Trends In Gaming You Hate.

[thesilentman]

OH THIS THREAD AGAIN. CAN'T WE ALL JUST THINK OF OLDER IDEAS WE WANT TO SEE AGAIN!!

[sub]Shameless advertising your thread much, me? Link: [link]http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.397109-Concepts-youd-like-to-see-again[/link][/sub]

OT- Can we stop with games that rigidly guide us through levels? Cause that shit's getting annoying fast. Can we also stop with the FORCED tacking on of multiplayer, games' industry? I play my games when I don't want to interact with any human being within my range. Just focus on the single player, make it stellar, and then see the sales roll in. And no; MILITARY SHOOTERS ARE BANNED FROM THIS DAY FORTH!!

*Crickets*

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

Or is this just going to descend into anarchy because I brought up racism?

hahahahahahahahahahahayes.

But seriously. Aside from the obvious ones of homogenisation and "broader appeal," I think games should be more old-school.

I'm not saying that innovation is bad or that I want games to be exactly like they used to be. Innovation is great. But there have been a few games lately that take really old ideas and hammer into new shapes. I'm talking about throwbacks. I want more throwbacks, as long as they're throwbacks to good games with good mechanics that have been casualties of time.

Like what DA:O was to old CRPGs, or what Dishonored was to Thief, or XCOM: EU was to...X-COM, I guess. I don't want gaming to go back to the 90s. It's just that there were some great games in the 90s, and now they're just sitting there like the shards of Narsil, waiting to be reforged into something amazing.

 

[TrevHead]

The lack of ppl playing Console MP games outside of the FPS, Racers and Sports. And the inability of the industry to facilitate the ppl who do want to play them.

 

[Duck Sandwich]

RPG elements (the crappy ones, like grinding and random chances) being in damn near every game. I have to punch such and such amount of enemies, so that I'll have higher attack power and more health, enough to be on an even playing field with the enemies on the next level, who do also have higher attack power and more health. That pretty much negates my character's improvements. If you can actually choose what you want to level up (like say, speed, or energy for special moves) then that's a different story, because your character's speed or other special attributes besides taking/doing more damange provides a more noticable contrast to your enemies' stats.

Also, finding special items should mean exploring for secret passages, or defeating optional bosses, or something besides "kill this guy 10000 times for a chance of getting the Uber Sword of Kickass!"

RPG chores suck too. I hate having to run all the way back to a store/blacksmithing place/alchemy place/whatever to sell all my useless junk/craft gems/mine for fish/etc. Reckoning is one of the worst offenders I can think of.

 

[frobalt]

Level-Unlocked Multiplayer
And now for something completely different. Ever since Call of Duty 4 became a mega hit, everybody and their mother has included a multiplayer component that has players leveling up to unlock newer and more powerful weapons. How nobody saw the obvious flaw in this is beyond me. It essentially locks newer players out from picking up the game, as they continually get curbstomped by fully leveled players who've been playing since launch day. And no, Jim Sterling, it's not the same as the mad-dash for the rocket launcher other games had, because learning the fastest route to all the best weapons does not require you grind for bloody days, getting killed over and over again, just to stay competitive. That's not to say there haven't been games that do this well: Crysis 2 rocked tits because it gave everybody superpowers, made the "perks" have actual tangible benefits, and having a smaller number of unique weapons, rather than a crap-load of weapons that have little in the way diversity. Plus if I'm going to get assassinated by a player I can't see, I'd rather it because they were literally invisible than because I can't see them from the clutter in the level. Blops 2, despite what Yahtzee says, is one of the better examples of this type of multiplayer, if for no other reason than they've dispensed with the stupid, self-sustaining killstreak rewards and instead used rewards based on score, each of which is fairly easy to counter. But stupid decisions abound; first by using the weapon leveling system that requires more grinding to get attachments, second by using having tokens to unlock gear, but still locking the gear behind a level gate. You have to unlock shit twice!

