Things You Hate About Today's Gaming.

Status
Not open for further replies.
fade

fade

Staff member
Things I hate:
Other players' attitudes toward newbies: Look, I just got here, and I don't have time to play 10 hours a day. I'd love to play with other human beings, but I don't have the time to figure out how to micromanage the stats and carry around 11 sets of equipment. I just want to play. I'll figure things out, but slamming me to the ground and "LOL NOOB"ing me doesn't help. On the same note:

Grinding: This is a game, not a job. It's supposed to be entertaining. Worse still is the attitude from other players that I'm not entitled to play or complain unless I've spent 47 precious hours holding down the left mouse button to kill mobs that are 15 levels beneath me for that 0.01% chance they'll drop the thing I'm looking for. Gee, golly-gosh, that's fun.

Ease: How about a game that isn't so easy I could sleep through it? It's no fun unless there's actually a chance I could fail. How about an actual penalty for death on MMOs? On that note, how about a difficulty setting that doesn't go from "babies could do this with their eyes closed" to "the villains will come out of the tv and rape your actual physical body" in one step.
 
Gilgamesh

Gilgamesh

You know what I hate? Game series that are great in the first 1-2 because they're near perfect. Then ruined by the 3rd-4th because the developers feel like they have to keep adding more mini-games, more gadgets, more stats/requirements, etc.

A simple example would be 1-3rd Gen Pokemon vs Newer Gens. Sure you don't have to be familiar with every single statistic like weather/temperment etc, but in all honesty, it pushed me away from the games that I liked (the first couple gen) because it got overly and unnecessarily complex.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

fade said:
Ease: How about a game that isn't so easy I could sleep through it? It's no fun unless there's actually a chance I could fail. How about an actual penalty for death on MMOs? On that note, how about a difficulty setting that doesn't go from "babies could do this with their eyes closed" to "the villains will come out of the tv and rape your actual physical body" in one step.
Click to expand...
I agree with all three of your points, but certainly this one. I like having a bit of a challenge, that doesn't depend on hyperkinetic reaction speed and doesn't think do-it-again-stupid is good game design. Most "easy" modes seem made for my nine year old self, most "normal" modes are too easy at some points with usually some weird-ass difficulty spikes, and most "hard" or worse versions seem to assume you have the time to replay every game 25 times.

Anyway, I prefer modular difficulty settings - separate settings for, for example, campaign and tactical battles in Total War, or separate dificulty sliders for your own resources, build speed, etc, and that of the enemy,...
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
I think I posted this the first go-round, but I hate social media integration and I hate F2P with Pay-2-Win. Also, I hate timewasting easter egg hunts to artificially inflate playtime (Yes, looking at everybody's favorite, Assassin's Creed) that taunts you with a non-full "completion" percentage.

But most of all... I HATE GAMES FOR WINDOWS LIVE.
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Bowielee said:
Are you referring to Enzio as the "lead guy", or do you mean the developer? I honestly don't know why everyone hates Desmond so much, and I actually preferred Altair over Enzio. I do realize that I'm way in the minority, though. Anywho, the entire point of the series is that the protagonists will keep changing as they move through the generations.
Click to expand...
Was referring to Connor. I'd have preferred a Desmond game, to be honest.

And I know the point is for protagonists to keep changing, but I would like them to be memorable, interesting, captivating, etc. Ubisoft probably could've done that if they had wanted Connor to be the main character, but it feels like the hero of their game was the American Revolution, and as I said, I don't care. I'd rather that have been the setting than the game's purpose.[DOUBLEPOST=1359416151][/DOUBLEPOST]
Gilgamesh said:
You know what I hate? Game series that are great in the first 1-2 because they're near perfect. Then ruined by the 3rd-4th because the developers feel like they have to keep adding more mini-games, more gadgets, more stats/requirements, etc.

