Gaming trends you would prefer died off..., ...what do you want the modern game industry to stop doing? Options

[Thomas Kaira]

To kick things off, allow me to provide an example:

---The Full-Price Expansion Pack---

Ubisoft has done it again: they have announced Assassin's Creed Revelations. If anyone remembers Brotherhood, you can see where I'm going with this. What happened in Brotherhood was they took Assassin's Creed 2, added multiplayer, and a new, short single-player, changed nothing and released it as a full title with the full $60.00 price tag. The trouble was, Brotherhood was not a full new game release, it was a rehash of a previous title with some new bits and pieces attached to the side (like Shivering Isles was for Oblivion, for example). A few years ago, this would have been released as an expansion pack (again, like Shivering Isles), but that is exactly the point. An expansion pack for an existing game, by definition, must cost less than the actual game it is expanding on, and this means less money in the developer's pockets. Now, though, many developers have taken to using a workaround: create an expansion pack, and release it as a full game. Ubisoft are doing this with Assassin's Creed, and Activision are notoriously guilty of doing this with Call of Duty (where they change so little between titles they don't qualify as full games anymore in my eyes). And let's not forget Fallout: New Vegas, either, that title is a case-in-point of what I'm talking about.

Why can't expansion packs be expansion packs anymore? I am getting sick and tired of paying $60.00 for a title that is great when compared to the series it expands on, but on its own looks completely half-*shablamz!*. Sequels are supposed to take every component of the original game and either tweak or overhaul it to make things better, or feel a bit different. New mechanics are added, and new ways to have fun that expand on what what made the old game fun. That is not what is happening anymore, nowadays, the developers simply take a game, add a bit more to it, and toss it back into the market to refresh the premium price tag and hope that the core gameplay that has held it up for the past three years will be enough to attract the buyers (A.K.A. the Call of Duty strategy).

I'm sorry, devs, but your idea of what makes a sequel does not hold up under scrutiny. Eventually, the lack of effort being put into these titles where you constantly pump them full of expansion packs marketed as sequels is going to cause them to fail when the gamers realize that you are not actually putting any effort into your work.

That is number one on my list of gaming trends I want to die. Developers who do this are lazy, unimaginative, and stagnating the market.

So, what trends do you want to see ended?

This post has been edited by Thomas Kaira: May 10 2011, 12:51 AM

[Lady Syl]

At the moment, all I can think of is what you just said. I won't play games like COD, but my husband loves those games. Thing is, they're all pretty much the same thing, so I would think they'd get bored of it after awhile. There's almost nothing new--just updated graphics and a few new weapons to choose from...

[Kiln]

I like Call of Duty for the weapons, being a firearms enthusiast myself I get a kick out of shooting stuff with different guns. They've also added alot of new features into the game allowing you to further upgrade each weapon and customize your character to an extent. They're going the right direction and it shows because its one of the highest selling franchises of all time. I do agree with you though and wish they'd do stuff like update the engine and graphics more between titles rather than rushing a new one out every year.

The biggest thing I hate about modern game companies is their "fix it later" mentality. Its been an issue with many, many games lately and Bethsoft is one of the top offenders. Making sure your game works great at the get go isn't the top priority anymore instead they figure that they'll just release a patch down the road sometime and not worry about it, as long as they get the sales it doesn't matter. Years ago this strategy would never fly and these companies wouldn't survive but now that you can quickly get patches to players in a variety of different ways this seems to be the norm and is getting more frequent.

[Thomas Kaira]

Speaking of CoD, here's another trend I want gone:

The blood-splatter on-screen effect to signify you've taken damage.

Stop obscuring my vision with stupid shader effects, devs. If I am trying to kill this dude way the heck over there, the last thing I need is for some raspberry jam to pop up on top of my supa-magik contact lenses every time I get hit. What's so wrong with a twitch and the borders of the screen flashing red? People aren't THAT dumb, you know. Red reminding humans of pain and suffering, as well as being a warning, is INSTINCTUAL.

There are times and places to be flashy, but getting hit is not it. If I have been hit in the middle of a heated battle, the last thing I need is raspberry jam smeared all over my eyes. It's distracting, it's unrealistic, and it's annoying as hell.

[haute ecole rider]

I love the Xbox controller that vibrates when you get hit. More effective than raspberry jam in my eyes, as TK so succinctly puts it. That's about the only thing I miss about the Xbox version of TES IV.

[hazmick]

Here's a trend that could die out: "Believing that as long as there are swords, it's a roleplaying game".

After playing all three Fable games over the weekend it has got me thinking that there seems to be less..."stuff" as the franchise goes on. The original Fable had loads of things your character could do, there was ageing and physical changes due to stat increases. Fable 2 had roughly the same amount of weapons and clothes but your character always looked pretty much the same and there was little to no ageing. Then Fable three came along. There is a huge decrease in the number of clothes and spells as well as no ageing and very, very little change in the character's appearence over time. There is less roleplaying and more fighting. Fighting is good but if I just wanted to fight I would get a game that is sold as an action, adventure or fighting game.