One of the things I like about TF2 is how they've avoided falling into this trap. All the weapons are (or at least, supposed to be) side-grades rather than flat out upgrades. Side-grades here means that, overall the weapons are balanced, but certain weapons perform better in some situations while performing poorly in others, with others being moderately alright all-rounders.

 

[ecoho]

DLC that affects the main campaign.

I am not against DLC as a concept. If it adds an optional section to the game that allows you to play the game without feeling like you are missing out if you don't, it's perfect.

If you look at all of the DLC's (except Broken Steel) from the last Fallout's as an example. They each add a good couple of hours of content that allows you to explore a different section of the world, gives you some cool new gear and has a self contained story. If I play the game without the DLC then I am missing out on stuff naturally, but I am not having the main story affected in any way. By not playing it I am not at a disadvantage in regards to the story compared to those that do have it.

Then you get the kind of DLC that Bioware makes. The kind that directly affects the main plot if not in game-play, through lore and story changes. Those who did not play Lair of the Shadow Broker missed out on discovering Liara replace him. Those who did not play Arrival have no context as to why Shepard has their command taken from them at the start of Mass Effect 3. It's not until the game actually states these things as established facts that you realise these things, but coming out like that it just feels poorly written.

In the first Mass Effect they had the right idea in regards to Bring Down the Sky. It was not related to the main quest of chasing down Saren, it wasn't a means to stopping the Reapers. It was an optional and enjoyable mission based around saving a planet from devastation at the hands of a meteor. Playing it added a couple of hours onto the game, but missing out doesn't make you lose out on the main story in any way.

ok im gonna bite the bullet on this one and try to explain this calmly.

1. the shadow broker dlc was made about what 2 years after the games release? so yeahthey deserved to be payed for extra work that they did not have to do in the first place as we knew liara was after the shadow broker and lets face it they way she was portrayed in ME2 you knew she was gonna keep anything she found when she killed him.

2. in mass effect 3 if you didnt do arrival you get your command taken away for working with cerberus that is a fact as i just started a no save game to check.

now i do think all of the dlc from ME1 and ME2 should be included in the mass effect triligy bundle as most if not all of it has been out for a long time.

OT: i want to see the end to the current "me not team" style of multiplayer games. By that i mean i want to see game the reward you more for taking a death so your team can capture the objective and getting rewarded for actually doing something, instead of the whole if you dont get kills your not getting any points. (i hate COD multiplayer can you tell

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Threads like these. I've seen maybe five of them pop up in the last two weeks. They almost always have the wrong idea of what the word "trend" means (two or three companies or people doing things - not a trend), and they're almost always just an excuse to spout a bunch of crap about stuff you hate that for one reason or another other people love. It's not about bad trends in gaming, it's about you trying to make yourself feel better against people who think different than you. Gah.

Oh. Also DRM that should be in the main game is fucking stupid. Grr Mass Effect 3. Grr Asura's Wrath.

Racism, Sexism and Violence
This has been something of a hot button topic around these parts, and I'm fucking sick of it. Look, I get it; white people have been born into a position of relative advantage to other races. Males have advantages over females, this is not a new phenomena. But just so we're clear; racism against whites is still racism, just as sexism against men is still sexism. It shouldn't matter who the target is ITS STILL WRONG. Not only that, but what do you want me to do about it? I don't have any power over what society does, the most I can do is not be racism or sexist. And what really gets to me is how the term racism has turned into the smart-bomb of debate; calling someone a racist is a surefire way to shut down all meaningful discussion. Either you deny it (in which case you're still racist according to the moon logic these debates run on) or partially accept it, but it doesn't matter because now you're arguing from a weakened position, you're basically forced to admit a blatant falsehood to be true.

If you can point me to the games that exercise actual, legitimately harmful "racism" against whites, then please, show me. And it can't just be like a game where a white man is the bad guy. Or white people do bad things to non-white people and make you feel bad against those white people. That's not racism. You being accused of being racist when, y'know, maybe you just like joking a bit... that's not racism. So yes, find me your examples.

