Don't like the way video gaming is heading

Post Reply New Topic

Interesting, when I do a cool levels flter for Move nothing good comes up. I shall have to do that when I get back home!

The cool levels are full of copied crap that gets old. Why did they remove the boo option for levels?

I find that frustrating as well...kept bad levels from getting attention and rightfully so. Damn society and how it stigmatizes judgment.

To return to the original topic I would like to mention the Wii U is the worst game console I have ever heard of. Not technologically but the dieas involved...there's a difference between innovation and adding pointless crap like a microphone.

Exactly.

Though I am willing to wait and see what games will be made for it.

Wow, awesome thread. I would love to quote some of you, but there are too many posts I'd like to respond to, so I'll just respond to the thread as a whole by saying I'm in the same boat. That Quake vid is hilarious, but sadly true. I mean, sure, maybe a little exaggerated, but a lot of games nowadays do tend to have at least a few devs and/or publishes behind them, and dlc fests are a common thing nowadays. Not to mention the challenge has been sucked out of games, because devs perceive modern gamers to be incompetent and/or impatient. Let me list all the lines in the sand I can think of that devs should never cross, yet, have been and will be crossed quite often:

Single player games and the single player portion of games with multiplayer should never, ever, require a connection to the internet, aside from features like trophies and achievements, which can be synced to the server when a connection is established, if there is none currently, so, that sort of thing is actually acceptable. Otherwise, single player should always be fully playable without any kind of internet connection. Splitscreen and other forms of local multiplayer should always be an option for online enabled multiplayer games, and, like with single player, local multiplayer should never require any connection to the internet. Multiplayer should never be tacked on if it is not needed. If it is included, great care should be made to make the experience worthwhile. The focus of a game or series that is designed for single player should always be on the single player portion. There are certain games and series that should never ever have multiplayer, and the devs behind them should get their heads out of their backside and accept that. Of course, single player should always be a thing.

Games should always be finished before they are released. It is acceptable to release dlc to extend the life of already complete games, but dlc should not be an excuse to omit part of the game and release it later, or have it on the disc, but locked until someone pays for it(which is pretty much a form of omitting content). The in-game unlockable should not be replaced by dlc either, nor should dlc be an option to pay for unlockable content, since the unlockable is something that should be earned by the player. The single player portion of games that have one should be a reasonable length. Six hours or less is unacceptable. I would say that eight hours is an absolute minimum, and rpgs should always be at least thirty hours in length. Patches are not an excuse for devs to skip or skim through bug testing. They should instead be a means of improving an already fully tested game, and remove bugs that were somehow missed despite absolute due diligence. They can even be used to add content to a game, or improve menus. Patches should never be required for someone to play the single or local multiplayer portions of a game though.

Physical copies should always be a thing. Digital downloads are an acceptable alternative for those who want them, and games that wouldn't thrive in the retail market, particularly indie games, can benefit from a downloadable only release. Otherwise, physical copies should always be an option, whether it be in the form of discs, carts, or any other physical format.

Games on normal difficulty and above should be reasonably challenging, by which I mean that normal shouldn't be overly challenging, but it shouldn't be a total cakewalk either, and hand-holding on any difficulty but easy is unacceptable.

Console games should almost always have the option of being controlled with a regular controller. Motion control is garbage, and should be optional, except for in the occasional casual game, which should never be the focus of a game console. Regular controllers should always be the default that's included with a game system, and motion controllers should always be optional extra accessories.

The focus of game consoles should always be on games. Extra features should always be treated as just that, extra. A company should always refer to any of its systems as a game console, not a "multimedia device". Game consoles and dedicated gaming handhelds should always be a thing.

If anyone can think of any more points that should be added on that list, feel free to share them. All of the above lines have either been crossed, or there are trash articles out there speculating that they will be. There should be no reason for anyone to believe that the single player game will die out for example, so companies should never give anyone such a reason. Man, have things really gone so far south that I could make a list like that? How times have changed.

My advice is to buy something no one else is playing.

B Tiered titles can be just as fun as AAA ones.

This is me but, I have had more fun with SEGA's offering then every other dev this generation. The only time they used DLC was with titles that provided online experiences...and some of the DLC was free (I bought Binary Domain with two extra DLC codes...one was slightly useless but a good gesture all the same).

All in all, I am happy with the lesser known games that are being released.

My GOTY so far is a visual novel! I don't even class it as a game but I think it's the best thing in 2012 and IT'S FREE!

Yeah, I'm more partial to the B-tiered stuff myself. I hate the term AAA too, because it's a misnomer. AAA is a term that should speak about a game's quality, but in the context of modern games, it just means that it's ultra mainstream(which has no relation to quality). I still prefer a lot of Japanese titles over NA ones, but I'm also quite fond of devs like Double Fine, who actually put their heart into everything they make. I also love visual novels. I'm guessing you're talking about Katawa Shoujo(which is awesome and free).

The real problem I'm having is that good games are the exception now, and they're not ultra mainstream like the so-called "AAA" titles. In the past, ultra mainstream games were actually good, and actually deserved the hype, like The Ocarina of Time. It's like games used to have a certain magic to them, but now it's gone. Well, not entirely gone. There are still games being produced that have it, but they don't sell nearly as well, and are often obscure titles that requires one to be an especially informed consumer in order to even know of their existence. In other words, I now have to dig for diamonds in the rough, rather than finding them out in the open. It's ridiculous, and I'm positive that in terms of keeping up with modern games, my exit is coming up within the next few years. Thankfully I have something called a backlog, and it's a rather large one, which is looking better and better as time goes on. Retro gaming is definitely in my future, and I'm pretty sure I'll end up retro gaming almost exclusively.

thk games should be priced based on the amount of substance in them...50 cents or 1 dollar per hour of gameplay or something like that. Maybe have extra allowances made for gorgeous artwork.

