Issues in Gaming that Need to be Addressed

[Fappy]

So a decent number of users have recently expressed their joy that the Escapist is moving away from sociopolitical commentary and it got me thinking: what are some of the other issues we're still facing in gaming beyond identity politics? Just because the site will no longer weigh in on the social or political influence of games doesn't necessarily mean they won't still analyse the medium with a critical eye (I hope). I can think of a few big challenges the industry's facing right off the top of my head, like the ongoing abuse of DLC policies, lack of sufficient QA for AAA releases and the overgrowth of early access and crowd funding; but I think most of us are fairly cognisant of these kinds of issues.

What I want to know is what you think needs to be addressed. What lesser known or possibly glossed over issue do you think needs urgent attention? Why? Do you think this site has the means to pursue and possibly shine some light on this problem?

We get trapped in trends pretty easily around here, so it would be refreshing to discuss some lesser known issues.

 

[tippy2k2]

I don't know if this is what you have in mind or not but I'm going with it and there's nothing you can do to stop me! Wha ha ha haaaaa!!!

Developers/Publishers...look, I get it. This doesn't show up in screenshots and it doesn't look sexy at all but...

Can we please focus on the Intelligence part of AI? You've got Artificial down to a T but that stands for more than one word you know...

I can't remember the last time a game actually out-smarted me. I can think of games where it outplays me because it can break the mechanics while I can't (sport games/racing games). I can think of games where it just makes the guys stronger and a bigger pain in the ass to fight (uh...like...everything). I can think of games where the computer just becomes more skillful than even the greatest athletes in existence (fuck you Jackal Snipers in Halo 2's Legendary Mode!!!).

Maybe it's my fault for not playing the right games but I swear, it's hard to find a game that fights like a human. Why can't Madden realize I'm running the same play every time and adapt to stop it? Why can't when I duck down under cover in a shooter that the AI doesn't advance forward since it's enemy (me) is busy cowering (or at least throw a damn grenade my way)? Why can't the AI attempt to flank me? Why can't the AI use deception to make me think it's one way and then it shows up on the other side?

Why have I never lost a game and tipped my hat at the computer for outfoxing me?

 

[DoPo]

Why can't when I duck down under cover in a shooter that the AI doesn't advance forward since it's enemy (me) is busy cowering (or at least throw a damn grenade my way)?

Interestingly, Half-Life was praised for it's AI when it came out because it did that. If you hide behind some crates against the marines, prepare to eat some grenades. And the soldier AI also cooperated and stuff, as well[footnote]erm, when not throwing grenades at each other by accident, but still[/footnote]. It was pretty much revolutionary. And that was about 16 years ago.

What do we have nowadays? Not a lot more, really. Even after HL2 upped the game [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWYlMC8z0G8] by having some actually impressive AI work there[footnote]again, when the AI doesn't operate on the toddler logic of "If I don't see you, you don't exist" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0WqAmuSXEQ][/footnote] I don't think the enemy AI has made huge leaps of advancement, overall.

 

[Silvanus]

again, when the AI doesn't operate on the toddler logic of "If I don't see you, you don't exist" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0WqAmuSXEQ]

Tsk, that's not what that's about. Civil Protection officers just really, really like paint thinner (or whatever is in that bottle), and would prefer it not be harmed.

 

[shteev]

Why can't when I duck down under cover in a shooter that the AI doesn't advance forward since it's enemy (me) is busy cowering (or at least throw a damn grenade my way)?

Interestingly, Half-Life was praised for it's AI when it came out because it did that. If you hide behind some crates against the marines, prepare to eat some grenades. And the soldier AI also cooperated and stuff, as well[footnote]erm, when not throwing grenades at each other by accident, but still[/footnote]. It was pretty much revolutionary. And that was about 16 years ago.

People talk a lot about Half Life doing that. I don't notice it happen once playing the game.

 

[RJ 17]

Why can't when I duck down under cover in a shooter that the AI doesn't advance forward since it's enemy (me) is busy cowering (or at least throw a damn grenade my way)? Why can't the AI attempt to flank me? Why can't the AI use deception to make me think it's one way and then it shows up on the other side?

