Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Thomas Kaira May 9 2011, 09:29 PM

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?

Posted by: Lady Syl May 9 2011, 11:38 PM

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...

Posted by: Kiln May 26 2011, 06:01 AM

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.

Posted by: Thomas Kaira Jun 12 2011, 09:32 AM

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.

Posted by: haute ecole rider Jun 13 2011, 01:03 AM

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.

Posted by: hazmick Jun 26 2011, 10:00 PM

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.

Posted by: Olen Jun 27 2011, 12:31 PM

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?

Posted by: Ahrenil Jun 27 2011, 02:58 PM

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.

Posted by: Bolzmania Jun 28 2011, 06:09 PM

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.

Posted by: Thomas Kaira Jun 28 2011, 09:39 PM

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.

Posted by: grif11 Jul 6 2011, 11:41 PM

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!

Posted by: Thomas Kaira Aug 3 2011, 07:52 PM

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.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/9035-Extra-Punctuation-Mixing-Single-and-Multiplayer.2

Posted by: Destri Melarg Aug 3 2011, 09:13 PM

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.

Posted by: Thomas Kaira Aug 3 2011, 10:03 PM

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!!!!!!!!

Posted by: grif11 Aug 3 2011, 10:40 PM

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!

Posted by: Thomas Kaira Aug 9 2011, 10:04 PM

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.

Posted by: King Coin Aug 10 2011, 04:05 AM

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.

Posted by: Ahrenil Aug 10 2011, 02:08 PM

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.

Posted by: CMX Aug 13 2011, 06:33 AM

@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.

Posted by: McBadgere Oct 29 2011, 05:57 AM

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...

Posted by: Cardboard Box Nov 23 2011, 10:18 PM

There's several trends in online games alone that are starting to annoy me, because they've been done to death, done back to life, then done to death again and now OH GOD THEY'RE COMING BACK TO LIFE AGAIN

1. Mario-themed games (or indeed anything with ripped Mario assets)
2. Friggin' zombies!!
3. Angry Birds clones
4. Icy Tower clones
5. Bejeweled-style "match-3" clones
6. Physics removers
7. Launcher-and-upgrade games
8. Direct ripoffs of any tutorial
9. ESPECIALLY those cookie-cutter maze games whose sole mechanic is "don't touch the walls"
10. Any game that trumpets being "uber-hard"
11. Any game that IS uber-hard (c/f "Frustration Fuel")
12. Dress-up games - apparently boys do stuff, girls just hang out in closets
13. Any game featuring those ugly friggin' 3D smilies
14. Tower Defence
15. ESOL types who don't pass their blurb or in-game English to a human proofreader (first impressions count)
16. Escape games (this coming from an idiot who actually paid money for the Myst series, which are really just escape games on CD-ROM)

Posted by: mirocu Nov 13 2015, 12:42 PM

With Fallout 4 out I thought Iīd resurrect this one. Also because I just found it...



Yeah, you know Iīm gonna say it. Steam. For the love of singleplayer offline games would you stop with the Steam!!


*deep breaths*


Sure, I get it. Itīs convenient. It provides with patches and updates and 90% off and so on. But what I donīt like, and I have said this before, is being forced to use it just to play a game. Iīm already on two forums, plus ebay and online mail service and I used to have youtube as well before google+ showed its ugly face. I donīt want yet another place where I need a user name and password when, again, I just wanna play a new game. Not to mention if Steam ever tanks or gets badly hacked my games go bye-bye. Make it optional, not mandatory.


I also donīt like that multiplayer seems to shove singleplayer to the side these days. The best way for me to enjoy a game is when I play it alone and not with other people, whether theyīre in the same room or in China. Thereīs a place for both and neither should exist at the expense of the other.


My three cents and all. Please donīt bash me. Youīre welcome to disagree in a nice manner..

Posted by: Kiln Nov 13 2015, 09:01 PM

I hate Steam too. The main reason is simple, you never really own your games. If Steam goes in the toilet ten years from now (because of poor business decisions, competition, etc.) there's no guarantee they'll untether the massive number of games tied to their service and actually let you keep playing them.

