8 Videogame Trends that Need to Die
- Thread starter ffronw
- Start date
Heyyyyyy...Assassin's creed multiplayer mode was surprisingly good. For a while at least. Not too convinced on the unity co-operative mode though; screwing up is easy enough on my own...
...Actually the multiplayer always had micro-transactions. Fuck the multiplayer!
...Actually the multiplayer always had micro-transactions. Fuck the multiplayer!
I think one of those shining examples that multiplayer isn't needed is Metro 2033. Pure singleplayer and one of the best FPS games I've played. It shows that the AAA industry can make brilliant singleplayer games when they put their minds to it instead of just having the story as an afterthought.
In defense of "lockpick" minigames!
So, you've got an action that you want to be gated, such that you can't automatically succeed at it, but isn't itself core gameplay. You can:
(1) Unlock it based on character stats
(2) Percentage chance based on character stats
(3) Minigame with difficulty based on character stats
(Also, various combinations thereof, such as minigames that you need a minimum stat to even attempt)
Of these options, I prefer the third.
Option 1 tends to feel arbitrary, as the stat you need generally increases in such a way that it's difficult to know when you need to invest and when such investment would be wasted. Still, this would be my second choice.
Option 2 is incredibly annoying. Nothing makes me decide to save scum like failing a 90% chance to get a significant upgrade.
Option 3 does a bunch of things right: (A) the difficulty you're having with the games is constant feedback towards whether you want to invest in them, (B) with save scumming you still have to complete the challenge you failed, and even (C) it's a nice break from the usual gameplay. The danger, of course, is that fans of the "larger" game may very well not be fans of the minigame. So, you could do something that many examples of the genre do in fact do: make it optional. You can simply spend a quantity of some other resource to successfully skip the minigame.
Admittedly, my opinion is colored by the fact that I mostly enjoy these little games, some of them a great deal. I even liked Bioshock's pipe dream.
So, you've got an action that you want to be gated, such that you can't automatically succeed at it, but isn't itself core gameplay. You can:
(1) Unlock it based on character stats
(2) Percentage chance based on character stats
(3) Minigame with difficulty based on character stats
(Also, various combinations thereof, such as minigames that you need a minimum stat to even attempt)
Of these options, I prefer the third.
Option 1 tends to feel arbitrary, as the stat you need generally increases in such a way that it's difficult to know when you need to invest and when such investment would be wasted. Still, this would be my second choice.
Option 2 is incredibly annoying. Nothing makes me decide to save scum like failing a 90% chance to get a significant upgrade.
Option 3 does a bunch of things right: (A) the difficulty you're having with the games is constant feedback towards whether you want to invest in them, (B) with save scumming you still have to complete the challenge you failed, and even (C) it's a nice break from the usual gameplay. The danger, of course, is that fans of the "larger" game may very well not be fans of the minigame. So, you could do something that many examples of the genre do in fact do: make it optional. You can simply spend a quantity of some other resource to successfully skip the minigame.
Admittedly, my opinion is colored by the fact that I mostly enjoy these little games, some of them a great deal. I even liked Bioshock's pipe dream.
Hey there Escapist. I'm not normally this forward but I was wondering if you'd like to go get a drink some time? Sure we don't always agree on everything but after reading this I think we have a lot in common.
I think we may be approaching an age where every game need to be reviewed three times. Once on release to drum up the sales figures, the second time so the multiplayer can be reliably commented upon, and finally two months down the line once they've got round to a couple of patches to fix it based on feedback from their customers and it's finally what it should have been at step one.
I think we may be approaching an age where every game need to be reviewed three times. Once on release to drum up the sales figures, the second time so the multiplayer can be reliably commented upon, and finally two months down the line once they've got round to a couple of patches to fix it based on feedback from their customers and it's finally what it should have been at step one.
DRM needs to die.
I suppose we could count things like Day 1 patches (games ship "broken" as a means of validating the legitimacy of the install) and microtransactions as DRM, since they require connecting you to the companies servers to complete the process. It's a rather insidious form when you think about it.
Escort missions I am kind of on the fence with, when done right (see Enslaved: Odyssey to the West), they are actually pretty fun to play.
I suppose we could count things like Day 1 patches (games ship "broken" as a means of validating the legitimacy of the install) and microtransactions as DRM, since they require connecting you to the companies servers to complete the process. It's a rather insidious form when you think about it.
Escort missions I am kind of on the fence with, when done right (see Enslaved: Odyssey to the West), they are actually pretty fun to play.
I like the idea of buying something day one to get a little something extra for my support. And I don't like the idea that it's my fault that developers take the mick. Isn't it kind of victim-blaming? Shouldn't there be an inherent trust- a mutual respect between developer and consumer?
I know that this just isn't how the world works, but come on. I don't care if you make me wait, just don't screw me over and shrug. And I don't want my fellow consumer acting like it's "all my fault" that I expected some decency.
I know that this just isn't how the world works, but come on. I don't care if you make me wait, just don't screw me over and shrug. And I don't want my fellow consumer acting like it's "all my fault" that I expected some decency.
The only thing I can honestly disagree with is pre-ordering, but mostly because there are non-AAA games that would not get stocked on the shelves because not enough people pre-ordered it in the first place... I mean, why stock something that doesn't even have a "guaranteed chance" of selling, right?
Other than that, pre-order bonuses should only be physical as well as pre-orders, in general, only applying to physical copies...
Other than that, pre-order bonuses should only be physical as well as pre-orders, in general, only applying to physical copies...
I agree with almost everything you just said (mini-games are debatable), but I don't think you go far enough!
