This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

what do you think is the worst thing in gaming right now?

#131KotomineKireiPosted 1/6/2013 1:33:54 AM
twinsfan19 posted...
KotomineKirei posted...
twinsfan19 posted...
Nostalgia.

Things weren't better in the early / mid 90's, you're just remembering it that way...


I just recently played games that I hadn't played from back then(Castlevania: SoTN; Silent Hill; Metal Gear Solid; Parasite Eve; The Legend of Dragoon; to name a few), and I have to say, you are mostly full of bologna.


There were good games...but there was also a lot of junk. Just like today. And we have some genres today that barely existed in the mid 90's.


There might have been a lot of junk, but in my opinion, it was easier to find the gems back then, than it is today.

After all junk gets advertised a lot now, unlike then.
---
"EVENT ENDED!"
---
#132beautifuldreamsPosted 1/6/2013 1:38:42 AM
QTEs

yay, I finalky beat the boss and a delicious cutscene is playing. what is this, I need to hit a Button? which butt... oh I'm dead
---
nyuuuuuuuuu~
#133twinsfan19Posted 1/6/2013 1:42:42 AM
KotomineKirei posted...
twinsfan19 posted...
KotomineKirei posted...
twinsfan19 posted...
Nostalgia.

Things weren't better in the early / mid 90's, you're just remembering it that way...


I just recently played games that I hadn't played from back then(Castlevania: SoTN; Silent Hill; Metal Gear Solid; Parasite Eve; The Legend of Dragoon; to name a few), and I have to say, you are mostly full of bologna.


There were good games...but there was also a lot of junk. Just like today. And we have some genres today that barely existed in the mid 90's.


There might have been a lot of junk, but in my opinion, it was easier to find the gems back then, than it is today.

After all junk gets advertised a lot now, unlike then.


Meh...I don't pay much attention to advertising. I just about have no idea which games have big advertising campaigns these days.
---
Currently Playing: SC2, TF2, Tribes Ascend, Portal 2, Bastion
#134OEIO999Posted 1/6/2013 1:43:37 AM
CammyApple posted...
CyricsServant posted...
Rushing a game to market before all the bugs can be hammered out. Specifically, I hate it when games are susceptible to save corruption errors.

I remember having to wait more than a month before I could play my copy of Fallout: New Vegas.

The most recent example is the latest Hitman.


Oddly enough I played Hitman from day one with no issue.


For me
#135Fear_AwakensPosted 1/6/2013 2:07:33 AM
I'm going to have to say all of the online crap. They force us to connect to the internet to play games to their fullest, for one, because with most of the new games, half the game is inaccessible offline.

Second, DLC. I don't mind DLC when it's things that haven't been made yet at the time of the release, but when I'm paying $60 for a game that only lasts me six short hours, I expect the whole game to be right there on the disc and fully playable.

If they come up with more afterwards and release the new ideas as DLC, that's fine. It's new. They just came up with it. But if they thought of it before release and they didn't give to me with the rest of the game, I get a little ticked off.

What really steams me is that sometimes the DLC is released for purchase on XBL before the game even comes out, and that's just downright disgusting. That and On-Disc DLC. But seriously, who can claim that they enjoy buying a game for $60 only to find that in order to see the ending, you have to shell out another $5?

I don't hate online multiplayer, but I do hate that a lot of the time it's basically required to beat the game because of something it gives you in single player. I don't think I should have to spend an hour every time I turn on my game shooting aliens with a bunch of yahoos that insult me constantly because I'm not as good as they are in order to get the best endings.

I miss the kind of multiplayer you didn't need the internet, two platforms and two copies of the disk to play. You know, back when multiplayer could happen on the same TV on the same platform, everybody sitting on the couch in the same room playing the same exact game.

I'm not a huge fan of the war on used games. I enjoy playing video games as much as the next guy, but I have bills to pay and groceries to buy. I can't always afford to spend a ton of money on a new game, and when I can get the same game used for a third of the price new, I'm obviously going to get the cheaper deal. But today, every company loathes used games, and they're making more and more of it locked by some kind of stupid 'Pass' that you have to connect to the internet to verify, and if you don't have one, you don't get to play.

I'm also a little unhappy about how short games have become. Back on the PS1, I could spend months on the same game finishing the story, unlocking all of the goodies, doing all of the bonus content unlocked by my hard work... but those days are gone. Now, on a more powerful platform playing a more expensive game, I'm lucky if they last me two days anymore. There's nothing to unlock except achievements, which don't do anything at all for me, the story seems as if it was added almost as an afterthought, and all of the bonus content has to be downloaded for another $15.

I can't understand how people can complain about graphics anymore, but as far as I'm concerned, Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time had good graphics. If I have to choose between being able to see every tiny little bead of sweat on my super-high res character's extremely well-defined super-muscular arms or watching a deep, well-thought out, interesting story fold out before me, I'm going to pick the story every time. Pretty graphics are nice, but no matter how cool a game looks, if it has a crappy story, the game is still crap. I buy games so I can escape into a fantastic, not so I can watch realistic-looking characters sweat all over the place. If I want to see that, I can always go to the gym.

TL:DR: Forcing online capability on gamers, whether they want it or not, and there's not as much content on the disc and ready to play as there used to be.
---
'Thus does fortune alternate, victory, defeat,
The happy conqueror today, tomorrow, must retreat?'
#136KotomineKireiPosted 1/6/2013 2:10:09 AM
twinsfan19 posted...
KotomineKirei posted...
twinsfan19 posted...
KotomineKirei posted...
twinsfan19 posted...
Nostalgia.

Things weren't better in the early / mid 90's, you're just remembering it that way...