That Quake vid got two video responses:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4yIxUOWrtw&feature=watch_response[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYBysOqQujc&feature=fvwrel[/youtube]

I only disagree with the Super Mario Bros. one because Ninty isn't that ret*d with their first party stuff. I mean, sure, it's kind of ret*d that the player starts off as Super Mario by default in Super Mario 3D Land, and the checkpoint flags will automatically restore Super Mario if he has been turned into regular Mario. It's also kind of ret*d that I'm no where near finishing the game, and I'm almost at 99 lives already, since it's very hard to die. But, it's not nearly as ret*d as that vid, that's for sure. To be honest though, the vid's message does reflect a common thread with other platformers, so it's still valid.

Yeah, the term now means how popular it is.

Yes, I meant KS!

Indeed, although these games will be valuable in the future. Not sure if you heard of Panzer Dragoon Saga...but back then it was released in limited quantities but was regarded as the best RPG of all time (yes, even moreso then Final Fantasy 7!), now look at the price of the game! £100+!

Are you on Backloggery by any chance?

I wouldn't rely on purely retro games myself, as that well dries up as you look deeper and deeper (as with our gaming tastes). I have been looking at really obscure stuff lately, but most of them are only for Arcade entertainment only (which requires emulating/pirating).

@SanityTheorist: So Xenoblade should be £200/$350 then? What about the Sims? A million?

Ha, good point about the sims CrazyStardust.

Panzer Dragoon Saga...never heard of it. Are the gameplay elements more interactive than most RPGs? I will likely stick with PS2-PS3 level of gaming if everything keeps going open world. That just throws me off badly.

I am not familiar with this AAA system, but if it just means games that get high reviews from fanboys that's very lame. Gamefaqs.com is where I go for reviews generally, they have a mix of all age groups there so people are more honest.

I'll have to keep that one in mind. I'm not a collector, nor do I pay huge sums of money for games, even older ones, but I do like to check out some classics that I missed. That copy of Nocturne I found in immaculate condition will be the first game I play once I decide once and for all that I'm through with modern games for the most part.

Are you on Backloggery by any chance?[/quote]

Is that a site? Either way, the answer is no.

I wouldn't rely on purely retro games myself, as that well dries up as you look deeper and deeper (as with our gaming tastes). I have been looking at really obscure stuff lately, but most of them are only for Arcade entertainment only (which requires emulating/pirating).[/quote]
I have only seen the surface of that well though. There are a good few decades worth of games, of various genres. Not all will be accessible to me. I don't actually own any retro systems at this point in time, unless my ps2 counts now. I have a b/c ps3, but that's a moot point, since I have a ps2 that works perfectly, which is the most authentic way to play ps2 games(can't beat 100% authenticity). I do enjoy checking out digital downloads of classic games, between all my systems. A friend of mine has an N64 and a Genesis. Of course, there are plenty of great games that have either been lost to time, or I cannot play them legally, which is something I like to avoid, if possible.

I have a backlog though, across all of my systems. It has been bad, for a very long time, and only grows as time goes on. Once I stop bothering with modern games, aside from maybe keeping up with my favorite series(if they are still recognizable at that point), it'll be a lot easier to climb backlog mountain. I've got years of games waiting to be played. My well isn't drying up anytime soon. In the meantime, there is still the occasional game that interests me, and things have yet to go too far south. I'm pretty sure my exit is not too far off though. I have a long list of things that would cause me to quit modern gaming(at that point in time, my ps3 and wii games won't exactly be considered current). The 3ds does provide a ray of hope, but I doubt a handheld system will be able to save the industry on its own. I suppose handhelds have an advantage, because it's still not practical for them to be connected to wifi 24/7, so they're still very much single player oriented, and an online connection isn't required for the most part. That, and they're still not fps fests. I guess it's still too early to call, but I'm not liking most of the rumors floating around about the next ps and xbox, especially what I'm hearing about the latter.

I think my favorite time period for gaming will be mid-PS2 to late PS3 era. Games befoe had too little substance and games today are just overloading with features added and open world gaming messes with my head too much.

I HATE how you have to pay REAL money for VIRTUAL stuff in order to get ahead in a game nowadays. I mean, you're almost literally throwing your money away. Instead of creating games with actual selling capacity, gaming companies are resorting to schemes where actual enjoyment of the game costs much more than the game itself.

I remember that you would simply pay $35-$40 dollars for a very good game and that was enough to settle you for about 40 hours or more.

I refuse to pay the new game consoles. They all have glaring flaws for my personal tastes:
-Controllers require batteries
-I am not a fan of motion control. I like to sit down when playing video games.
-I do not have internet at home. Therefore, cannot connect to internet to play many desirable games
-No interest in any of the games coming out for them.
-All the games have blood, gore, or otherwise mature themes. I don't want that playing a video game.

The only one I might buy is the Nintendo 3DS. Is is cheap, simple and lots of family-friendly games and games that interest me.

Aww Techn0teen, was someone sheltered as a kid?

And yes, that was meant to be condescending.

Mature themes are fine...I do agree on excessive gore though, but the rest is lies.