PDA

View Full Version : I know it takes money to make games but THIS IS ANNOYING


droomph
June 30th, 2013, 07:42 PM
What aspect of modern games bothers you? It can be anything from details to social impacts of the games.

Ephemeral Euphoria
June 30th, 2013, 07:47 PM
Most games being so short I can beat them in under a week nowadays kind of gets on my nerves tbh especially given how expensive they can be as well to where I end up buying 180 bucks worth of games only to beat most if not all of them before the weekend rolls in.

machomuu
June 30th, 2013, 08:10 PM
Overpriced DLC. DLC in general, really, since I don't think it's utilized properly a lot of times. It's a great concept, don't get me wrong, but I often wonder what some games would be like if the idea of DLC didn't exist, and if that DLC would have been in the game if that were the case.

Aeon
June 30th, 2013, 08:56 PM
Overpriced DLC and very short single player experiences. I understand that multiplayer is where the focus seems to be nowadays but I feel like a good single player is just as important...

Darkrai Lv.1000
July 1st, 2013, 10:26 AM
Games being so expensive, but not lasting long/low replay value.

Seriously, the last console games I bought where I feel I got my money's worth were Skyward Sword and Xenoblade Chronicles. I'm 25 hours in, and I don't even think I'm 25% done with Xenoblade yet.

KriegStein
July 1st, 2013, 11:44 AM
Unimpressive overprised DLC, overprotective security/identification requirements and always online feature. Those are the biggest problems.

donavannj
July 1st, 2013, 11:45 AM
"Always online" DRM that cripples the game's initial functionality.

I don't mind DRM so much, but what I do mind is the "always online" portion of it. I don't control my ISP's network. I don't want to be unable to play a primarily single-player game because my ISP's network went down or the game's servers are overloaded with connections when the game does practically all of the processing for the game itself on my machine.

Cassino
July 1st, 2013, 01:48 PM
DLC; DRM; increased retail prices over time; inadequate manuals. I might add to this.

Miss Doronjo
July 1st, 2013, 02:13 PM
The overpriced DLC is my pet peeve too. Also the lack of replay values nowadays, even though they're pretty expensive. ;___;

JayD
July 1st, 2013, 03:11 PM
Overpriced DLC that isn't even worth the money. You'd take more time working for the money you paid for the DLC than finishing the DLC itself.

Short games that are expensive.

Manuals that don't really help much.

TheBigMan0706
July 1st, 2013, 03:48 PM
Expensive DLC (sound like a broken record, i know), idiot fans wanting another call of duty game

Spinosaurus
July 1st, 2013, 04:01 PM
Most games being so short I can beat them in under a week nowadays kind of gets on my nerves tbh especially given how expensive they can be as well to where I end up buying 180 bucks worth of games only to beat most if not all of them before the weekend rolls in.
You know I don't get this "too short" complain.
So get this...
I bought Skyrim for 50 euros, a 300+ hours game. I also bought Metal Gear Rising at the same price, but it's a 5 hours game. Guess which one was worth the money?

The 5 hour game. Why? Because actually having good gameplay and design plus with the replay value (THIS is important) I played that game way more than crappy Skyrim.

Replay value is what you should be looking for. Metal Gear Rising has it, Skyrim does not. Most of the games that are considered the best are also short. If anything, the shorter the game, the better, especially if it has replay value.


Which is actually my answer for this topic. I'll echo the DRM and DLC complains, but the lack of replay value is also big.

Most AAA games don't have it, and are plagued by glitches and bad design. Can I just say AAA games for my answer actually?

machomuu
July 1st, 2013, 04:48 PM
You know I don't get this "too short" complain.
So get this...
I bought Skyrim for 50 euros, a 300+ hours game. I also bought Metal Gear Rising at the same price, but it's a 5 hours game. Guess which one was worth the money?

The 5 hour game. Why? Because actually having good gameplay and design plus with the replay value (THIS is important) I played that game way more than crappy Skyrim.

Replay value is what you should be looking for. Metal Gear Rising has it, Skyrim does not. Most of the games that are considered the best are also short. If anything, the shorter the game, the better, especially if it has replay value.


Which is actually my answer for this topic. I'll echo the DRM and DLC complains, but the lack of replay value is also big.

Most AAA games don't have it, and are plagued by glitches and bad design. Can I just say AAA games for my answer actually?
I don't know if I agree with the "the shorter, the better" sentiment, but I do think that there is a big problem with short games with little replay value, or long/open games with repetitive design and the consumer's dollar. For instance, it's common for games that are new on consoles to be $60/$50...but is that always what they're worth?