Okay, maybe "racism against whites" was the wrong phrase. I wrote this in the middle of the night, so my faculties weren't at their sharpest. My main...thing is guilt by association. I despise this implication that being white and middle class automatically makes me responsible for all the bad things that happened in the past. Perhaps I should have added a section about white guilt.

And if you don't like my thread, nothing is keeping you here; you could just leave and ignore this thing.

 

[Legion]

ok im gonna bite the bullet on this one and try to explain this calmly.

1. the shadow broker dlc was made about what 2 years after the games release? so yeahthey deserved to be payed for extra work that they did not have to do in the first place as we knew liara was after the shadow broker and lets face it they way she was portrayed in ME2 you knew she was gonna keep anything she found when she killed him.

2. in mass effect 3 if you didnt do arrival you get your command taken away for working with cerberus that is a fact as i just started a no save game to check.

now i do think all of the dlc from ME1 and ME2 should be included in the mass effect triligy bundle as most if not all of it has been out for a long time.

Nowhere did I suggest they shouldn't get paid for DLC. I said that they shouldn't make DLC that affects the games story in the first place. It doesn't matter what happens in the DLC, I do not think that it should be made if it is related to the main story in any way.

Nobody should feel like they are missing out on the main game due to not coughing up extra money.

If you don't agree then fine, that's your choice, I am not going to get into an argument about it. I was asked what trends I disliked, and I stated them.

 

[Generic4me]

Linearity and lack of replay value. Practically every game that comes out nowadays. Putting in a few little goodies and secret areas to encourage second playthroughs is always nice.

Lack of cheats. Whatever happened to cheat codes? I know, achievements, but you can just turn them off when people play with cheats. I've been held up on a stupid/annoying/impossible mission too many times, and it'd be nice to slap on the invincibility cheat and kill everything.

Bugs/beta releases, and generally shitty products. All around gaming. In my house I own a Nintendo 64, Sega Saturn, original Xbox, and PS2, Game boy Advance, and a freaking Game Gear, and they haven't ever broken once. I've gone through 4 Xboxes and 2 PS3s, and the only thing that still works is the PS3. And I had to fix the blu-ray drive on that.

And so many games nowadays have all kinds of shitty game-breaking bugs, lag, and other annoying problems that I just didn't have to deal with before. I'm honestly afraid of buying new games because of the very good chance that it'll be bugged to shit. For instance, just recently I bought Far Cry 3 for my PS3. Currently the multiplayer portion simply doesn't work and hasn't worked for more than a week, and I'm pretty skeptical it'll ever work again.

I just wouldn't have to deal with that if this were the Xbox/PS2 era.

 

[MasterBrief]

Motion controls being shoved in, babysit missions (thank god its dying out) and being too easy or thinking you can't figure things out on your own

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Smaller environments, piss easy drunken mechanics, lack of depth, putting more effort into story and graphics to make luke warm interactive movie.....

 

[KissmahArceus]

Publishers and developers chasing the Call of Duty crowd. The COD crowd are perfectly happy playing COD and will not buy your game just because you tried to make it similar.

This is so true but most devs and publishers don't get it, COD is gonna have the biggest fanbase and online users per week, it's the biggest brand in the gaming world right now and if all you offer people is "Cod but not as good" or "cod but with X and Y added" then COD fans (the audience you are trying to usurp) won't give a shit, most gamers won't care too much because they will see it as a COD clone and fans of your game in general will lament that it doesn't have it's own identity.

