The worst of the worst - Evolution in gaming.

Keeping it coming guys! Just let all your frustration out. This is NMA after all.

Something that I find annoying in games, is if developers feel the need that they have to follow a certain 'trend'. Fallout 4 is probably the best example for this, as the game now needs to contain mein-craft-like settlement creation, with crafting thrown inside it and it also needs a dialog wheel and a voiced protagonist. Why? Cuz Bioware and others are doing it and marketing research told us, that if we get some minecraft and hello kitty inside it, it will hit better with certain demographics!

And I am NOT(!) talking about clones, where a developer sees that Diablo 2 was awesome, and decides to make a similar game. That's actually 'ok' in my boo, as long as they make a high quality game in the end and not just a cheap clone to get fast money. I mean I wouldn't mind games that are more similar to Fallout 1 or what ever.

But sometimes you can totally see how some games changed in mid-development due to the fact that some guy who had something to say came in at some point, after a very popular game was released and demaded now, that the game HAS(!) to be open world, even though it was never meant to be like that, or that it HAS to include level ups now or what ever. And you end up with a game that has half backed features that feel like just slapped on shit without any real purpose.
 
Crni Vuk said:
But sometimes you can totally see how some games changed in mid-development due to the fact that some guy who had something to say came in at some point, after a very popular game was released and demaded now, that the game HAS(!) to be open world, even though it was never meant to be like that, or that it HAS to include level ups now or what ever. And you end up with a game that has half backed features that feel like just slapped on shit without any real purpose.
Click to expand...

Far Cry 2 did this and it ended up having a massive world to drive around but aside from gun-toting enemies it was devoid of anything. The first Far Cry, despite its mutant enemies, had some levels where you had to follow a path but it was open enough to allow variation in how you approach.

Metal Gear Solid 5 is another. It's open world sure, but how much is added because of that? I like the game but I don't think it should have become open world, or at the very least make it less lifeless. There's nothing there but animals and enemy soldiers yet we're supposed to believe the Mujahadeen are fighting and that ordinary folk are suffering.

EDIT: Fixed quote tag and sentence
 
Isn't the facial animation gets worse and worse with every new AAA? First Zero Dawn, and now Andromeda. That's retarded, considering the tools modern devs have now.
 
I try to look back at older games I like, and compare them to modern games, and find out how they have improved or downgraded.

My major points are.

-Improving graphics at the cost of AI and storyline

-Removal of mechanics old games had (armour, ammo types, killable companions, high enemy counts, etc)

-Scumbag penny pinching with DLC, microtransactions, etc which cost more than the entire damned game

-Anti consumer practices with removal of dedicated servers, lack of modding, DRM, etc (I can fucking go onto doom right now, hook up to someone's server, and play with whatever mod they want, like Brutal Doom)

-Lack of choice, so few games have peaceful or negotiating ways to beat stuff, its always shoot people in the face

-Planned obsolescence, EA is known for making games which literally cannot be played a year or so after release (multiplayer based games)

-A movement towards multiplayer, when there's little point. I see so many devs trying to shoehorn multiplayer into a game which was originally to be a single player masterpiece, and they end up wasting their time on it.
 
My pet peeves:
  • Climb a tower, reveal the local map.
  • Defeat a fortress, region cleared *forever*.
  • Season passes, extensive minor DLC.
  • Open World Early Access games.
  • No real defeat for the player.


In Far Cry 3, it was alright. It was new. Then comes Far Cry 4, Primal, Breath Of The Wild, and who knows what else? It's boring already. Horizon Zero Dawn? Shadows of Mordor? Assassins Creed, The Crew? At least in BOTW the second point is diminished due to the blood moon, but it doesn't feel organic.

The absolute epidemic of Open World Early Access games bugs me out. Minecraft did it, delivered, then ground to a halt. Most Early Access games still aren't finished, have died, or have stalled. It's only used because it allows developers to be half-assed, produce something to get cash, and then string it along for more cash. No one wants to make finished content off the get go anymore. No one wants to make a game with a start or an end anymore.