I have a bad feeling that TES is going the same way. I suppose I'll have to wait and see.

Rant over.

[Olen]

Agreed there. Very much agreed. Though in proper RPs which are going to be complex I'd like to see a little more thought go into menus, they have a habit of being horribly hard to use (one place where TES does fairly well I'd say even if the RP is becoming lacking).

Now an annoyance of mine - weapons. If people who make games took the time to read up on them first they would make less annoying games. Like rocket propelled grenades - it seems that in all games they're horribly slow and won't hit a barn door. The RPG-7 (the common one) has a muzzle velocity of over 100m/s before the rocket motor kicks in. It's seriously fast. It also fries anything behind the user and is fairly accurite over 150m. There are other examples too. Shotguns are often poorly realised (GTA IV or bad company 2 anyone?) and even medieval/fantasy weapons aren't immune. It wouldn't be hard for them to at least watch some youtube vids and read a couple of articles, it just smacks of not making the effort.

Another pet hate is not being able to cook off grenades in games.

That's my rant. Next?

[Ahrenil]

Recharging Health.

I miss my health packs, I miss going into a fight and having to figure out just how risky I can be. I enjoyed going back to Half Life the other day because of the dynamics that come with relying on health packs. I'd have battles where I could gleefully run in with a shotgun and a smile because I had full health and full shields. Giggling to myself as ragdolls flew through the air. Other times i'd be forced to carefully and methodically sneak my way around a group of enemies, setting traps and picking them off one by one because one more shot would kill me.

Recharging health just makes games a slug fest. Run, gun and hide. It gets far too monotonous.

[Bolzmania]

Recharging Health.

I miss my health packs, I miss going into a fight and having to figure out just how risky I can be. I enjoyed going back to Half Life the other day because of the dynamics that come with relying on health packs. I'd have battles where I could gleefully run in with a shotgun and a smile because I had full health and full shields. Giggling to myself as ragdolls flew through the air. Other times i'd be forced to carefully and methodically sneak my way around a group of enemies, setting traps and picking them off one by one because one more shot would kill me.

Recharging health just makes games a slug fest. Run, gun and hide. It gets far too monotonous.

I agree to 50%. What I don't like about regenerating health is that in most games you can't see how much health you have. However in Halo Reach they brought health packs which I just hated. It gets just as obnoxious to run around in multiplayer to look for health packs and bam, you're dead.

[Thomas Kaira]

I agree to 50%. What I don't like about regenerating health is that in most games you can't see how much health you have. However in Halo Reach they brought health packs which I just hated. It gets just as obnoxious to run around in multiplayer to look for health packs and bam, you're dead.

I'm afraid a disagreement from me is needed here, as well.

Non-recharging health worked in Halo:CE, and it works in Team Fortress 2. People rely on recharging health far too heavily nowadays.

Health recharges (to a point) in Halo Reach, as well, not just shields. And if you are an Elite in multiplayer, you don't even need health packs, since Health recharges fully for Elites. However, I do not feel I am alone when I think you should be punished for entering a PvP battle when you KNOW you are at a disadvantage. Bungie could be a bit more generous with health pack distribution, though. No need to make a fair battle into a luxury.

Personally, I feel that having health recharge in Reach was a bit of a cop-out on Bungie's part. Reach was a game that Bungie really didn't try very hard to put together. They just took what they already knew would work and tossed it all together, gave it a healthy coat of polish, and Reach was the result.

This post has been edited by Thomas Kaira: Jun 28 2011, 09:43 PM

[grif11]

Heres my pet peeve, although its not the developers fault: Abandonned multiplayer

I found out recently that most of my favourite mp games are deserted. these games have a brilliant concept, but people just go "Wow, this is great! Now, back to my old shooter with nothing unique!"

example: Crysis 2. I thought that using the suit how YOU wanted to was great, plus I just got the map packs. "Hello? Anyone home? Nope, everyones playing CoD/Halo.

Lost planet still has plenty of players, why not Crysis!

[Thomas Kaira]

The latest: blending single-player and multiplayer together.

So far, Valve is the only firm that managed to do this well. And I don't think there is enough to the concept to warrant everyone trying to play copycat.

I'll let Ben Croshaw explain this one.

This post has been edited by Thomas Kaira: Aug 3 2011, 08:01 PM

[Destri Melarg]

The latest: blending single-player and multiplayer together.

So far, Valve is the only firm that managed to do this well. And I don't think there is enough to the concept to warrant everyone trying to play copycat.

I'll let Ben Croshaw explain this one.

Honestly, whenever a game goes to great lengths to sell me on its multiplayer mode I simply won't play the game. I haven't played any of the games quoted in that article, but I completely agree with the premise that the two modes of play should be kept separate.

