Poll: Worst gaming trend?

[Genocidicles]

Did that actually happen? I mean, here's the first few paragraphs from the PC Gamer review:

"I have to start this with a warning, then a little tantrum, a few insults and a dash of paranoia. Apologies to those of you who already know what I'm going to say and are either fine with it or all raged out - you guys can skip this section.

Diablo 3 can only be played online. You can play it on your own or co-operatively, but neither mode works when Blizzard's servers are down, and neither mode is fun when Blizzard's servers are slow. In my six days of playing it, I got disconnected twice and experienced unplayable lag five times, each time when my own internet connection was working fine. At times, the servers were down for hours.

That's pathetic. There are valid reasons for forcing multiplayer characters to play online, but none for excluding an entirely offline single player mode. If you don't have a connection you can reliably play multiplayer games on, don't buy Diablo 3. Skip the rest of this review. Blizzard have chosen to exclude you completely, and I'm genuinely pissed off by the hostility and callousness of that decision."

The one that mainly sticks in my mind is Kotaku defending the online component in one article, spouting some bullshit about how it makes the game better... then they say that it's an awful feature in another article two years later. Both written by the same author:

http://kotaku.com/5912744/how-diablo-iiis-always-on-internet-requirement-makes-it-a-better-game

http://kotaku.com/in-the-end-diablo-iii-just-shouldnt-have-been-always-1624648696

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

None of the above. The worst gaming trend is: guns. Sometime in the 90s after Wolfenstein 3D, a transition occurred in which every game that wanted to be popular, had to involve a 1st person perspective with a gun sticking out in front of you. Whatever the reason for this (repressed male sexual inferiority syndrome is my guess), it meant that we no longer get a variety of top quality games and running round with a penis er sorry gun became the image non-gamers have of us all, rather than a variety of more intelligent gameplay styles that exist.

 

[BrokenTinker]

Some tough nuggets, but having a critical press would alleviate most of the other problems. If enough press starts talking about the scourge of online DRM, micro in full priced game and so forth, and you know, readers actually know to avoid these... horribly implemented games, the features will be quarantined somewhat (they will never disappear )

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Wait do people actually think that game journalism corruption is the worst thing in gaming? Like really? If you don't like what a reviewer is saying then don't watch/read what they have to say. It's that simple.

There's more to it than that and you know it. The journalism industry helps market these games. They are the go between companies and the people who buy their shit. Games journalists can influence the development of games by withholding or offering coverage. If that's corrupt, then the consumer is fucked.

 

[Gergar12_v1legacy]

How about all of the above. Free to play gaming can be done right. Just look at World of tanks, and TF2, misleading trailers look pretty cool, and people should know by now to look out gameplay vs climatic.

 

[SeptusCap]

Game journalism corruption - Plenty of reviewers, and types of reviews out there. If I go look up a reviewer of an Atelier game on a major gaming site I know it'll be rated poorly, and mocked. That is why I check other places which are more credible for that particular review as they more align with myself.

The problem isn't finding games I like, it's corruption shaping the market; journos have undue influence due to metacritic, external linking & other SEO, and so on, and they abuse it. They also attack people for clicks, ideological reasons, etc. (Brad Wardell, Max Temkin, David Jaffe, etc).

Divinity Original Sin's artist, for example, says "blackmails in the form of 'change your game art or we won't publish a single word about you.' is a common behavior"

Do you need these sites? No, but developers are often beaten into submission because google is rigged to favor these hacks, and most people aren't as invested/knowledgeable as you.

 

[direkiller]

Micro transactions in full priced games are my big pet peeve.
I payed to play the game, not so you can sell me more.
THe only game it kinda worked in was Just Cause 2, and that's more so because they broke up there DLC packs, at no point did they try and sell you on it in game.


The rest I have changed my buying habits to avoid(Trailers I don't pre order) never cared about(I don't pay attention to published game reviews), or just don't garner my hate as much.

Free to play is not that bad, on the PC and consoles anyway it seems to have a healthy market with games that are deeper then a Skinner Boxs. Moble seems to be bent over the rail on that one.

Day 1 DLC is kinda bad if it's already for sale day one, If it's pre-loaded unfinished parts to a future DLC people need to stop getting there undies in a twist.

Season Passes are not that bad, unless there only avalabe as a pre-order bonus.
If I play the game and plan on getting the DLC anyway, a cheaper bundle is not that bad.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I voted for the DRM because its implemented so badly so often.
And its perhaps the only option there that can't be dealt with by just ignoring it.

Spoiler: Rant about the options in there. I figured I spoiler it and make a semi normal post to go with it. Don't read if you prefer actual thought processes behind opinions.

Literally the only bad things on that list are the DRM, in most cases, and day one DLC. And I guess the trailers, but who the hell would make a trailer that looks bad?