A simple example would be 1-3rd Gen Pokemon vs Newer Gens. Sure you don't have to be familiar with every single statistic like weather/temperment etc, but in all honesty, it pushed me away from the games that I liked (the first couple gen) because it got overly and unnecessarily complex.
Click to expand...
On one hand, yes, on another, you're giving Nintendo too much credit. The weather, season, day/night, and a bunch of other factors give the illusion of complexity when they actually affect very little.

The temperament stuff, yeah, that's complicated, however, that was introduced in Gen 2. The only thing Gens 4 and 5 have done to it is make it more visible to the casual player (i.e. highlighting stats in blue and red to show the effects of that Pokemon's nature).

I think a better example is, again, Assassin's Creed. Ubisoft just keeps adding weird, pointless shit (investments, flags, tower defense). I adore the naval combat in AC3, but it should be its own game, not thrown into Assassin's Creed.
 
Frank

Frank

EA, and their mouthpieces in the developers they control

http://www.shacknews.com/article/77584/dead-space-3s-pc-port-defended-by-its-executive-producer

Dead Space 3's PC port defended by its executive producer

by Timothy J. Seppala, Jan 28, 2013 11:45am PST
Related Topics – Dead Space 3, Electronic Arts, PC, Visceral Games, Dead Space Series
Last week, a report suggested Dead Space 3 wasn't getting more than a bare-bones port for its PC release. While developer Visceral Games has rarely offered enhanced PC versions of its games, many other developers are taking advantage of DirectX 11 and new hardware to deliver a higher fidelity experience for PC gamers.
Even publisher Electronic Arts has been aggressively pushing PC development, with Battlefield 3 and Crysis 3 being notable examples. When asked about his decision to not make a PC optimized version of the game, executive producer Steve Papoutsis went on the defensive.
"It's confusing to me that this question even comes up," Papoutsis told us. "It's by no means any less important to us; it gets a lot of attention. The PC is a very different platform. As developers, you want to deliver an experience that's as similar as possible on different platforms.
"In Dead Space 2, I felt we made some great strides in terms of controls, responsiveness and even the visual improvements we got into it. We continue to evolve our games as we develop them, but we certainly don't target PC as something that's going to be significantly different. We aren't trying to create disparity in the experience that our gamers enjoy; we want to make sure everyone's having that same experience.
"At our studio, we've always made console games," he pointed out. "The biggest thing is we want to make sure the quality of the experience is consistent across all platforms so we don't have one userbase saying it's better on their system."
On PC, Dead Space and Dead Space 2 could easily hit 50 and 60 frames per second, and featured advanced rendering options for better shadows and anti-aliasing. While we don't expect that to change for Dead Space 3, the decision to not make a fully optimized PC version nonetheless sticks out.
"The fact that we're allowing you to control the game with a mouse and keyboard immediately makes the game feel different," Papoutsis said. "Working with the community, we found some people wanted to map the controls a little differently because of disabilities and we supported that [in Dead Space 2]. It's a confusing question and I hope my answer brings a little bit of light to it. We seem a little bit discredited for the amount of effort that goes into it, quite honestly.
"We want it to be great on all systems, that's our approach."
Click to expand...
 
Frank

Frank

THEY'RE ALLOWING US TO CONTROL THE GAME WITH A MOUSE AND KEYBOARD.

HOW DARE PEOPLE SUGGEST THEY'RE HALF-ASSING THE PC PORT.
 
CynicismKills

CynicismKills

Frank said:
THEY'RE ALLOWING US TO CONTROL THE GAME WITH A MOUSE AND KEYBOARD.

HOW DARE PEOPLE SUGGEST THEY'RE HALF-ASSING THE PC PORT.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's hilarious. I bet the controls are going to be wonky as fuck, too, and nowhere near as good as on the controller. Either make it work or just don't release it.
 
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

CynicismKills said:
Yeah, that's hilarious. I bet the controls are going to be wonky as fuck, too, and nowhere near as good as on the controller. Either make it work or just don't release it.
Click to expand...
That's ok. They'll claim it's that way because they couldn't do blah blah, and some modder will fix it all in 20 minutes.
 