You have to realize, some things people thought would always be safe from failure are gone now. From big game companies that eventually failed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, nothing is immune to the passage of time.

I take issue with any game provider that requires a constant connection to an online hub to even turn it on.

Posted by: ghastley Nov 13 2015, 09:45 PM

If you're buying the sort of games that you play once and "beat", then Steam is a good proposition. You'd have sold the disk to somebody else if it was sold the old way, so Steam providing it a lower price and eliminating your need for a buyer is a decent trade-off.

However, the TES games are the kind you keep playing for years. There are people here currently playing Arena. That's not the same match.

And don't get me started on the whole paid mods attempt. I'm waiting to see what happens when the FO4 tool is released. I expect it to be totally controlled through Steam Workshop, using exactly the same model they tried to introduce for Skyrim, and failed. It might get shot down again, as the Nexus already has free mods (textures and other replacement-only things so far).

Posted by: SubRosa Nov 13 2015, 10:43 PM

Bethesda has already said that FO4's mods won't be available through Steam Workshop. They will be done in-house from Bethesda.Net. Whether that means they won't allow mods to be hosted on any other site I do not know. They also plan to make mods available for the consoles too, not just the PC.

Posted by: mALX Nov 13 2015, 10:52 PM

Yes, I've been watching to see if they cut Nexus out. I guess it will be January/February before we will know for sure.

What my worry with Steam is that they have displayed an extreme greed on three occasions since Bethesda ran Skyrim through them; and our games are locked into their good will. Who is to guarantee they don't decide we should pay a monthly fee for using their service?

I have been wondering when they will drop that axe on us; and would all but bet it will happen one day in the distant future.

Posted by: mirocu Nov 13 2015, 10:55 PM

If you have thought it, so have they, and thatīs all Iīm gonna say about that...

Posted by: mALX Nov 13 2015, 10:57 PM

Exactly my point. If it hit my brain once, it hit theirs many times first and long before I could ever have thought of it.

Posted by: Callidus Thorn Nov 14 2015, 12:50 AM

On the other hand, considering how long it's taking Valve to get around to Half Life 3, even if they have had the idea, they'll probably never getting around to doing it

And on the subject of gaming trends I want to die off:

Dumbing Down. I'm not referring to the player base, as is so often shouted whenever the term is brought up, but the removal of functioning systems in games and their replacement with simpler systems which do not do the same job because they're too simple. Off the top of my head examples: The perk system and loss of attributes in Skyrim, Fable 2 and 3(too many examples to cite specifics), Mass Effect 2s leveling system.

Another one that bugs me, albeit in a similar vein, is the watering down of genres in the name of the vague idea that they can hit every demographic at once. DA2 being a prime example of that, on many levels.

Posted by: mirocu Nov 14 2015, 08:52 AM

I do agree with previous poster. I donīt mind things getting a tad easier to use, like just clicking to use the weapon instead of dragging the mouse all over the desk as well (even if I enjoy that in Arena because I havenīt encountered it before). But I do mind when what I call "things in the background" gets simplified. I enjoy having attributes, skills and a well designed inventory to tinker with, especially in what is displayed as a RPG, could you believe that?

Perks... Not sure what I think of them. They were fun to deal with in Fallout 3 but I donīt think I want them to become the norm instead of attributes and skills or if I want them in every RPG for that matter. Maybe some, but not all.


Oh, well...

Posted by: Renee Nov 15 2015, 12:36 AM

I like the Perk system in Skyrim, I like the way we can further define our character in many different ways as he / she gains in levels. My Skyrim characters feel more unique because of this in certain ways that I don't have to roleplay in my imagination like I do sometimes for vanilla Oblivion.

What I don't like is what Callidus pointed out: the way they got rid of a lot of stuff. Really, what I dislike the most is the way ALL of our characters start out with 100/100/100 in Health, Magicka, and Stamina, with some very minimal racial bonuses. And that's it. I don't like the way my characters start out as less defined in the very beginning. There should be more of a difference here, to make them become more unique from the very start.