The first three are options for people that do like them. I can't see how it affects you at all if you don't like them. Especially the early access stuff. Its giving you the option to buy a game early. Its a risk, considering how much the game might change but I hardly see how its a 'concerning trend'. Steam doesn't put a gun to your head and force you to buy these things. The same goes for microtransactions, I can't think of a (non free to play) game that has microtransactions that aren't cosmetic. And if people are think its worth spending 5 bucks for a shiny new pair of wings or something more power to them.

Free to play. Enlighten me on how this is an issue? The only thing I can think of is that the game might become pay2win but that's another issue entirely. I know plenty of free games that don't have this issue. So unless you have a phobia of the poor I'm stumped.

Game journalism corruption. What? I hope you people aren't still going on about that one chick and kotaku. Outside of reviews I can't even see how their will be much corruption to done anyway. And there is a lot more to games journalism than just reviews.

Sorry to come into your thread and rant I guess. But when something like Early Access, which is a perfectly good concept even if it is sometimes implemented poorly, is under attack because it doesn't appeal to some people I get unreasonably annoyed. Its exactly this shit that will get early access removed which would suck.
For example I hate Minecraft as it is right now. I bought it in Alpha and had the time of my life with it for ages. I clocked up at least 600 hours on it. Probably more. But it changed a lot and now I don't like it, but if I had to wait until it was actually released I would never have enjoyed it at all.
Also with the early access you can expect a bunch of updates to the game as you are playing it. That kept Minecraft fresh until they started adding pointless stuff.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

My list would go as such:

1) Always-on DRM: This gets the top of the list not because it's such a pain in the ass, but mainly because there is simply NO benefit of it to the consumer, at all. Yes, you need it to implement certain things, sharing or whatever, but in no instances is it absolutely a must (except for multiplayer and MMO's, obviously). In any other event, it's BS. And also because you can't even LAN without a connection any more in pretty much every game now.

2) Microtransactions: This shit needs to die a fiery death - in full-priced titles. I can see how it works in the mobile market, and that's fine. The games get to a point where you just need to grind your ass off, and that's usually about the time I uninstall it, no probs. But full price games, just eff off and die. Biggest peeve to date - Gran Turismo 6. Haven't bought it and never will. It's a full price game, but there are cars in there that cost about twice the cost of the game itself, should you be so inclined to spend the money. GT5 was already a grind fest once you got to the end of it or wanted certain cars. I see they were just grooming you for what was to come in GT6. None of the previous GT's were like that, there were always ways to farm money if you were diligent enough to find out (prize car for winning a particular rally, would net you a lot of dough when sold, could be repeated enough times to easily buy anything you needed). Plus, most of this shit was given as a cheat code, for "the people too busy to play games". I don't play as many games as I used to, but the games I do, I devote as much time to each as I ever have, you bastards.

3) Seasons Pass: Pretty much a microtransaction in itself, more of an assault to the second-hand market. Again, no benefit to the consumer. Still, it's a game industry's prerogative, I can't argue with them, even though I think it's BS in terms of "hurting their profits".

I don't even think game journalism should be up there. Gamers have a choice who they want to agree with and not, any self-standing individual with a brain can make up their minds on who to listen to/watch. If you're going to talk about game journalists representing the gamers, well no one "up there" listens anyways, they're not concerned with issues and negative trends in gaming, they're just interested in the dollars, yo. And the marketing team will have a lot more prevalent things to say than some game journalist. Only reason XBONE pulled their on-line shit is because they saw Sony have a fucking field day with their competition during pre launch and decided that would be detrimental to their most important sale phase.

 

[Quadocky]

Hah, I was going to post a very long winded thing about trends and such but the fact 180 votes on Game Journalism Corruption pretty much demonstrates the point I was going to make. Gamers themselves are the problem. Developers are doing just fine, if somewhat afraid to do 'new' things. The players of video games being terrible people (while nothing really 'new' either) is the worst trend of all.

I see THIS as the biggest problem in the gaming industry: outright hatred for the core audience. If you don't like us, why the f*** don't you LEAVE? We nerds have always been "beaten and shamed into submission" by cool kids like Sam Biddle (a Gawker gaming journalist who openly called for bullying against nerds in response to #GamerGate DURING BULLYING AWARENESS MONTH).

Seriously? Why on Earth are my ad dollars paying for anti-nerd jihad? That's why I joined #GamerGate, because I'm not a defenseless kid anymore and now I can fight back.

Perhaps 'terrible' was the wrong word. Perhaps 'guilible' and or 'easily goaded into righteous indignation over nothing'.

Though I am a person who hates anon culture or whatever you call it on those *chan boards. Its all bullshit. Yet people take it so god damn seriously to the point of insane unaware self-parody. Poe's Law I think its called?

