What is Wrong with Gaming Today?

[pompayyy]

• When people choose sides. (Console vs PC, WiiU vs XboxOne vs PS4, etc.) Just play what you like with what you have.
• Day-One DLC (I'm fine with DLC, but when it comes out on day one it feels like they could've put more in the game.)
• 8-Bit Bandwagon (It's annoying seeing 2 million games where retro graphics are the only gimmick)
• People who complain about how old games rock and new games suck/vice versa
• Nostalgia Blinding
• Critics that can't tell the difference between things they don't like, and things that are bad.
• MICROTRANSACTIONS

 

[Kenna18155]

How trading Pokémon is required to finish the Dex.

When I switch from Halo to CoD and get all the buttons wrong >.>

 

[Klippy]

I hate yearly releases of barely changed games (Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, etc.) I hate the idea of wasting money on the same game, but to each their own. Some people enjoy that type of game so often and love the new story enough, but I haven't been able to enjoy a CoD for years, and could barely get through an hour of either of the newest Assassin's Creed games.

 

[El Héroe Oscuro]

I hate yearly releases of barely changed games (Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, etc.) I hate the idea of wasting money on the same game, but to each their own. Some people enjoy that type of game so often and love the new story enough, but I haven't been able to enjoy a CoD for years, and could barely get through an hour of either of the newest Assassin's Creed games.

It's a shame though considering Assassin's Creed used to be a pretty good series, up until maybe Assassin's Creed 3. I honestly didn't have too much of an issue with the Ezio arc, just because I loved him as a character. But if you didn't like him, than it can be argued that things got old pretty fast due to them releasing a game every year essentially. Call of Duty now has three developers making games now so they can continue to make yearly Call of Duty games, so it doesn't look like that trend is going to be ending anytime soon either.

 

[TY]

Early access. Paying the full price for a game that is not even done yet is ridiculous. It ends up being buggy as hell and maybe the game will never finish and then there you stand with a copy of a dead game and for what? YouTube views? Few days ahead of others who didn't buy it? It makes no sense to me.

 

[Incinermyn]

How trading Pokémon is required to finish the Dex.

That has been the point of Pokémon since Generation One. The games were actually meant to encourage people to play together, even back in the day (though, it used to be just as easy to trade between your own games up to the 3DS era. It's kind of a waste of money to spring for another 3DS, but not so much to spring for Pokémon Bank/Poke Transporter).

I hate yearly releases of barely changed games (Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, etc.) I hate the idea of wasting money on the same game, but to each their own. Some people enjoy that type of game so often and love the new story enough, but I haven't been able to enjoy a CoD for years, and could barely get through an hour of either of the newest Assassin's Creed games.

Hmm... That is up for some debate... It's one thing not want to waste money on FPS that seemingly run together, but when it comes to series that like to keep the same mechanics and make some aesthetic changes to the battle system while still producing a new environment, I would have to strongly disagree that they're a waste of money. I mean, Zelda, Pokémon, and Mario haven't really changed at all in terms of how the games are played, but the environments are generally different with each new game. But then, that's just my stance...

 

[TGamer64]

One of my biggest pet peeves in gaming is when the story introduces a character and then either kills said character off 5 minutes later or kills them off several hours later and said character had 1 line of dialogue.

To me killing a character is supposed to mean something, or is supposed to make the player feel an emotion, but how are we as players supposed to feel any attachment to a character if you don't give them time to develop?

 

[Raine]

There are just so many FPS games nowadays and it seems to be all people care about. If you're not playing those, you're not a "true gamer" and etc etc. Then people look at colorful games and non-shooters and they get labeled as being immature because there are no guns involved and it's just...sad, in a sense.

I tried to get into FPS games, and would often opt to play the single-player campaign rather than multiplayer because majority of the people online are immature >>;; I'd rather not put up with jerks who think they're better than everybody else, drops f-bombs, use "your mom" jokes, and calls someone a "noob." That's not to say that everyone is exactly like that, but from my experience, 90% of them are.

- Console wars. They can be fun in a jokey way, but when you tell someone to kill themselves because they dare to own a Wii U/PS4/XB1, you need to calm the hell down.

This could go either way. As an observer who regularly reads articles that provoke a war amongst the comments, it's actually quite amusing XD But at the same time, there's people who take it way too far, and try to justify their opinions and/or "facts" with no solid evidence or the worst explanation possible. Compared to previous generations, this whole idea of one console being better than the other has been overtaking the gaming industry, in my opinion. Can't it just be about the games? ;;

 

[Sniper]

Probably the multiplayer, many just play the multiplayer.

 

[Theblackvixen]

This.

Though, to me it always sounded more like: "You don't have the latest CoD? You're such a casual gamer."

Double this. Just because I'm not playing the grisliest war game out on the market right now does not make me any less of a gamer than someone who is. It's all about taste.

 

[Kameken]

I think the notion that playing games rated less than T makes you less of a gamer is a huge problem. People see me enjoying Kirby's Adventure or Banjo Kazooie and assume pretty quickly that I'm unable to hold my own in FPS or fighting games, and it's ridiculous.

I also hate the fact that people will judge a game by its trailers and early gameplay rather than the actual product, which is a huge reason most people stay away from ESO, along with its genre. It's actually a fantastic game.

On that note, people who judge a game on its genre annoy me. An FPS can be thoughtful and creative, a sandbox game can have a good story, and a platformer can boast a creative and fun world. Quit thinking a game's a clone due to how it's controlled, I say.