The concept of Steam sucks, and I prefer it the old way, going to my local gaming store and purchasing solely from disc. But I'm also too addicted to Skyrim to boycott it.

Posted by: Dark Reaper May 23 2017, 03:45 AM

Rubber Band Physics in racing games. How that works is let's say you're in last place well the other cars will slow down enough for you to pull ahead then when you are ahead they speed up and stay on your tail till you make a mistake then pass you which can lead you losing a race if you're on the last lap.

Racing Rivals. I hate these guys they're always faster then you and if they get into the lead forget about getting first place if you don't have a boost of some sort.

Posted by: Crimson Paladin May 24 2017, 04:00 AM

Isometric perspective in modern RPGs. I can forgive it in older games like Fallout or Baldur's Gate because at the time, isometric pseudo-3D graphics were probably the best choice they had at the time, but times have changed and now it just feels needlessly constraining to a camera control freak like myself, its only virtue being the retro appeal that is lost on me.

Posted by: ghastley May 24 2017, 02:31 PM

On the other hand, if the game is not aiming for photo-realism, but more the formal representational style of say, chess, then the visual clue is useful. It says "do not make assumptions based on reality, it might not apply here." Does Tetris need to look like real rubble?

What I don't like is when they mix-and-match conflicting things like that in the UI. Games that strive for realism, but put floating health bars over enemies heads, or worse than that, numbers. It's OK for the Player Character to have a game HUD for things you can't visually evaluate otherwise, but keep it minimal, and use a game-related style, and at least try and provide a reason for it (as in Fallout). Blood-spatter on the screen is OK if I'm logically wearing one, such as a visor, space-suit etc. but not if I'm bare-headed.

I'm on the fence about the glows that Skyrim spells add to affected actors, as you could expect magical effects to show somehow, and fire, frost and shock have reasonable target effects, so the other spells deserve something.

tl;dr no unrealistic realism.

Posted by: Crimson Paladin May 24 2017, 04:52 PM

It's not an issue of realism or graphic detail for me, but rather camera control. I like zooming, rotating, and reorienting the camera, getting a better view of the environment and of character sprites from different angles, which you cannot do in a game with isometric pseudo-3D graphics.

Posted by: SubRosa May 24 2017, 09:23 PM

I do not like how Pillars of Eternity or Wasteland 2 locks the camera to one perspective. But I do like 3d isometric games. In them your companions do not shoot you in the back all the time, or jump in front of you as soon as you use a bow or spell (unlike Bethesda games). There have been 3d isometric games where you could spin the camera around to view the map from any side, and up or down from any angle. The Neverwinter Nights games for example. Those were great to play.

Posted by: TheCheshireKhajiit May 25 2017, 02:58 AM

Quick time events.

Posted by: Crimson Paladin May 25 2017, 07:58 AM

By "isometric" I am specifically referring to the "pseudo-3D" or "2.5D" graphic projections where 2-dimensional art and sprites are used to give the illusion of 3D graphics, like Fallout 1 and 2 or the Infinity Engine D&D titles, not simply a third person RPG where the default camera looks down on the characters. I love Neverwinter Nights and its dated, blocky 3D graphics, and lament that I don't see its formula- a combination of true 3D graphics, old-school tabletop-derived CRPG mechanics, and incredible moddability- in games anymore.

Posted by: mirocu May 25 2017, 10:08 AM

Surely that's a thing of the '90s?

Posted by: TheCheshireKhajiit May 25 2017, 01:22 PM

Ha! If only.

Posted by: Callidus Thorn May 25 2017, 05:06 PM

*shudders*

All the worst possible aspects of cutscenes and button mashing.

Posted by: Crimson Paladin May 26 2017, 09:08 AM

You know what's even worse? Cutscene incompetence. All the fun of failing a quick time event, without the option to succeed.

Posted by: RaderOfTheLostArk May 26 2017, 02:12 PM

I despise quick time events when they are in cutscenes. In regular game-play I can understand, but I shouldn't have to be on my toes when a cutscene is happening too. Even one of my favorite games ever made, Resident Evil 4, employed this, and even when I was a kid it was annoying.

Hey, Crimson. Long time (sort of), no see.