Cliched quests, being the "Chosen One" and box ticking "features" (i.e Customizable weapons, tacked on mutiplayer/COD cloning, moral choices that shape YOUR game etc)

But most of all, pre order exclusive DLC is what really grinds my gears.
I loved the days when we could unlock extra costumes, weapons and even maps for our games but not these days.
I'm not gonna go on and on about it but I loathe it, if the DLC in question is purely cosmetic then it doesn't bother me too much but if it is a mission, map (co op or multiplayer), ability or weapon then I'm annoyed, it is locking out content for day one fans and splintering the online community (in the case of maps)

 

[Quadocky]

This has been something of a hot button topic around these parts, and I'm fucking sick of it. Look, I get it; white people have been born into a position of relative advantage to other races. Males have advantages over females, this is not a new phenomena. But just so we're clear; racism against whites is still racism, just as sexism against men is still sexism. It shouldn't matter who the target is ITS STILL WRONG. Not only that, but what do you want me to do about it? I don't have any power over what society does, the most I can do is not be racism or sexist. And what really gets to me is how the term racism has turned into the smart-bomb of debate; calling someone a racist is a surefire way to shut down all meaningful discussion. Either you deny it (in which case you're still racist according to the moon logic these debates run on) or partially accept it, but it doesn't matter because now you're arguing from a weakened position, you're basically forced to admit a blatant falsehood to be true.

'Racism' against the privileged is not really... 'racism'. Its not like white people are a systematically oppressed group in context of culture. Even at that, there seems to be quite a few people out there who are privileged white people who are in fact racist. 'Sexism' against men is no where near as the current dire 'sexism' against women, if that recent promo controversy means anything to you. (using the term 'sexism' very loosely here, attempting to maintain the context of the discussion, rather its more like misogyny than 'sexism'.)

I would also disagree with you, this controversy is needed because I believe there should be a positive step away from 'sexist' and 'racist' media. And in my opinion, its not an 'agree to disagree' or 'middle of the ground' issue. I believe there is quite an obvious right and wrong here. 'Sexism' in itself does not negate the fact that women tend to have it much worse in terms of 'sexism'. 'Racism' in itself does not negate the fact that minorities and the poor have it much worse than the privileged.

I would ask you give an example in which the claim of racism would shut down discussion if you are willing to share.

(but to be more on topic)

The trends I dislike include:

Lack of interactive/unique soundtracks and sound effects. I am one of those kinds of weirdos who believes that video games benefit more from unrealistic sound effects than real ones. Mostly because it adds to the overall interaction by providing a unique tone for specific points of interaction.

On that same note I believe that too much sound can also be detrimental to video games as it can create confusion or ruin the flow of the experience.

Anything related to loading times. Actually they are handled with much more grace, but there is just something so different about playing an N64 game and it just simply goes! The feeling of a seamless experience is something all games should strive for. Thankfully they are improving upon this.

The continual blatant commercialization of video games is something that bothers me, but not much is to be done about it given that most AAA video games are very very very expensive to make.

Also:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/121610-Forbes-Analyst-Calls-Game-Over-For-Microsoft
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/121617-Atari-Inc-Files-for-Bankruptcy

How the hell does this happen?

 

[deathzero021]

- Military shooters
- Bada$$ space marines
- Teenage boy as main protagonist
- game difficulty only alters damage received and damage output
- open-world and tedious quest systems, it seems even non-rpg's are doing these kinds of things and i find them to be terribly implemented and boring. <action/rpgs>

i'll probably think of more later.

 

[ohnoitsabear]

Steamworks being used in single player games. Now, don't get me wrong, I like Steam. And if a game is multiplayer only, or has minimal singleplayer, then I don't mind having to use Steam to play it. However, I see absolutely no reason why I should have to use Steam for a single player game that I bought at a store (Dishonored and Skyrim are two notable offenders). This isn't something that's bad enough to stop me from buying a game, but I really don't like it.

Microtransactions in a retail game. Look, I'm fine with mircrotransactions in free to play games or dirt cheap games, but if I payed more than thirty dollars for a game, anything else that I buy should be pretty substantial. Seriously, paying for alternate skins or additional weapons or whatever is bullshit. This isn't a deal breaker, but it's annoying as fuck, and I don't think it's going to go away anytime soon.

 

[janjotat]

Publishers and developers chasing the Call of Duty crowd. The COD crowd are perfectly happy playing COD and will not buy your game just because you tried to make it similar.

