Criticisms of video games you are tired of hearing

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
Maximum Bert said:
Its not realistic. I can get this criticism if the game is marketed as something like a realistic aircraft simulator but it boggles my mind when people complain about this in games that obviously arent going for slavish recreations of realism because they are more concerned with being a game and providing an enjoyable experience.

Most games arent going for realism just some facsimile of it unless they were going for ultra realism and the game demands it then I dont see its lack of realism as a criticism merely an observation similar to saying the sky is blue.
I don't think it's fair to dismiss that criticism per se. I think everyone cares about a certain amount of realism in most games. For instance, if in BF4 they decided to make it so that tanks can get insta killed by a knife people would justifiably have something like "this makes no sense". Most people who complain about realism complain about certain aspects they would find more enjoyable if more realistic.
 

IceForce

Is this memes?
Legacy
Dec 11, 2012
2,384
16
13
Tom Templeton said:
I'm sick of hearing about the 'PC Master Race and Dirty Console Scrubs' crap.
"Peasant". The word you're looking for is "peasant".

"Dirty console peasant".

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-glorious-pc-gaming-master-race
 

JediMB

New member
Oct 25, 2008
3,094
0
0
Jasper van Heycop said:
I understand 30 fps on last generation consoles, as they're prehistoric in terms of tech, but on current gen consoles or the PC it is simply inexcusable.
Man, I've been hearing this argument since the Gamecube/PS2/Xbox generation. People were saying that current-gen games shouldn't be running at 30 fps, but it was understandable that it was done on the PS1 and N64.

Apparently the industry at large prefers something fancy-looking over a smooth framerate, no matter what generation we're currently on.
 

KarlMonster

New member
Mar 10, 2009
393
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
Maximum Bert said:
Its not realistic...
This is another one that pisses me off pretty badly. It's majorly missing the point of FICTION to begin with, to show the viewers a world that's different than ours, that doesn't have the same rules. I suppose my initial post about people complaining about things in video games not making sense has to do with this as well.
Why is Truth stranger than Fiction? It is because Fiction has *got* to make sense!
A fictional/alternative world is typically a reflection of, or an interpretation of, the real world that we live in. We live in a world that is completely coherent, complementary, and where everything is normal.

Unless you have taken the time to examine the flaws of the real world.

And I'm going to take that one step further with my major irritant; "the weapons feel weak/light/(whatever)".
Excuse me? You're sitting on your butt, playing a videogame that cost about the same as 3 boxes of pistol ammunition. The weapons don't feel like anything, because you aren't really holding them. A majority of the critics don't appreciate the basic truth that, if presented with an actual firearm, its is actually difficult to hit what you are aiming at. Nevermind that the propellant generates a significant amount of force which, as Galileo and Newton explained, affects the user as well. Maybe firearms are made of papier mache in the future? Deal with it.

On a separate, but realism related note: someone complained that the player character in Miasmata was horrible and unrealistic, especially in matters of movement. Well, yeah, its not a Space Marine. I think Miasmata is positively marvelous. Right down to the way that the player character moves like an obese person with a bad sense of balance. Last I heard, the average American was not at his/her ideal Space Marine weight. Go watch a toddler who hasn't quite learned to walk yet and watch it climb stairs. It may not be the way that you or I would do it, but it works, doesn't it? I use that example as a specific real-world case where unintuitive movement works quite well. And because that sort of non-intuitive movement works in Miasmata. Miasmata is actually more realistic than that person wants to believe. And I give it a finger.
 

AntiChri5

New member
Nov 9, 2011
584
0
0
MeChaNiZ3D said:
AntiChri5 said:
"The developers were being lazy!"

No. No no no no no.

Just because there is something in the game that isn't to your satisfaction, or something not included you think should have been, doesn't mean that that is because the devs spent the time they were going to spend on it masturbating. Most of the time it simply wasn't a priority. Resources like time and manpower are finite. The devs have to choose what to focus on and what to sacrifice. Disagree with what they focus on all you like, but don't be so arrogant to assume that they were just wasting time or couldn't be bothered to do it right.
A mechanic can be lazy because a dev prioritised without the dev being lazy. Lazy storytelling comes about through lack of effort put into the delivery or structure of the story, but it doesn't mean the lack of effort wasn't valid. I think a lot of the time "The devs were being lazy" actually means "the devs didn't focus on this and as a result the thing itself is lazy". If that makes sense.
I see what you are saying, but my complaint is about people outright stating that the devs were simply being lazy, not expressing the view that a mechanic or trope is lazy.