DRM needs to not exist, especially Always Online (unless it's an MMO of course).
QuickTime Events. How did you miss this one?
Arbitrary FPS caps.
Selling/promoting Interactive Novels/Walking Simulators as Games. There really is a difference.
Oh, yes. Making your character move like he is controlled by an analog stick. Very clunky and slow.
Also, Over-the-shoulder cams are another thing that detracts from playing a game.
Basically, more Power To The Player.
DRM needs to not exist, especially Always Online (unless it's an MMO of course).
QuickTime Events. How did you miss this one?
Arbitrary FPS caps.
Selling/promoting Interactive Novels/Walking Simulators as Games. There really is a difference.
Oh, yes. Making your character move like he is controlled by an analog stick. Very clunky and slow.
Also, Over-the-shoulder cams are another thing that detracts from playing a game.
Basically, more Power To The Player.
Adding onto what @Pyrian said, there are good ways and bad ways to do a minigame.
The lockpicking in Bioshock was fine for me, because it was a contained experience that increased in difficulty as you went along, and rewarded you for mastering that subsystem. Meanwhile, the mining of Mass Effect 2 was garbage because there was no challenge to it, no change in the game or restrictions to encourage you to do better. It was literally, "Run your cursor around this planet, occasionally clicking, until you think you've got everything. There's no penalty for not getting everything, because there is an abundance of resources everywhere, so you can refill whenever you require." It wasn't a game, it was a completionist exercise.
It just leaves the person buying the game convinced that the game has content that they are not getting, and with no clear motivation to get it from any store specifically.
The lockpicking in Bioshock was fine for me, because it was a contained experience that increased in difficulty as you went along, and rewarded you for mastering that subsystem. Meanwhile, the mining of Mass Effect 2 was garbage because there was no challenge to it, no change in the game or restrictions to encourage you to do better. It was literally, "Run your cursor around this planet, occasionally clicking, until you think you've got everything. There's no penalty for not getting everything, because there is an abundance of resources everywhere, so you can refill whenever you require." It wasn't a game, it was a completionist exercise.
That is a practise that always makes me curious. People are almost never going to buy more that one copy of a game. They also likely have a preferred store that they go to for their games, based on customer service/geography/selection/something that is not tied to the price, given how static those are across retailers. When you offer exclusive bonuses at 4 different retailers, you're not really giving anyone an incentive to change, because they can get some of those special costumes at one store but not at another, so it all balances out unless they have very strong feelings about Ryu.JCAll said:
It just leaves the person buying the game convinced that the game has content that they are not getting, and with no clear motivation to get it from any store specifically.
Very good list, but I would take out minigames and put in sudden, unannounced difficulty spikes and puzzles, in non-puzzles games, that potentially block off a player's progress. The Barrel of Doom from Sonic 3 still stings to this day. Minigames still count in that regard. The one time you have to play the poorly explained card game in FFIX and defeat the champion in a tourney always bites. Shitty minigames that drag the game to a halt, even if easy, are still my no. 9.
Multiplayer in everything is getting pretty ridiculous. It's the easy way to make more money with DLC. It's quicker money to just have the level designers and environment artists make some new maps and sell the pack for $10, than to spend the time (re: time = money) to think of a story and possibly new, complex environments and characters for DLC. Bonus points if you lock out the fun game types behind that new pay wall every so often *cough*Bungie/MS with Team Swat in the Halos*cough*.
At least there has been enough screw ups pointing out these obvious flaws that the trend only hits one or two games released a year.
Multiplayer in everything is getting pretty ridiculous. It's the easy way to make more money with DLC. It's quicker money to just have the level designers and environment artists make some new maps and sell the pack for $10, than to spend the time (re: time = money) to think of a story and possibly new, complex environments and characters for DLC. Bonus points if you lock out the fun game types behind that new pay wall every so often *cough*Bungie/MS with Team Swat in the Halos*cough*.
I think that falls under the criteria for "Releasing games that are broken." They are broken by design, and will be further broken when the servers fail. Still, that point get's my #1 vote if this list is ever made again.Geisterkarle said:
At least there has been enough screw ups pointing out these obvious flaws that the trend only hits one or two games released a year.
Shoehorning in multiplayer is a valid point, but Assassin's Creed Brotherhood was possibly the worst example you could have used, as it's actually an EXCELLENT implementation of multiplayer in a franchise that made its name as a singleplayer story. Something like the multiplayer mode in Tomb Raider may have been more fitting.
I don't see what's wrong with day 1 patches. Realistically, a game will always have bugs, and it is better for them to be fixing them than not fixing them.
Of course, the game shouldn't have mandatory patching for single player content, and the game should be reasonably stable unpatched, but if those are true there is nothing wrong with fixing minor bugs after going gold, and if a showstopper that QA somehow missed is discovered, it is better to fix it than not fix it.
Of course, the game shouldn't have mandatory patching for single player content, and the game should be reasonably stable unpatched, but if those are true there is nothing wrong with fixing minor bugs after going gold, and if a showstopper that QA somehow missed is discovered, it is better to fix it than not fix it.
For your support? What support...? You were promised a product and you paid for it. That's not 'support,' that's a transaction. And since you're not paying any extra for the game, and you've guaranteed yourself a copy on launch, I'm curious as to what 'something extra' you're entitled to that other paying customers are not.Headsprouter said:
A game's success is, in the publishing industry, measured on its launch day sales and that includes pre-orders, hence their popularity. They're getting shadier and shadier and it's just not something we should be in support of. How many bad launches will you endure before you call the whole thing off?