Here's mine: Morality. Either do it right or leave it alone! The core gaming audience isn’t composed of twelve year olds, so why are the morality systems built for twelve year olds? I am so tired of choosing the top answer for the annoying saint response and the bottom answer for the psychotic baby-killer response.

I understand that there are issues with voice acting that must be addressed, but this seems like a flimsy excuse to me. Morality is NEVER that cut and dried! How about some shading on occasion? And how about some real CONSEQUENCES for the decisions you choose to make?! How about a game in which, if you decide to gratuitously kill the random NPC, not only the guards but the entire town/village will attack you the next time you show your face there. However (and this is big), the people in the next town/village have no idea what you’ve done in the previous town and take you at face value until you do something good/bad to them (this can be tweaked as your fame/notoriety advances).

In Jade Empire morality is broken down to a system called Open Palm/Closed Fist. Open Palm is exactly what you would expect (the annoying saint), but Closed Fist is not your typical sociopath. There is a point of view and an underlying philosophy behind the things that you do. It is a philosophy that you find your character sharing with those who don’t understand how he/she could be so cruel throughout the game, and it made playing Closed Fist far more interesting than playing Open Palm. I would like to see such thought put into both the northern and southern poles of the moral compass.

This post has been edited by Destri Melarg: Aug 3 2011, 09:14 PM

[Thomas Kaira]

The problem is people trying to "grade" morality and convert it into numbers. This was a real deal-killer for the Mass Effect series, for example, (particularly 2) because in order to obtain the various persuasion options, you needed a certain amount of good or bad points, which was absolute MURDER to the roleplaying aspect. Attaching values to your morality system is a violation of the concept of morality. Morality has no value, at least not in a numeric sense. Morality is not a currency, it is determined by the decisions we make as human beings. By turning morality into currency, you turn our human player characters into robots. It's the kiss of death for a roleplaying game, and frankly I'm astonished Fallout 3 managed to avoid that (though it did, by making Karma just be there and not really have any purpose aside from governing NPC reactions).

Skyrim is actually going about this in the right direction by not allowing the PC to see what his fame/infamy ratings are, ergo the PC does not know for sure how the world will react to his actions. But it's still there, operating in the background. And this is exactly what should be done. If you cannot see the impact your decisions have on the game world right away, but instead are forced to experience them firsthand (as you should be), the decisions you make will matter more to you as a result, and your attachment to your character will deepen.

It's really that simple that I cannot fathom why people still managed to screw up morality so badly. Not much needs changing, just DON'T TELL THE PLAYER WHAT IMPACT HIS CHOICE HAD!!!!!!!!

[grif11]

Something I would like to add to this.

Most the time in RPG's, the moral choices are one choice or another. Example:
A woman asks you to rescue her cat from a tree. You have the option to climb the tree and save it or leave the distressed furball.

Good or Bad. How about more options.
Cruel twat - Get cat down by throwing rocks at it.
Unpredictable - Rescue the cat, kill the woman.

Mix it up a bit!

[Thomas Kaira]

For my next trend that must die: cover-based shooters. Or rather, the industry's over-reliance on them.

The cover-based shooter has now become synonymous throughout the gaming industry with titles like Mass Effect 2 and Gears of War. So much so, in fact, that the market is now becoming over-saturated with them. We now have games like the Kane and Lynch series (MASSIVELY overrated games) and the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows games (movie-licensed games). For every one good cover-based shooter, we get five bad ones.

Which is why this needs to stop. I don't care who does it well and who doesn't anymore, the genre is done to death and needs a break. Badly.

[King Coin]

Umm... Other games can stop but that's what Gears is about. Well that and sawing people up and blowing them up in spectacular manners.

[Ahrenil]

I agree that to remove it completely would be a waste. The games who do it well, do it well. They should be allowed to stay, however I also agree that the industry has just started to churn them out to a dramatic degree.

Which is partly the reason I am so looking forward to the new Space Marine FPS. It removes my peeve of recharging health and the cover based system. Rather than hiding away and breaking the flow of combat, the space marines regain health for killing an enemy, and cover is non-existant when you spend your day walking around in what is in all essence a tank.

[CMX]

@Olen: I like the weapon mechanics of gta and Bad company2. The actual arming distance of the rpg kinda reflects when you fire the rpg. And as far as the shotgun goes, it's kinda crazy but believable when you fire an AA-12 with the HEDP rounds, cause i know i mess up them helicopters when they come low enough. Im Hoping for the new Bad company to have even more of a realistic weapon program. I love that distance and elevation makes a huge difference between each of the weapon systems, mounted or unmounted. Even the armor and helicopter systems are pretty user friendly. I just hope games in the future dont go past 1080p. My eyes are getting fried.

[McBadgere]

Zombies...Please, for the love of Greame Garden stop with the zombies...I really can't see the fuss...And really, just 'cause you CAN make it all that gross, doesn't mean you HAVE to...