SpecialKO

SpecialKO

Not really surprising. The PC ports for the first two games were reportedly pretty half-assed (but ran smooth as butter given they were also more or less straight ports). It's just not something Visceral has been good at, and EA is apparently not interested in bringing in another studio to do it.
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

I thought the PC version of Dead Space 1 was a lot smoother than the PS3 version. The controls felt more comfortable to me. If nothing else, I liked that saving your game on the PC was something done in-game, whereas on the PS3 version, like all PS3 games, you get blinked out to the PS3 file screen. It's jarring for a game that tries to keep its immersion strong, so much so that your health bar is integrated into your character's image, and yet not in a vague way like the old Resident Evil games.
 
bhamv3

bhamv3

Gilgamesh said:
You know what I hate? Game series that are great in the first 1-2 because they're near perfect. Then ruined by the 3rd-4th because the developers feel like they have to keep adding more mini-games, more gadgets, more stats/requirements, etc.

A simple example would be 1-3rd Gen Pokemon vs Newer Gens. Sure you don't have to be familiar with every single statistic like weather/temperment etc, but in all honesty, it pushed me away from the games that I liked (the first couple gen) because it got overly and unnecessarily complex.
Click to expand...
I feel like pointing out that if your goal is to play Pokemon for fun, then there's really very little stopping you from playing the later gens the same way you'd play the first generation games. Building a balanced team and hitting your opponent with "IT'S SUPER EFFECTIVE!" attacks remains just as viable for getting through the game as ever. The stuff about natures, stats, weather, etc are really only necessary for hardcore competitive players.

I mean, I definitely get your point, but I don't think Pokemon would be the best example of it. Assassin's Creed would've been a better example, I think. By the time Revelations came around, Ezio was a walking arsenal who bought out and renovated three cities, collected every single thing there was to collect in Renaissance Europe, and was a master of tower defense.
 
Frank

Frank

Every time I read, or God fucking forbid hear, someone refer to a sidescrolling or topdown shooter as a shmup, I want to reenact a scene from Scanners on them, only with a gun, instead of rad mind powers.

it's this one, in case you didn't understand what I meant.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

... shmup's been the term since the mid 90's. This is nether a new or recent thing. The one that pisses me off is "bullet hell shooter".
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Yeah, a bullet hell game is more like a maze game than a schmup. With walls that move. And are made of deadly bullets.

I don't care for them either, myself.
 
Yoshimickster

Yoshimickster

Game of the year editions. The perfect way game companies can say "Hey consumer! You know that DLC that YOU have to pay extra for? Well we just released a version that comes with that DLC, AND it costs the same as the original game!" I will find whom ever made this dick move and EAT THEIR FLESH! Or just continue being an angry nerd ranting on the net, whichever consumes less time...but not flesh.
 
SpecialKO

SpecialKO

Yoshimickster said:
Game of the year editions. The perfect way game companies can say "Hey consumer! You know that DLC that YOU have to pay extra for? Well we just released a version that comes with that DLC, AND it costs the same as the original game!" I will find whom ever made this dick move and EAT THEIR FLESH! Or just continue being an angry nerd ranting on the net, whichever consumes less time...but not flesh.
Click to expand...
I'm actually pretty okay with this. GOTY editions come out because they made enough money on the initial game release and subsequent DLC releases that anything more is just gravy, so they're willing to give it all away for a reduced price a year down the line. It's the exact same reasoning behind the "Greatest Hits" versions that came out in the last console generation.

Sure, I get being grumpy if you bought everything up front, but you also got to play the game and the DLC a year earlier than the guy who sat back and waited for the GOTY. That seems a decent trade-off.
 
CynicismKills

CynicismKills

Hell, at one point my brother traded his copy of Borderlands 1 in for the GotY edition because it was cheaper than buying all the DLC. I wish stuff would go Greatest Hits/GotY more often.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top