Maybe combine the first two. It'll make more sense: defeat a fortress, and bam, you snatch a copy of the map from there. And maybe not even the map: just filler for the map, which you could just get early on anyway. When I buy a map, I don't have to go a mile to reveal that square mile, I go a mile to fill out the map with notes and hand-drawn icons for stuff of interest.

And to add onto the second: in a game with sides, nothing should be static. The enemy should be moving. Regions can be made safer, but never 'safe'. Raiding parties. Counterattacks. Counteroffensives.

And to glean something from Fallout 1: defeats. Literal defeats. If we didn't get that waterchip and didn't defeat the master in time, we lost. Cities would also be destroyed if we took time with the Master, and that was that. That's realistic. Nothing just stands around waiting to be activated by you, everything moves and interacts and if you stop moving - everything else doesn't care. The other side defeats your side. The big bad makes his energy beam and destroys the sun. The horde destroys the country. Your loved one dies of the affliction they sent you out to find a remedy for. So on and so on.
 
naossano said:
Paying for patch. (Beamdog)
I doubt most would agree, but i consider that when i buy a product, i should be able to use it as long as possible, not rely on another paid product to keep using it.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Modern games are practically unplayable for the most part 2+ years down the line.

In the case of EA games, even 1 year and its dead, or as good as dead anyway.

Look at Evolve, basically dead the day after release, and it's never going to actually be a good game, they squandered amazing art designs and backstory, just to sell Left For Dead 2's Tank boss.
 
Paying for games and then not own them.
Steam does this for example, you pay for games but you don't own any of the games. They can ban your account for whatever reason and you lose access to all the games in that account.
Back in my day, you bought a game and you owned it, now you buy a game but what you're buying is the right to play that game until Steam decides you can't play.

Thank the wombat for GOG.com, you can just download your games you bought there and keep them in storage in a hard drive or usb stick or burn them in dvds or whatever, you own the games. Even the games that devs make GOG.com stop selling are still available in your game library because you bought them you own them. Also you don't need to run a third party software to play them (like Steam), they work out of the box.
Try to backup a steam game and it is piracy...

And no, I never got banned from steam or anything, I just think it is stupid what they do.
 
Pretty much every game nowadays having to be shoved with multiplayer, a big number of times at the expense of single player experience.

It seems games that focus majorly on single player are getting rare. Now every game needs to have multiplayer or it sucks because that's what a big chunk of the developers think. What happened to just playing a well made single player campaign and then just go play something else? Now multiplayer needs to be shoved in there just to artificially extend the lifespan of the game and most of the time the single player portion suffers heavily because of this.

I've been playing for a while now a game called Grim Dawn. It focus mostly on single player because that's what the developers want. It has multiplayer but it's barebones, it's just has co-op, allows trading between players and you can fight your friends. But at least once a day someone comes to the forum and bitches that the game should have closed servers with the ranking ladder or some other crap, basically be just like Diablo 3.
 
MutantScalper said:
HUD's in 'realistic' FPS-shooters. They always go overboard with them.
Click to expand...
Also, realism in 'non realistic' shooters. Seriously. I love simulations, I also love realistic games. But not every shooter has to be made like it's realistic when it's clearly not. I havn't played Doom 4, but I welcome their approach of making a shooter ... a shooter, not everything needs ironsights.
 
Overlong tutorials

excusing bad design with "git gud" or "I did it so what?" yeah any dibshit can do something but the point is if its fair or not.

Call of duty and modern military shooters like it. Not saying I hate them all, I certainly liked battlefield 1 and cod 4 but the genre needs to either stop or innovate.
 
This is going to be an overly specific complaint because it only applies to my love of major franchises but I hate the Good vs. Evil mentality so many of them enforce in situations which could be otherwise more nuanced and interesting. Fallout 4, Call of Duty, Assassins Creed, and more.

I was actually all for the latest Call of Duty because I love Gundam and was cool with a "Gundam with no mecha" colonies vs. Earth war.

And they made it the glorious good guys of Earth vs. the EVILLLL Space Fascists.

Just like they did with Ghosts.

Just like they did with Advanced Warfare.

