Things in games that need to stop.
- Thread starter ArcaneFyre
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Hey, you know what? I actually LIKE 3D, and consider it to add to an immersive experience.
I also LIKE motion controls rather than joystick because they give a more realistic feel to what I'm doing (when done right of course).
I don't care if you think they're gimmicks, I enjoy them, and I'm not going to be able to enjoy them because everyone now believes that motion controls = casual gaming, or motion controls = terrible game titles.
These associations with motion controls is because of Nintendo's terrible marketing, which they have thankfully begun to ditch.
There is nothing glorious about a game controller, and I long for the day when we can do full virtual reality simulation games.
It's pretty funny actually. When it comes to politics on this forum, this forum leans very much liberal (relative to US politics), but when it comes to Video games? This is one of the most conservative video game sites I've ever come across (with regards to the userbase, not the magazine content).
I also LIKE motion controls rather than joystick because they give a more realistic feel to what I'm doing (when done right of course).
I don't care if you think they're gimmicks, I enjoy them, and I'm not going to be able to enjoy them because everyone now believes that motion controls = casual gaming, or motion controls = terrible game titles.
These associations with motion controls is because of Nintendo's terrible marketing, which they have thankfully begun to ditch.
There is nothing glorious about a game controller, and I long for the day when we can do full virtual reality simulation games.
It's pretty funny actually. When it comes to politics on this forum, this forum leans very much liberal (relative to US politics), but when it comes to Video games? This is one of the most conservative video game sites I've ever come across (with regards to the userbase, not the magazine content).
- stop escort quests
- stop unskippable tutorials (this kills replay value, who wants to waste an hour or two at the beginning of every playthrough on tutorials you can't skip?).
- stop unskippable cutscenes
- stop DLC. I like DLC sometimes but not enough to excuse day 1 DLC (or Day 8/15 DLC that was delayed for a week or two to avoid day 1 DLC criticism).
-
- stop unskippable tutorials (this kills replay value, who wants to waste an hour or two at the beginning of every playthrough on tutorials you can't skip?).
- stop unskippable cutscenes
- stop DLC. I like DLC sometimes but not enough to excuse day 1 DLC (or Day 8/15 DLC that was delayed for a week or two to avoid day 1 DLC criticism).
-
I think they need to stop trying to appeal to a large demographic, but instead have teams that actually synergize together and agree on a direction the game should go, for example the new Alice game has a unique style to it, and the gameplay just works really well for the scenery/story.
Stop with the blatant pandering, I dont need an ego massage to enjoy a game- in fact it can often harm my enjoyment of it when Im constantly being told every 5 minutes how awesome I am.
This comes from recently replaying ME2 when absoluetly every character sucks up so hard to Shepard its cringeworthy (in fact RPG's seem to be the most guilty of this crime).
This comes from recently replaying ME2 when absoluetly every character sucks up so hard to Shepard its cringeworthy (in fact RPG's seem to be the most guilty of this crime).
SEQUELS!
Yeah, I'm with Yahtzee on this one. We'd miss some good ones, but I get more and more cynical every E3 that passes where all the hit games are Modern Warfare 3, Uncharted 3, another Tomb Raider, another Zelda, Street Fighter AND Tekken, about a hundred "accidentally" pre-released Halo reveals!
Yes! They're good games! And you know what can happen in a sequel? You could screw up the entire series by, let's say, telling us "that fight that we finished in Halo 3 isn't over. Whoops!" Or the Bishock complaint, where the only reason Bioshock 2 was bad was because it was compared to Bioshock 1!
Give me some new IPs! Give me The Last Guardian! Give me Journey!
GIVE ME SOMETHING!
I really do like sequels, but there's too many of them. Really too many. (Final Fantasy XIII-2, for example. WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN? IS IT FINAL FANTASY 15? JUST NAME IT 14!OH WAIT! YOU ALREADY DID THAT FOR AN MMO THAT HAS ENOUGH PLAYERS TO COUNT ON ONE HAND! SUCKS FOR YOU!)
Yeah, I'm with Yahtzee on this one. We'd miss some good ones, but I get more and more cynical every E3 that passes where all the hit games are Modern Warfare 3, Uncharted 3, another Tomb Raider, another Zelda, Street Fighter AND Tekken, about a hundred "accidentally" pre-released Halo reveals!
Yes! They're good games! And you know what can happen in a sequel? You could screw up the entire series by, let's say, telling us "that fight that we finished in Halo 3 isn't over. Whoops!" Or the Bishock complaint, where the only reason Bioshock 2 was bad was because it was compared to Bioshock 1!
Give me some new IPs! Give me The Last Guardian! Give me Journey!
GIVE ME SOMETHING!