And i would Argue that 'nerds' in general have a HUGE problem with being 'self-aware'. There is so much vacancy in critical thought, and video games are not helping as they rarely if every profess any sort of critical thinking.

 

[EternallyBored]

Perhaps 'terrible' was the wrong word. Perhaps 'guilible' and or 'easily goaded into righteous indignation over nothing'.

Though I am a person who hates anon culture or whatever you call it on those *chan boards. Its all bullshit. Yet people take it so god damn seriously to the point of insane unaware self-parody. Poe's Law I think its called?

And i would Argue that 'nerds' in general have a HUGE problem with being 'self-aware'. There is so much vacancy in critical thought, and video games are not helping as they rarely if every profess any sort of critical thinking.

It's not just nerds, really any group that can convince themselves that they are being marginalized or attacked will become much much easier to goad into, "righteous indignation". It's a trait that some groups actually knowingly exploit in order to either drive controversy (and thus attention), or to rally a cause to greater action.

Tell an American Christian that is self-assured in their faith that they should be offended over something, and you will likely get a lukewarm reaction at best. Convince them that they are under attack, and are actually the marginalized victim, and suddenly every offense becomes a crusade that must be fought in order to preserve their very identity and way of life. This is pretty much entirely what some parts of the American media does with its, "war on Christmas" narrative, where they have managed to get a portion of a demographic that makes up the majority of the country and cultural influence to buy into a narrative that their very way of life and core beliefs are actually the victims of some nebulous greater outside force.

Similarly with nerds and gamers, the perception of being under attack or "oppressed" has driven a sort of hyper sensitivity that compels some of those within our hobby to view any sort of attack in a twisted hyperbolic sense that must be met with swift response. If you can convince yourself that your group is under attack and that you are the victims, then extreme responses are more easily self-justified, which is partially what leads to these modern internet clusterfucks where both sides of an argument try to push themselves as the aggrieved underdogs.

Victim mentality is an attractive prospect, and creates an easy way to self-justify having the moral high ground.

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

The Indie Game dev meltdown spree with the Brits/Aussies. Over the span of three years, what would be normally seen as a corporate move to quash dissent is being used by the Indie gaming scene to crush all dissent against them. This is embarrassing on both sides really. Where is my heartless DMCA takedowns from EA?

 

[MrFalconfly]

Wait do people actually think that game journalism corruption is the worst thing in gaming? Like really? If you don't like what a reviewer is saying then don't watch/read what they have to say. It's that simple.

You know of the "Three Branches of Government" right?

Legislature, Executive, and Judicial?

Well it's commonly accepted that the Journalists are the "Fourth" Branch of Government.

Journalists are (or rather, are seen as) the public watchdogs of the world. They're supposed to be the eyes, the ears, and the voice of the people.

Basically, to fix any of the other things on the poll above you need to have trustworthy journalists to keep the pressure on the companies on the behalf of the consumers.

 

[SmugFrog]

Honestly I'd like to pick 2 or 3 things on your list. I voted for the always online DRM as my internet just sucks, second would be the microtransactions and paid DLC. I think microtransactions and DLC can be done in a right way after a game's release to extend the life of the game - but not when it's planned in advance (as most are) to complete the story or nickel and dime the customers of a game for more money.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

There should be an "unfinished games" option.

The idea that games need a patch as soon as (or very soon after) they come out is the sort of bull that we never had to deal with (on the consoles at least) before the 7th-gen.

 

[Black Reaper]

Shit, that's a hard choice
But i picked Day 1 dlc, since Dlc is supposed to add cool stuff to a game, not take it away so they can charge you extra for it

 

[ArcadianDrew]

I'm going with online only DRM. With all the other things on that list, they are bad (I feel), but at least none of them can actually stop the consumer playing the game. With online only DRM, if anything goes wrong with it you're left with expensive software that you cannot access/play, even though you have PAID for it. And really, what does DRM achieve? All it ever seems to do is make it harder for the legitimate customers to play the game, whilst pirates get the superior version. That's what's annoying, companies aren't suppose to punish the people supporting them.

...And breathe...

 

[MetalShadowChaos]

I went for Online-Only DRM as it's one of the few that isn't a case of a good idea in prospect Abused.

Free-to-Play CAN be done really well, Early Access CAN be used to make a game better before launch, Season Passes CAN and in some places ARE used as simply a package with all the DLC in it for a cheaper price, 'misleading' trailers are generally just marketing mistakes more than anything, Day One DLC CAN still be good stuff even if it's released a bit soon.

'Corruption in games journalism' as people seem to define it as is practically meaningless, and the real problem isn't one of games, it's of morons screaming about 'corruption in games journalism'. So not a 'gaming trend', a 'stupid people' trend.

Online-Only DRM helps literally no-one. The only things it facilitates are other shitty things. It isn't the shittiest of things, but compared to others it doesn't have any redeeming qualities to balance it out.