My problem with it is mostly the assumption of a motive when we simply can't know. Maybe they half assed it and just lifted a mechanic from a more successful game. Or maybe they spent weeks testing and experimenting with a mechanic before coming to the conclusion that this other game did it that way for a very good reason and that that was the best way to implement the mechanic. The end result is the same, the game they make has the same mechanic, but the process is unknown to us and thinking of it as lazy feel presumptuous to me. Especially with what i have heard about crunch time.
 

MrHide-Patten

New member
Jun 10, 2009
1,309
0
0
Tom Templeton said:
That and the whole PC vs Console argument. I'm sick of hearing about the 'PC Master Race and Dirty Console Scrubs' crap. It's depressing when I bring up a game like Silent Hill 2 and get verbally smacked down because it was on consoles.
This. Can't we all just co-exist, and like games regardless of how you play them. It's like a Dorkly comic pointed out; Two people are talking about their favorite food and are having a good time, but then they have different ways of eating (one eats out of a bowl, the other a plate) and they start tearing into each other.

That's what it feels like. At the end of the day it just makes primary PC players look like smug assholes.
 

AntiChri5

New member
Nov 9, 2011
584
0
0
TopazFusion said:
I'm gonna go real meta with this and say I'm sick of people criticising those who have criticisms.

I'm so sick of people dismissing and hand-waving away legitimate criticisms as nothing more than "whining", "fanboyism", and "entitlement".

I can't even discuss my (legitimate, not whiny) criticisms of Mass Effect 3, without people raining on the parade all ready to label me as being a whiny entitled fanboy.
I am kind of on both sides of this issue. Yes, Mass Effect 3's ending was a massive fucking mess. There is an extremely fucking long list of issues with it and it is right to call them out on it.

But, on the other hand, i absolutely love almost all the rest of the game (notable exceptions like Kai Leng notwithstanding) and am well and truly tired of the way the ending debate takes over all discussions on the topic when the point was well and truly made years ago. Im going to have to quote a post i made in a different forum a while back.

"It was shit, they changed it to be a little bit less shit, it's not as shit as it could be and not as shit as some other shit i have smelled. But most importantly this shit was shat a year ago, i stopped being able to smell it long ago."
 

Pink Gregory

New member
Jul 30, 2008
2,296
0
0
Tom Templeton said:
The graphics argument. You know, where people will say the game you like sucks because it was on the PS2 or in 16-bit, and not photo-realistic like Call Of Duty or Last of us, and that they can't enjoy a game with stylized graphics because it looks unrealistic. That and the whole PC vs Console argument. I'm sick of hearing about the 'PC Master Race and Dirty Console Scrubs' crap. It's depressing when I bring up a game like Silent Hill 2 and get verbally smacked down because it was on consoles.
...Ironic considering that SH2 did have a PC port, if I'm not mistaken.

Not that it's available now, but nonetheless.
 

SKBPinkie

New member
Oct 6, 2013
552
0
0
"Brown / gray military shooters"

This just means that you have an issue with the game being a military shooter. It not having color is a bullshit "argument", because you never hear that complaint when it comes to games like Fallout, Skyrim, GTA IV, etc. Especially Fallout, what with its muddy tetures and vomit-inducing color palet.

I don't like most military shooters either, but there are actual, legitimate problems with their pacing, mechanics and other gameplay elements that contribute to that opinion.
 

Liquidprid3

New member
Jan 24, 2014
237
0
0
Definitely the "what makes a game" criticism. It is such a pointless discssion, and it's been done to death. I still don't understand why people only use modern day examples. How is The Wolf Among Us any less of a game than Zork? Some people bring up the "no penalty or death" or thing, or there's no game over screen. Not every game has to Super Meat Boy. Sme games go for an experience.