Black Ops 2 was the last Call of Duty I liked.

The Templars want to build civilization (and rule it) while the Assassins want FREEDOM but only fight the Templars rather than most of human history's tyrants. Assassins Creed: Rogue was one of the few which gave any real acknowledgement of what was actually in the original game.

Fallout 4....well, was a mess.
 
CT Phipps said:
CODIW
Click to expand...

Agreed. The SDF is just there to be shot at. Why do they just exist? Is it just a oligarchy that has the masses down under propaganda? Then what drives the oligarchy? It's not freedom because the Not!Snow guy hates that stuff. It's not wealth perse because their war against Earth is near genocidal, when just destroying Earth's space capabilities will be enough to rule the system. Is it really just a bunch of Russian Ultranationalists again?
 
CT Phipps said:
This is going to be an overly specific complaint because it only applies to my love of major franchises but I hate the Good vs. Evil mentality so many of them enforce in situations which could be otherwise more nuanced and interesting. Fallout 4, Call of Duty, Assassins Creed, and more.

I was actually all for the latest Call of Duty because I love Gundam and was cool with a "Gundam with no mecha" colonies vs. Earth war.

And they made it the glorious good guys of Earth vs. the EVILLLL Space Fascists.

Just like they did with Ghosts.

Just like they did with Advanced Warfare.

Black Ops 2 was the last Call of Duty I liked.

The Templars want to build civilization (and rule it) while the Assassins want FREEDOM but only fight the Templars rather than most of human history's tyrants. Assassins Creed: Rogue was one of the few which gave any real acknowledgement of what was actually in the original game.

Fallout 4....well, was a mess.
Click to expand...
That really goes for mainstream media, though. Not exclusive of video games, really.

I saw COD:IW's campaign in youtube and with some extra car eit really could have been a lot more interesting. To end badly for the good guys, even. That way they can make a sequel :V
 
Games designed to die.

I can play Doom 1 and play it for hours, and its one of the first FPS out there. Slap on Brutal Doom and its a modern masterpiece of entertainment and mindless powerwhoring.

On the flipside, TitanFall 1-2, both of which are already functionally dead, and simply aren't as fun in campaign.
 
Arnust said:
That really goes for mainstream media, though. Not exclusive of video games, really.

I saw COD:IW's campaign in youtube and with some extra car eit really could have been a lot more interesting. To end badly for the good guys, even. That way they can make a sequel :V
Click to expand...

It's an odd thing in COW lately because they make these big multipart epics and then make it impossible to actually continue them.

I actually enjoyed the MW trilogy and BO 1 and 2 (3 had nothing to do with the others) for averting this.

But yes, you could build a whole franchise around a fictional war if they both had valid points or were just being used by their governments.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Also, realism in 'non realistic' shooters. Seriously. I love simulations, I also love realistic games. But not every shooter has to be made like it's realistic when it's clearly not. I havn't played Doom 4, but I welcome their approach of making a shooter ... a shooter, not everything needs ironsights.
Click to expand...

I remember way, WAY, back in the day, in the days of C-64. There was a game called Airborne Ranger. The makers of that game were interviewed and they said "yes, we could model realistic injuries etc. but that would be way too brutal for little kids who play these games".

Then again, is 'John Wayne shoots hundred indians who insta-die with zero blood etc.' - approach any better to instill in the minds of little kids?
 
MutantScalper said:
I remember way, WAY, back in the day, in the days of C-64. There was a game called Airborne Ranger. The makers of that game were interviewed and they said "yes, we could model realistic injuries etc. but that would be way too brutal for little kids who play these games".

Then again, is 'John Wayne shoots hundred indians who insta-die with zero blood etc.' - approach any better to instill in the minds of little kids?
Click to expand...

It's pretty commonplace nowadays. People's limbs would get blown off in COD:WAW. I don't think the media cares too much about the poor kids anymore - people are super desensitized to violence/gore.

The subject of sexual violence is still pretty taboo and largely implied rather than shown. Not sure how the MSM would deal with Fallout 2 in today's climate considering the main character can get date raped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top