Let's take a big example: Bioshock Infinite. Bioshock Infinite is 10 hours long. It doesn't really have replay value...in fact, it's story PRIDES itself on not having replay value, but it remains to be $60 and people are content with it for the experience, extending said experience with paid DLC (thus, not included in the $60 price).

Now, let's take a game like Persona 4. Persona 4 is around 50 hours and also has a lot of replay value for several reasons (with Persona 4 Golden having around 5-10 hours of gameplay, story, and content more than the original had). Now, ignoring the replay value, you're paying $50 ($40 for Golden) for what will probably last you weeks, if not more (depending on the players play style and interest). Now, adding on the replay value, you get a game that will last you a good while.

Now, one experience is 10+ hours long for $60+, while the other is $50 and $40 for 50+ and 60+ hours.

When you compare those prices, you might start to scratch your head at the investment. You might say, "Well, obviously the latter is the better deal." The thing is, it is a matter of what you get of the experience, and Infinite, which is a very movie-like game with an emphasis on profoundness and player investment, is as good a price as P4 in that respect.

The reason I say this is because it's more a matter of what the game does that should be indicative of its price than anything else, rather than how long it lasts you. Now, I'd say that P4 could well be worth $60, but that's not really my point here.

Now would I buy Bioshock at full price? Probably not. See, the story in Bioshock is easily the best part, but the gameplay and length, as well as the environments can often be underutilized and lacking. The reason I bring this up is because in the case is because price is a culmination of all of these factors. Good gameplay is something that will keep the player coming back. It adds replay value. Replay value isn't just a matter of New Game+ or new modes after the end, it's a matter of making a game with features that will keep the player coming back or yearning more when they know there is nothing else.

I'm not saying that a short game can't be worth that much (for a lot of people, BI was a game that fit that description), even if its intent is to be played once and only once, especially considering the amount of work and money that go into making some games, but there are a lot of games, and I mean A LOT of games, that don't really price their games according to a sort of Experience-longevity scale and just use the $60 marker because it's easiest (and many times most efficient). Plus, because there's little bark against it.

Mr. X
July 1st, 2013, 05:50 PM
Most games being so short I can beat them in under a week nowadays kind of gets on my nerves tbh especially given how expensive they can be as well to where I end up buying 180 bucks worth of games only to beat most if not all of them before the weekend rolls in.

This.

Seriously. Back in the day, I'd pay 20-30 for a game and it would take me more then a week to beat it.

Games now? 60 a pop, and hey you've beaten it a few hours. It's hard to say just how much of this is games getting easier, or just being a veteran gamer though - A little of both probably.

There are some exceptions, Fallout/Skyrim comes to mind, but most modern games are like this.

Really though, it's not the price thats the issue - It's how easy it is to beat the games and them having little to no replay value.

To Spinosaurus about Skyrim lacking replay value - I dislike Skyrim, but how the game is designed gives it replay value, and not to mention the (very) large number of mods available for it.

Boomburst
July 3rd, 2013, 09:04 AM
Nostalgia marketing. This is just glorified rehashing from old games, and just adding 'new' features from past games is not a acceptable substitute for actual innovation.

Free to Play. Never have I seen a feature that festers of cash grab than this. It just draws people in to thinking they are going to have a good time, yet every second a pop-up appears asking for your money. I've seen some Free to Play (TF2) work well, but most of it is a scam.

Forced Gameplay Simplification. While I know the casual market equals green, there is no excuse to lose your fans over taking away features that made a game fun and adding features that make me feel like I'm back in nursery. I don't hate easy modes, but forcing the change will make your series crumble.

Always Online DRM. We get it, you only in it for the money. Stop treating me like a criminal.

Dark and Gritty Reboots. These never work, in any media form really, but games are the worst. Making your series darker and more serious just takes all the fun and strangely depresses the player.

TRIFORCE89
July 3rd, 2013, 03:55 PM
Bad menus and, worse, quick time events.

Brendino
July 3rd, 2013, 10:26 PM
Since almost all of my other complaints have been said (overpriced DLC, online DRM, short games), one of the biggest things that bothers me is when a company shuts down online features, even if the game isn't that old. EA has always been notorious for this, as basically any game of there's that's over 2 years old, they shut off their servers, even if the game is still popular. Game Freak just announced they'd be doing this to the Gen 5 Dream World as well at the beginning of 2014, even though B/W2 haven't been around for a year yet outside of Japan.