I really do like sequels, but there's too many of them. Really too many. (Final Fantasy XIII-2, for example. WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN? IS IT FINAL FANTASY 15? JUST NAME IT 14!OH WAIT! YOU ALREADY DID THAT FOR AN MMO THAT HAS ENOUGH PLAYERS TO COUNT ON ONE HAND! SUCKS FOR YOU!)
making a game, having a system which works well and people like it, then deciding to create an entirely new system because 'we're trying something new k?' no. its not k. people liked the FFX combat system, then Square Enix had to balls it up in XII, and slightly repair it in XIII (ok, i'll admit, i actually liked FFXIIIs as much as FFX's, but they should have gone straight to that.)
also, this is players, dont treat games in beta as if it were the full game.
as well as that, can you focus on creating an actual character backstory that does just get handed to you, mostly, at the start. RPGs are the worst: they seem to want you to create a backstory for your character but you cant. give me a pre-set character and tell me about him, then reveal more as we go along. one of the best character-centric games ive played: FFVIII. not only was there the whole main plotline, but there was the relationships between all of the characters that evolved. more of that is needed, not just 'heres a guy make him look like whatever the fuck you want and make shit up as you go along.'
and finally, Escort Quest AIs. i understand that coding an AI is difficult, but can you not make the character you have to escort through a dangerous zone such a wimp that they run off and hide and then get themselves stuck behind rocks. that can break an entire quest and piss off the player.
also, this is players, dont treat games in beta as if it were the full game.
as well as that, can you focus on creating an actual character backstory that does just get handed to you, mostly, at the start. RPGs are the worst: they seem to want you to create a backstory for your character but you cant. give me a pre-set character and tell me about him, then reveal more as we go along. one of the best character-centric games ive played: FFVIII. not only was there the whole main plotline, but there was the relationships between all of the characters that evolved. more of that is needed, not just 'heres a guy make him look like whatever the fuck you want and make shit up as you go along.'
and finally, Escort Quest AIs. i understand that coding an AI is difficult, but can you not make the character you have to escort through a dangerous zone such a wimp that they run off and hide and then get themselves stuck behind rocks. that can break an entire quest and piss off the player.
-DLC pisses me off. Especially since they'll sell the game later with the DLC for an even cheaper price.
-I think we need stop making America the country who are the heroes. It's really annoying. I respect Red Dead Redemption a lot more at the ending.
-Stop spending so much freaking money on graphics. Seriously, no one cares. Aesthetic. Even then, I'm not really picky.
-I don't mind cover-based shooting, and since we're moving away from it, that's good.
-Game length. When I played Painkiller and Serious Sam, It took me days to beat. They had crap tons of levels. Now I can beat FPS's in a couple hours, or even just one sitting.
-I think we need stop making America the country who are the heroes. It's really annoying. I respect Red Dead Redemption a lot more at the ending.
-Stop spending so much freaking money on graphics. Seriously, no one cares. Aesthetic. Even then, I'm not really picky.
-I don't mind cover-based shooting, and since we're moving away from it, that's good.
-Game length. When I played Painkiller and Serious Sam, It took me days to beat. They had crap tons of levels. Now I can beat FPS's in a couple hours, or even just one sitting.
Wow, I'm very pleased with how much discussion this thread has generated. A few rather blunt rebuttals here:
On motion controls:
The fact is that the Wii (and consequently the Kinect and Move) had their chances to impress me, and they failed. As such, I was not convinced that motion controls are at all the direction games need to be going in. I've been a by-the-books, standard controller gamer for most of my life, and I honestly think we need to move on.
On 3D:
I'm not saying stop making 3D games, I just mean don't make it into a big thing, because when that happens you get things like Drive Angry and Clash of the Titans. I don't want to see that happen in games, so I think 3D should be kept as a minor addition to some games that could actually be impoved by them, perhaps a Tempest-style space shooter or something.
On the use of real countries in war games:
Boy did this ruffle some feathers. First of all, I wouldn't consider the Korean War to be against the North Korea as we know it today, as the Korean War was fought during the country's infancy. Times have changed and North Korea has changed, albeit not by very much. But in general, I think it's much better when war games take place in the past or using a fictional enemy, for one reason: In the age of Fox News, I really don't want to be playing games that want to make me fear another country when I shouldn't. I know that North Korea is a major concern and all, but there hasn't been a major incident with them (I'm talking on the scale of the Korean War, not minor skirmishes) for a long, long time. Same with the Russians, I don't think they are to be feared and demonized, I think they should be respected like any other country. If we treat other people like they are savage villains, what might they think of us? Show any Russian person a synopsis of Modern Warfare 2 and I'll imagine they'd be pissed.
I'm losing track here... The bottom line is that these are touchy subjects that really shouldn't be speculated on with a game. Some people have said they serve as a handy "what if?", but I'm not really convinced that's a healthy mindframe to have. If a game that featured North Korea as a villain took place during real events with real attrocities that they committed, I'd be all for it, but if it's not accurate than I just see it as paranoid American propaganda. Just sayin'.