This is so true but most devs and publishers don't get it, COD is gonna have the biggest fanbase and online users per week, it's the biggest brand in the gaming world right now and if all you offer people is "Cod but not as good" or "cod but with X and Y added" then COD fans (the audience you are trying to usurp) won't give a shit, most gamers won't care too much because they will see it as a COD clone and fans of your game in general will lament that it doesn't have it's own identity.

This is why SpecOps worked so well, it looked like a COD clone, hell it was marketed as a COD clone, but it ended up being its own separate amazing game. It went after the audience and then gave them something else which they weren't expecting.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

The idea that for a game to be "art" it has to copy what makes other mediums "art".

That's rather short sighted. By that logic, you could easily say that what makes a good film "art" (i.e., the narrative) is copied from what makes a good book "art". It's still art either way. The difference is how it delivers the narrative (through visual and auditory means), not even counting the fact that what makes a film great doesn't always come down to the narrative. Despite all this, the medium is still considered art.

It's the same with games. Some games that have been used as artistic examples are known as such for their great narrative, but the difference is in the fact that it's delivered through interactive means. Just like films, what makes a great art game doesn't always come down to the narrative, it's whatever triggers an emotional response. Games do this through visual, narrative, auditory, and interactive means, sometimes simultaneously, sometimes exclusively, but it does it all the same. It's still a unique art form when compared to other mediums.

 

[Quadocky]

Homogenization and an overall fear of being distinct.

I'm totally behind the idea of "Each taste has a game for it", but despise games that try to appeal to every taste at once.

I agree considering the only game I have played of late that I could truly say I fully enjoyed in every way possible was Hotline Miami.

I believe video games benefit from innate simplicity. Not to say that complexity is a bad thing. A game like Skyrim seems needlessly complex in some ways (the crafting) and needlessly simple in others (the combat, quests) which is something that bothers me.

 

[Uriain]

Pretentious Games as Art
This one is a tad more subjective than the other two, because the definition of art is a fluid and fickle thing. I'll just say I've had it up to here with games that try to be about something. Games like Spec Ops: The Line, one of the most frustratingly overhyped and rock-stupid games I've played in a long time (and I sat through Braid!). It tries to be anti-war and subversive, deconstructing the Modern Military Shooter (a genre that was heading toward self-parody anyway), but in reality is just an anti-videogame screed that'd make Jack Thompson proud. It knows it's blisteringly hypocritical, so the gameplay is made shitty on purpose. And people praise it for this! Were this any other game, it'd have been crucified upon a cross of fire. Mostly what I'm sick of is the constant praise games like these get, where any criticism is countered with "Oh, you just didn't get it! Here's a video of someone really smart sounding on the internet who I just parrot over and over again because trying arrive at the same conclusion as them on my own is hard." I had a similar problem with Braid, however it's actually fun and interesting to play, it's just the story is completely incomprehensible. I've been told it's about the invention of the atomic bomb, but the fact the game, at no point, makes it clear whats going on is a major strike against it. Another thing that gets to me is the fan reaction to these games; If thou darest speak ill of thine golden calf, thou art soundly bludgeoned for obviously being part of the unwashed masses flinging shit at the ivory tower of intellect. Just because a game has something to say, does not excuse it being told poorly, or having shit gameplay.

So what are some trends you despise, Escapists? Are they anything like my list? Or is this just going to descend into anarchy because I brought up racism?

While I agree 100% with you on "art being subjective" and disagree with you about Spec Ops and Braid (I quite enjoyed them both), I think the debate of "art game" needs to be retired, or at least freshened up as its getting quite stale.

Out of your list though, my biggest "peev" would be the - Broader appeal - trend. While I fully understand and accept that videogames are a business, and businesses need to make money, as they are responsible to their shareholders, there are very few games that get a "broader appeal" treatment which retain the quality they initially had in their niche focus. As per your example, I am also tentatively looking forward to Dead Space 3 but have huge concerns about the addition of multiplayer, co-op and a more aciton route. Drastically changing the format and feel of a game but keeping the same name should make a person nervous when they look at the title.