I understand that it costs money to keep servers and things up, but why not just dedicate fewer of them as the game becomes less popular, rather than pulling the plug while the game's still being played by a bunch of people?

R.F.
July 4th, 2013, 02:12 AM
Bad menus and, worse, quick time events.
Or much better: quick time events where it doesn't even matter if you screw up. (if anyone has seen Microsoft at E3 showing off Ryse)

I couldn't care less regarding DLC. If I don't want it, I don't by it. DRM has it's uses, but most of the time it's implemented pretty bad (like EAs always online stuff).

Mediocre story combined with annoying and/or boring gameplay, mainly caused by short release dates (which normally means lots of DLCs). Games which only good point is the graphics (I miss the times where graphics wheren't more important than story/gameplay...). Or to take this short: games I can't play longer than 5 minutes, because boring.

Limerent
July 4th, 2013, 05:05 AM
Terrible online services ruining what could be an otherwise great game. Looking at you Ubisoft. Their servers are absolutely appalling. How much games cost in Australia on release. About $100. But then again I don't work so I can't complain about not affording stuff. @Brendino really? That sucks but it's understandable for EA titles like FIFA which are the same thing rehashed each year.

machomuu
July 4th, 2013, 07:32 AM
@Brendino really? That sucks but it's understandable for EA titles like FIFA which are the same thing rehashed each year.
...How is that understandable, exactly?

CrowSvenson
July 4th, 2013, 07:35 AM
DLC, Re-hashes, Dark and Gritty reboots, Quick-time events, short or bad story modes, Multiplayer focus... so many other things. too many to list.

Brendino
July 4th, 2013, 01:15 PM
Terrible online services ruining what could be an otherwise great game. Looking at you Ubisoft. Their servers are absolutely appalling. How much games cost in Australia on release. About $100. But then again I don't work so I can't complain about not affording stuff. @Brendino really? That sucks but it's understandable for EA titles like FIFA which are the same thing rehashed each year....How is that understandable, exactly?For the companies themselves (in this case, EA), it makes sense, because they're focusing their attention at selling the new games and making sure they're working properly. The problem is, I have no desire to buy pretty much the same game every second year just so I can continue playing online. So basically, those EA games I have that are over two years old are useless to me, since I've long worn out the offline modes, and can't even go online to play with my friends. It's no wonder that in doing things like this, plus their Sim City fiasco, etc. that EA's been named the worst company in America for the past couple of years.

Princess Sandshrew
July 5th, 2013, 08:24 AM
Recently I've been very annoyed when a game stops you to tell you things every 5 minutes or forcing you to go do something that doesn't have any particular relevance to the story, I wouldn't mind if it were optional and would likely go do it on a first play-through but subsequent play-through I already know how all these things work and that they are there.

I would love for games to have a setting of 'I've played this game before' and it will skip any tutorial or any pointing out of places/things.

Sweets Witch
July 6th, 2013, 06:16 AM
Multiplayer focus. I don't like how the market for multiplayer games is so large that developers feel the need to integrate some kind of multiplayer mode (usually online) into practically everything. With FPS games it feels like the single player mode is just there as a courtesy because the focus is so heavy on multiplayer. Hell, even CoD Zombies is boring as hell if you play it alone. But I don't want to play with other people - I want to play alone.

Cordelia
July 6th, 2013, 06:30 AM
I do agree that the focus on multiplayer is not good when it hurts single player, but if both are good then I'm good with it. DLC is kind of a pain in itself... but I do understand why they do it. I just remember when we didn't have DLC on any games and games were actually complete. xD But if it truly IS extra (which you can't tell anyway), then I guess it's ok.

Cerberus87
July 6th, 2013, 07:10 AM
DLC, short single player, dumbed down gameplay for casuals.

Ckbruin
July 18th, 2013, 05:28 AM
Excessive DLCs (i.e. customizations for $0.49/$0.99 each and there's 100+ of them), co-op based gameplay (i.e. bosses that take teamwork to kill, and are near-impossible to kill on solo), unbalanced gunplay/swordplay, "forced walking" situations (those times when you're forced to move at a snail's pace just to hear stories or "enjoy the scenery"), clunky/horrible controls. Yeah, that's a lot I know ._. Ironically, a lot of these things are present in my favorite games...