I also hate the constant discussion of art games. Again, these games go for an experience instead of non-stop action. The reason they aren't games is the same reason as story-driven games. I don't mind if people dislike story games or art driven games, but when people constantly go on the Steam forums yelling "THIS ISN'T A GAME" is crossing the line. We've heard this discussion a million times, it's becoming the Mass Eddect 3 ending, or Dark Souls "artificial difficulty."

Some games set out to accomplish different goals for the player, ad make them see or feel something different. I don't care if its a game or not, as long as I enjoy it.
 

Tom_green_day

New member
Jan 5, 2013
1,384
0
0
People mis-use the word 'generic'
They use it to refer to a game that's similar to other games, such as CoD or GTA.
"Oh Call of Duty Modern Warfare 8 is soooo generic, I hate MMS"
It's meant to mean an unspecific and/or random choice of the selection.
"The game is better than the generic MMS"
Amongst other uses of course.
 

elvor0

New member
Sep 8, 2008
2,320
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
For me, it was hard to pick just one, but I'll go with "this plot doesn't make sense!" and the related "what this character did doesn't make sense!" This could applied to fiction in general really.

I've found that this criticism is outright wrong the vast majority of the time I hear it, and when it is right it's even more often deliberate. When somebody brings this up it usually means either A. the writers just respected the intelligence of it's audience (even though apparently they shouldn't have) and decided to use a little subtlety instead of spoon feeding the plot in the most blatantly obvious manner possible or B. they forget they are the audience not the participants in the game, or possibly both.

The first is very annoying. Most of the time the plot and what characters do makes plenty of sense if one thinks about it for more than 5 seconds. The whole thing might have been open to interpretation as well.
No, nope. I think about the plots quite a bit. If there's a gaping plot whole or inconsistancy, I will pick up on it, I will reference ealier events and I will show you why it doesn't make sense. Surely it's "if you think about for /longer/ than 5 seconds, it doesnt make sense?"

Plus "open to interpretation" is very unlikely in video games, and is a massive massive copout.

The complaint "the plot doesn't make sense" is usually levelled at a plot, when the plot doesn't make sense within it's own world, or is inconsistant not that the player has failed to grasp it. Even the most complicated video game plots arn't that complex to pick up on, provided you were y'know FUCKING PAYING ATTENTION. Which granted some people dont, but y'know, they probablly don't care.
 

sakesend

New member
Apr 11, 2014
5
0
0
Elijin said:
Framerate and resolution.

Obviously not the valid complaints like 'This game runs at 5 fps and is nigh unplayable.'

Im talking the high end stuff, with the same people coming back to tell us we should be offended by one framerate, and another perfectly playable framerate is unplayable, etc etc.

In fact, broaden this whole rant to anyone who argues about tech once it hits the higher ends. Go to a tech forums. Gamers in general probably dont care about the finer points of your debate, so long as the game is playable.
This. I have a friend who only wants to play The Wind Waker because it's now available in 1080p. I have no issue with him taking an interest in the game, but the notion that it wasn't worth his time before now because of its graphics makes no sense to me, especially because its graphics have often been praised since its release.

Another one that gets me about a specific game is when people say about Minecraft 'It's cool you built that and all, but what's the point? You've just made something in a game, it's a waste of time.'
Personally, I see no difference between creative outlets in Minecraft and creative outlets like writing, drawing, etc.. If you spent 10 hours drawing a piece of art, writing a poem, composing a song noone would question that and more likely than not they'd praise you for it...but spend 10 hours building something in Minecraft and it suddenly becomes a waste of time.
 

Bart XB

New member
Apr 6, 2014
15
0
0
That Resident Evil is the Resident Evil of old anymore.

Well, it's good that it isn't. The controls schemes of those old RE games are horribly dated. While I consider RE2 one the best games I ever played, it's not likely I'm ever going to play it again because the controls suck. When it first came out it was new and exciting enough for me to look past that. Something I can't do today. Not even nostalgia can save those old RE games for me.

RE5 was brilliant, for sure one of the very best games of the x360/ps3 generation. :)
 

Smooth Operator

New member
Oct 5, 2010
8,162
0
0
You know I ran this in my head a couple of times and there is no specific criticisms I have a problem with, it is their delivery or lack of a delivery.
We seem all to eager smacking down some snappy phrases as if they completely explain everything, when they actually don't do it at all as they are thrown around every time someone wants to look hip in the discussion. And worse yet instead of continuing the discussion towards the source of the issue we just latch onto those phrases and dispute them instead of actually talking of the game.