Something not on your list which bothers me - Bite size DLC. while I appreciate things like new characters in ME3MP, or new assignments in BF3, I don't like a couple of maps which cost me 1200MS points in CoD, which (as have been the case specifically with CoD games) has been known to recycle levels and still charge you for it. If I am paying for DLC, then I expect a sizable, good-high quality set of content which will keep me engaged for a while, regardless if its a single player piece like Omega, or a Multiplayer piece like Armored Kill.

I also dislike this push to have everything connected online. I don't need people to see on my Facebook feed that I crafted 50 arrows in skyrim( exaggerated example), stop forcing games to include these aspects, as they don't always make it better.

/rant (sorry that was long)

 

[Machine Man 1992]

This has been something of a hot button topic around these parts, and I'm fucking sick of it. Look, I get it; white people have been born into a position of relative advantage to other races. Males have advantages over females, this is not a new phenomena. But just so we're clear; racism against whites is still racism, just as sexism against men is still sexism. It shouldn't matter who the target is ITS STILL WRONG. Not only that, but what do you want me to do about it? I don't have any power over what society does, the most I can do is not be racism or sexist. And what really gets to me is how the term racism has turned into the smart-bomb of debate; calling someone a racist is a surefire way to shut down all meaningful discussion. Either you deny it (in which case you're still racist according to the moon logic these debates run on) or partially accept it, but it doesn't matter because now you're arguing from a weakened position, you're basically forced to admit a blatant falsehood to be true.

'Racism' against the privileged is not really... 'racism'. Its not like white people are a systematically oppressed group in context of culture. Even at that, there seems to be quite a few people out there who are privileged white people who are in fact racist. 'Sexism' against men is no where near as the current dire 'sexism' against women, if that recent promo controversy means anything to you. (using the term 'sexism' very loosely here, attempting to maintain the context of the discussion, rather its more like misogyny than 'sexism'.)

I would also disagree with you, this controversy is needed because I believe there should be a positive step away from 'sexist' and 'racist' media. And in my opinion, its not an 'agree to disagree' or 'middle of the ground' issue. I believe there is quite an obvious right and wrong here. 'Sexism' in itself does not negate the fact that women tend to have it much worse in terms of 'sexism'. 'Racism' in itself does not negate the fact that minorities and the poor have it much worse than the privileged.

I would ask you give an example in which the claim of racism would shut down discussion if you are willing to share.

I took a Social Problems class at my local community college, so it was inevitable the topic of race was brought up. The class was shown a news video about a black judge who, in response to the sentencing disparity, demanded that the (white, female) district attorney reexamine who she charges with what, essential saying, "I demand you give these black defendants the same charges you'd give the white ones." When they interviewed the district attorney, she was naturally a bit upset at essentially being called a racist. During the actual discussion part of the class, one student (who shall remain nameless, but definitely has issues with whites) said that he was tired of white people being all indignant, apparently under the assumption that only white people can be racist. I pointed out that the DA has a right to be angry, since being accused of possessing prejudice is about as bad as being called a Nazi. The discussion stopped being about the disparity between white and black defendants, and instead turned into a "I'm not racist, they are!" argument.

You don't need to be an oppressed group to be the victim of racism. Racism is defined as the hatred or prejudice against a group of people based on race. Now granted, racism displayed by the groups in power can result in the oppression of the groups they despise, but like I said, it shouldn't matter if the person in question has privilege, or advantages or not. It's still not cool. Racism is a conscious decision made by an individual, or groups of like thinking individuals. It is learned through constant exposure to these people, and living in an environment that reinforces these attitudes. Its incredibly judgmental to assume that just because someone is white they automatically get a free ride. That's what I'm getting at.

I'll see if I can find more examples of shit flinging, but for now, feel free to peruse the comments section of the Zero Punctuation review of Blops 2. Just a lot of screaming over each others heads.