On motion controls:
The fact is that the Wii (and consequently the Kinect and Move) had their chances to impress me, and they failed. As such, I was not convinced that motion controls are at all the direction games need to be going in. I've been a by-the-books, standard controller gamer for most of my life, and I honestly think we need to move on.
On 3D:
I'm not saying stop making 3D games, I just mean don't make it into a big thing, because when that happens you get things like Drive Angry and Clash of the Titans. I don't want to see that happen in games, so I think 3D should be kept as a minor addition to some games that could actually be impoved by them, perhaps a Tempest-style space shooter or something.
On the use of real countries in war games:
Boy did this ruffle some feathers. First of all, I wouldn't consider the Korean War to be against the North Korea as we know it today, as the Korean War was fought during the country's infancy. Times have changed and North Korea has changed, albeit not by very much. But in general, I think it's much better when war games take place in the past or using a fictional enemy, for one reason: In the age of Fox News, I really don't want to be playing games that want to make me fear another country when I shouldn't. I know that North Korea is a major concern and all, but there hasn't been a major incident with them (I'm talking on the scale of the Korean War, not minor skirmishes) for a long, long time. Same with the Russians, I don't think they are to be feared and demonized, I think they should be respected like any other country. If we treat other people like they are savage villains, what might they think of us? Show any Russian person a synopsis of Modern Warfare 2 and I'll imagine they'd be pissed.
I'm losing track here... The bottom line is that these are touchy subjects that really shouldn't be speculated on with a game. Some people have said they serve as a handy "what if?", but I'm not really convinced that's a healthy mindframe to have. If a game that featured North Korea as a villain took place during real events with real attrocities that they committed, I'd be all for it, but if it's not accurate than I just see it as paranoid American propaganda. Just sayin'.
I'm really kinda torn on that WOW funeral story.VikingSteve said:
I rather hate all parties involved. I think everyone who had anything to do with that story was stupid, or a douchebag, or both.
The people who put the thing on were stupid. Not in their intent, weird as it might be to hold an in-game funeral, they meant to honor a friend who passed and I'm cool with that. Where they fail is that they decided to have it in a place where people were able to come along and fuck them and up. Then they called attention to the fact that it was going to happen there by announcing that they would be doing it there and asking people to be kind enough not to be grief-tards. I'm not sure which part of that is worse, asking people not to be greif-tards, or having decided to do something in a risky place, announcing it so that people are faced with the choice of being greiftarded or not... If it was on the QT maybe they coulda snuck it in. Or why not talk to "GM"s? I once ran a personal event in EQ, it was in a PVP area, people who needed to know knew, and I had a GM on hand to keep the peace, untill after when the planned giant celebratory brawl broke out...even if we hadn't been able to get a GM, only people who knew were people who were supposed to be there, if anyone wandered past and decided to make trouble there were probably 50 or 60 players there who would have made short work of any asshats.
The people who were so happy to shit on the other players events are equally douchey if not more so. Yea,I know you can use the lulzsec logic of going to pvp area = begging to be raped... but yea its still kinda lame... I think the worst part though, was how they put out a video trumpeting the deed. It was like they were saying "ooh look at us and tremble at what huge dicks we are!!"... when in actuality all they did was ambush some other players in a pvp area and put it to music. Really not all that dickish because it was just in a game... I mean, had they actually gone to the real funeral, in life, and started beating on people or pissing on her casket or something, THAT would be real dick material. This was just pimply neckbearded basement trolls wanting so badly to be the bully instead of the object of bullying, pretty pathetic really.
So yea, I can't decide which side I dislike more. Fuck WoW anyway.
I would still disagree with that. Graphics are an important part of games, whether they're 2D isometric RPGs or 3D first person puzzle games, if you have a low graphics budget then you may turn out with a game that no one can bare to look at. I'm not saying that we should pour money into realistic graphics and I'm not saying maximise costs; I'm saying that we should be looking to make games that are high quality because they had enough money.[footnote]For lack of a better word, I'm using 'we' to represent the gaming industry, despite my lack of involvement as a developer.[/footnote].Dexiro said:
I can't disagree with you there, however I maintain that AAA games can still be innovative if management weren't so paranoid about it not selling. This is entirely what marketing is for, they make sure that a concept or a product is wanted in the world. If that means contracting a small team of developers to try the concept out in a game then so be it. The AAA market is headed by a bunch of scared children from where I stand.
That's exactly what I meant with the final point of my earlier post and with the second point of this post. Management can't do anything that isn't according to plan and a safe bet that it'll sell well when it's released. There needs to be far less involvement of businessmen that can't take risks and it wouldn't hurt for them to see how bad games can turn out when they get too pushy with deadlines.