how they operate, and this can be both good and bad. Despite the recent shit he's been catching, I like the fact that Randy Pitchford frequently takes to Twitter to explain the technical reasons behind things like level caps in Borderlands 2; it helps to dispel the common belief held by many gamers that developers do things they don't like just to piss them off.

I'm a bit iffy on your last point about what a low-power indie console can offer us when big budgets and top-tier tech is order of the day, because I don't think that's the case for a lot of people. Yes, there are the people who will throw their money at every Call of Duty game without second thought, and maybe they even make up the majority nowadays, but I'm confident there will always be a market for smaller developers; it only seems less popular because it doesn't have the benefit of hundreds of thousands of dollars being thrown into marketing.

Maybe I'm just being overly optimistic, but given the fears surrounding both Sony and Microsoft's new consoles, I can see the age of hardware-based cock-measuring and wanking off over polygon counts coming to a predictably messy end, and in the wake of that collapse there will be a chance for the smaller developers to stand up and start getting the recognition they sorely deserve.

 

[rob_simple]

Developers/journalists who act as if treating gamers with a modicum of decency is taboo.

"Oh, you don't want Day 1 DLC in your game that you payed full price for? Stop being so entitled!"

And then you have people like Phil Fish who think their games are so goddamn sublime that we should be bowing our heads in praise that he graced us with a $9 price tag for a year old game like FEZ, instead of charging us $90 - and then proceeding to call his fanbase "fucking ingrates."

Give me a fucking break.

I am almost certain that that is supposed to be a joke. No businessman would so openly commit career suicide.

 

[AlbertoDeSanta]

The Community. Especially with all the rampant Sexism discussion on this particular forum. The sooner this wave of Sexism allegations is gone, the better.