Oddly enough, I don't mind DLC as long as it's not on-disc. Day one DLC is usually made before the game is released, but too late to be implemented into the final product, so it's fine by me as long as the quality is acceptable.

 

[Morkula]

What's wrong with the gaming industry?

• DLC, microtransactions, and other ways of nickel-and-diming you after you've already paid full retail price for a game. Full expansion packs or significant (extra) content is acceptable, but when you start cutting parts from the actual game, or putting the DLC on-disc, or making the game less fun unless you pay - they're all terrible. The free-to-play model is really cancerous as well.
• More concentration on "cinematic" experiences rather than actual gameplay.
• 9 out of 10 big games are bland, generic shooters.
• Bloated development budgets. Might not seem like a big deal at first, but look how many companies have gone under just because of one under-performing game. When Tomb Raider 2013, which sold I believe 3.4 million, is considered a commercial flop by its publisher, you know that there's an issue.
• Goes right along with the above, but lack of innovation. Every successful game is a yearly franchise, and publishers are afraid to deviate and take risks because of the expense of developing games nowadays. We don't get games like Okami or Zack & Wiki or Trauma Center anymore because, well, why would you do that when you can just churn out another Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed that's barely different from the last and sell millions?
• Loss of mid-tier developers. There are a few left, but for the most part, game developers are either triple-A mega-corporations or indie studios. The AAA crowd churns out the same "cinematic" stuff every year, and the indie crowd churns out low-budget games, 95% of which are "retro-style" platformers. The days of Vigil, Raven, and other of those mid-tier developers that have published some really good but criminally overlooked games are over. There are so few games now that aren't either developed or published by EA, Ubisoft, Activision, or one of the big three.

Honestly, sometimes I think the industry just needs another 80s-style crash to bring things back in line, but that's probably not going to happen, so things will likely continue in the same direction for the foreseeable future.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

What's wrong with the gaming industry?

• DLC, microtransactions, and other ways of nickel-and-diming you after you've already paid full retail price for a game. Full expansion packs or significant (extra) content is acceptable, but when you start cutting parts from the actual game, or putting the DLC on-disc, or making the game less fun unless you pay - they're all terrible. The free-to-play model is really cancerous as well.
• More concentration on "cinematic" experiences rather than actual gameplay.
• 9 out of 10 big games are bland, generic shooters.
• Bloated development budgets. Might not seem like a big deal at first, but look how many companies have gone under just because of one under-performing game. When Tomb Raider 2013, which sold I believe 3.4 million, is considered a commercial flop by its publisher, you know that there's an issue.
• Goes right along with the above, but lack of innovation. Every successful game is a yearly franchise, and publishers are afraid to deviate and take risks because of the expense of developing games nowadays. We don't get games like Okami or Zack & Wiki or Trauma Center anymore because, well, why would you do that when you can just churn out another Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed that's barely different from the last and sell millions?
• Loss of mid-tier developers. There are a few left, but for the most part, game developers are either triple-A mega-corporations or indie studios. The AAA crowd churns out the same "cinematic" stuff every year, and the indie crowd churns out low-budget games, 95% of which are "retro-style" platformers. The days of Vigil, Raven, and other of those mid-tier developers that have published some really good but criminally overlooked games are over. There are so few games now that aren't either developed or published by EA, Ubisoft, Activision, or one of the big three.

Honestly, sometimes I think the industry just needs another 80s-style crash to bring things back in line, but that's probably not going to happen, so things will likely continue in the same direction for the foreseeable future.

I agree with all of this 100%.

And another gaming crash is essential and incoming I think

 

[SippyKup]

I agree with all of this 100%.

And another gaming crash is essential and incoming I think

You guys are pretty spot on about some of the problems. Publishers making everything generic and boring is huge and contributes to micro transactions. Since video games are a huge business now, big party publishers and developers make franchises more friendly to the masses, at the cost if the soul of the game

That being said I completely disagree about another crash being essential or even feasible to happen. It happened in the 80s because the market was so small and so much was riding on that one game. Tje market is so diverse now with tons of developers if one huge game flops, it wouldn't matter.

Lets look at Nintendo. (Sad face) The Wii was the most sold console of last gen. Now the Wii U is a failure (in terms of sales) but it's barely affected the market as a whole.

If this year's COD is horrible and sells 2 copies the industry would be fine. Especially because of indie games, they require almost no budget and there's so many great ones out there.

 

[Ultra - Retro Reviver!]

Linearity and difficulty. There's literally no more "find this item" or "find that place" and games nowadays are too easy, also. I am not joking about this. I actually have to stop playing modern games and go back to Majora's Mask or Chrono Cross because the linearity and no sense of a challenging difficulty makes me cringe (figuratively). Some developers actually still have sense and actually still do it today...sometimes.

I say sometimes because one of those developers are Square-Enix. The Final Fantasy XIII games are sub-par at best with an easy difficulty (except Lightning Returns. That has an actual challenge in there) and it is extremely linear. But then there is Bravely Default for the Nintendo 3DS. Hard difficulty (unless you're playing on easy mode) and not much of a straight-forward linearity. I like that. But if we're talking plat formers linearity, then that I can let slide because plat former difficulty is usually really harsh and hurts like a spike in your eyeball (see the Three Stooges about that one). But if it's a game where you can move in four, eight or more directions and it's linear, then you have no excuse to make it plat former linear since you have so much space you can put on your overworld!