Obviously Mr. Croshaw is to blame for all this, damn you and your snappy humour!
 

Zanderinfal

New member
Nov 21, 2009
442
0
0
Sack of Cheese said:
Linearity.
A linear game is not necessary bad, it just means your experience is manually crafted by the developers. A well-crafted adventure can be just as fun as an open-world sandbox one.
Yup, this the whole way.

The Half-Life games were really quite linear at the end of the day and nobody complained. Reason being; you had enough room to breathe and explore through the interesting environments and the gameplay complimented that. Linear campaigns aren't bad as such, it's the games that take it to the extreme where you're essentially a rat being led down a pipe in a way that just makes the game frustrating and boring, Ala Call of Duty, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, etc.

Hell, I'll say it, the first Halo was pretty good when it came to exploration combined with linearity. The thing was, it felt alot more open and more down to the player but still with well constructed levels that had flow (well, with some exceptions *shudders*).
 

StriderShinryu

New member
Dec 8, 2009
4,987
0
0
Liquidprid3 said:
Definitely the "what makes a game" criticism.
This is easily my number one pick as well. I can absolutely understand if you personally enjoy a more "gamey" experience over a less traditional one. That's cool, but it's a preference. There is nothing at all bad about a game that takes a less traditional approach on any level other than it may not be what you personally enjoy. And more games taking that less traditional approach, or maybe just those games getting more exposure, isn't somehow going to destroy gaming as we know it and magically make all games into less traditional games.

This sort of extends into my other less focused pet peeve about criticism, that being where legitimate design decisions are raised as problems about a game when it's clear that it is just a matter of personal preference. Now, I'm not saying that personal preference shouldn't be stated when someone is giving their opinion of a game. What I am saying is simply that it's okay when something isn't designed for your personal tastes. That doesn't make it bad, it just means it's not for you. If a game has, for example, a punishing level of difficulty incorporated into the core design of the game and you don't like punishing difficulty, that's fine. You don't have to like the game and you don't have to play the game, but it doesn't make it a bad game. A game developer should be encouraged to make the game they want to make, as much as any existing publishing deals allow anyway. It's their game, not yours, and it's okay when every game isn't designed specifically for your individual tastes.
 

LightningFast

New member
Feb 6, 2013
58
0
0
As a Nintendo fan, I've heard "It's exactly like the earlier one in the series but with new levels/dungeons/etc.!" a lot.

... and? I`m not saying I want to play the New New New New Super New Mario New Bros., even I'm sick of that crap, but if I purchase a sequel to a game I've played before, you can bet it's because I liked the first and want more of it. Most games this criticism is thrown at also have enough changes to differ it from its earlier installments, too.
 

Animakuro

New member
Oct 27, 2013
14
0
0
"They're really running out of ideas"

I hear this aimed at the Pokemon franchise most commonly and it really annoys me.
Yes, they are still making Pokemon based on foxes, bears, dogs ETC that does not mean they are running out of ideas or getting lazy. They are more then one species of these creatures in real life, so it makes more sense for to be multiple bear Pokemon.

Also with the format of the game. Personally I'd hate it if they brought out a main series Pokemon game without the classic 8 gyms, Elite Four, Evil Team, Rivals, Champion ETC that are all part of the series identity.
 

Amaror

New member
Apr 15, 2011
1,509
0
0
Sack of Cheese said:
Linearity.
A linear game is not necessary bad, it just means your experience is manually crafted by the developers. A well-crafted adventure can be just as fun as an open-world sandbox one.
Yes a linear game is not particulary bad, but making things too linear can cripple a game quite considerably.
The best example is Xcom Enemy Unknown. The original was a game you could play over and over again because it was so organic and every battle was unique in some way. This is still true of Enemy unknown, but missions like the "Alien Base Assault" and the "Base Defence", missions that are highly linear, ruin the replayability for me.
The missions are fun the first time, maybe the second time, but after that they just get tedious and i have come to a point were i would like to play the game again, but always shy away from it, because i don't want to have to sit through those boring missions again.