I just recently played games that I hadn't played from back then(Castlevania: SoTN; Silent Hill; Metal Gear Solid; Parasite Eve; The Legend of Dragoon; to name a few), and I have to say, you are mostly full of bologna.


There were good games...but there was also a lot of junk. Just like today. And we have some genres today that barely existed in the mid 90's.


There might have been a lot of junk, but in my opinion, it was easier to find the gems back then, than it is today.

After all junk gets advertised a lot now, unlike then.


Meh...I don't pay much attention to advertising. I just about have no idea which games have big advertising campaigns these days.


I don't just mean TV advertising.
There's talk about the bad games in a good and bad way everywhere on the internet that has to do with video games...and most of the good games are only mentioned in some small website forum or not at all.
---
"EVENT ENDED!"
---
#137renzsweetPosted 1/6/2013 2:20:51 AM
Online and fanboys for me.
---
I praise the name of Jesus.
#138RagnawindPosted 1/6/2013 2:24:26 AM
From: harrisonmesko | #130
Out of everything I can think of, it comes down to either innovation (read: hardware gimmicks), or simply pandering. I'm tired of game devs simply pandering to make as much money as possible instead of turning out something that really stands out. Super Metroid seems like something truly heartfelt, like the creators sought to bring that game to life the way they released it. Many games today however, either fit specific cookie-cutter molds or become forced amalgams of different genres to appeal to every profitable gaming audience. Although this pandering to every fanbase at once is prevalent throughout all of gaming, I think its worst among eastern devs. Investments are supposed to be risky, producing a game is no different. Sure you might fail if you put something different out that nobody is used to, or you might fail if you don't go out of your way to appeal to a tried and proven fandom, but is it really worth it to create something so lifeless? Is it worth all that time and effort to create something so forced and neutral that it doesnt really appeal to anyone? I'm no dev, but I would imagine that it would be much more rewarding to create a game the way I imagine it, as opposed to creating something that everyone will like. I mean, its not like you can make everyone happy ultimately. So why do they put so much effort into trying to please everyone all of the time? Is the money really that alluring to them?

People that think like this is very high up on the list of gamers I was talking about in my post above. There is nothing really wrong with how the games are made. None of the games are so similar they can be compared so much to each other unless they were majorly influened by it or part of its series, but even then, they can't really be compared since they are all completely different games, regardless of genre. For examples, RPGS all have completely different stories, though they may have common things in their story or gameplay, but nothing will ever be completely different since there are only so many ways to do things completely different than anything else before you can't change it anymore. 100% of all games are restricted to that with 0 exceptions, depending on the genre. With FPS games and such all of them are completely the same. They always have and always will. They may have different controls, graphics, HUDs, layouts, terrain, settings, etc., but in them, all you do is shoot a gun or possibly use close combat weapons. For Platformers, all you can really do is platform. For puzzles, all you can do is solve a puzzle. In the end, the games most worth it are technically addicting games or games with story, and all of them play differently, but also the same in their genres. Stories will ALWAYS be different, possibly with familiar elements which you ALWAYS HAVE in any kind of media.
#139silvergolPosted 1/6/2013 2:37:27 AM
Loading screen.
#140harrisonmeskoPosted 1/6/2013 2:55:38 AM
Ragnawind posted...
From: harrisonmesko | #130
Out of everything I can think of, it comes down to either innovation (read: hardware gimmicks), or simply pandering. I'm tired of game devs simply pandering to make as much money as possible instead of turning out something that really stands out. Super Metroid seems like something truly heartfelt, like the creators sought to bring that game to life the way they released it. Many games today however, either fit specific cookie-cutter molds or become forced amalgams of different genres to appeal to every profitable gaming audience. Although this pandering to every fanbase at once is prevalent throughout all of gaming, I think its worst among eastern devs. Investments are supposed to be risky, producing a game is no different. Sure you might fail if you put something different out that nobody is used to, or you might fail if you don't go out of your way to appeal to a tried and proven fandom, but is it really worth it to create something so lifeless? Is it worth all that time and effort to create something so forced and neutral that it doesnt really appeal to anyone? I'm no dev, but I would imagine that it would be much more rewarding to create a game the way I imagine it, as opposed to creating something that everyone will like. I mean, its not like you can make everyone happy ultimately. So why do they put so much effort into trying to please everyone all of the time? Is the money really that alluring to them?

People that think like this is very high up on the list of gamers I was talking about in my post above. There is nothing really wrong with how the games are made. None of the games are so similar they can be compared so much to each other unless they were majorly influened by it or part of its series, but even then, they can't really be compared since they are all completely different games, regardless of genre. For examples, RPGS all have completely different stories, though they may have common things in their story or gameplay, but nothing will ever be completely different since there are only so many ways to do things completely different than anything else before you can't change it anymore. 100% of all games are restricted to that with 0 exceptions, depending on the genre. With FPS games and such all of them are completely the same. They always have and always will. They may have different controls, graphics, HUDs, layouts, terrain, settings, etc., but in them, all you do is shoot a gun or possibly use close combat weapons. For Platformers, all you can really do is platform. For puzzles, all you can do is solve a puzzle. In the end, the games most worth it are technically addicting games or games with story, and all of them play differently, but also the same in their genres. Stories will ALWAYS be different, possibly with familiar elements which you ALWAYS HAVE in any kind of media.


I think you misunderstood what I was getting at. I wasn't bashing games that play similarly to each other, I was bashing games that pander to different fanbases. They mix-and-mash different gameplay elements together to try and touch upon elements that people liked of other games, so much so that it just seems forced. As though the game exists simply to generate money for the companies involved in their production. This is the type of game I had in mind when I was typing, not COD.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/3ds/622416-unchained-blades
---
"I'm gonna wreck it!" - John C. Reilly as Wreck-it-Ralph