Just to play devil's advocate, I'll mention that both the Gears of War and Mass Effect series did all of the above. Well, except for the first ME, and the Locust in Gears were never especially grenade-happy...they did throw them, though, and would push to advance on your position on the harder difficulties. Hell, in ME3, any time you're up against Cerberus you're going to spend most of your time dodging grenades, especially in the multiplayer.

Now that I say that, and to be fair, most of your quote is primarily present in Horde Mode for Gears and ME3's co-op, but they still do show up in the story campaigns as well.

OT: How about pricing? Since everyone seems to be in a big hub-bub about The Order: 1886's allegedly short campaign, I do think it's a fair question to take another look at the pricing setup. Look, I'm not trying to say that a game's cost should be determined by the time it takes to complete it...but I've gotta say if you can complete a game on a single Saturday then I just don't think it's worth $60. Other people might, and I won't argue with them, as only each individual can say what a game is worth to them. But for my money, I'd like a game that takes at least 4 days to complete...preferably with features that increase replay value such as New Game+ or post-story free-roam.

Someone around here made a topic insisting that games don't really cost $60 because if you don't like them you can re-sell them for about $40. There was something about a $5 gift card from Target in there, so in the end he said that games really only cost $15-$20. I pointed out that, in the case of an incredibly short game - and proceeding under the assumption that you dislike such a short game and intend to trade it back in - that can be completed on a single Saturday, you're literally just pissing away that $15-$20 on an experience you didn't fully enjoy. Furthermore, if you buy a game, complete it, and sell it back in anything less than a week, you're essentially just renting the game for $15-$20 which is absolutely ridiculous considering you could actually rent the game for much cheaper and be rid of it in the same timeframe if you don't like it.

His rebuttal included an assortment of attempts to change the subject of the discussion, and when I wouldn't allow him to deviate from the topic at hand, he kinda stopped responding to me.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if I'm going to pay $60 for a game, I expect a bit more value than a single weekend's worth. Otherwise why not simply rent the game instead and save a lot of cash?

 

[tippy2k2]

Interestingly, Half-Life was praised for it's AI when it came out because it did that. If you hide behind some crates against the marines, prepare to eat some grenades. And the soldier AI also cooperated and stuff, as well[1]. It was pretty much revolutionary. And that was about 16 years ago.

What do we have nowadays? Not a lot more, really. Even after HL2 upped the game by having some actually impressive AI work there[2] I don't think the enemy AI has made huge leaps of advancement, overall.

That's the annoying thing; I feel like we DID have that AI at some point when the consoles and systems were far less powerful.

I remember in the original Brothers in Arms (Xbox), you did suppression and flanking fire on Ze Germans...and the enemy did it right back to you if you weren't careful. I also remember how in the newest Brothers in Arms (360) game that I never once got flanked by Ze Germans.

I remember Fire Emblem (Game Boy Advance) when it was a tough nut to crack as the AI was very smart about what it did. I also remember how my biggest complaint in the newest one was that I could just send Fredrick to the front lines and enemies would literally impale themselves on his lance (they couldn't hurt him...they were literally attacking someone they had 0 damage against).

Hell, The Last of Us has been the closest thing to "better" AI that I've seen in a game in a long while. Sure, the enemy with the baseball bat still ran directly at you like it was a Calvary charge in the Civil War but at least they would stop if they saw you point a gun at them. Usually not quick enough to avoid getting shot in the face but I guess trying to not get shot in the face is a baby step forward considering most modern shooters...

 

[tippy2k2]

Why can't when I duck down under cover in a shooter that the AI doesn't advance forward since it's enemy (me) is busy cowering (or at least throw a damn grenade my way)? Why can't the AI attempt to flank me? Why can't the AI use deception to make me think it's one way and then it shows up on the other side?

Just to play devil's advocate, I'll mention that both the Gears of War and Mass Effect series did all of the above. Well, except for the first ME, and the Locust in Gears were never especially grenade-happy...they did throw them, though, and would push to advance on your position on the harder difficulties. Hell, in ME3, any time you're up against Cerberus you're going to spend most of your time dodging grenades, especially in the multiplayer.

Now that I say that, and to be fair, most of your quote is primarily present in Horde Mode for Gears and ME3's co-op, but they still do show up in the story campaigns as well.

Certainly there are games that flirt with the idea and some games have the I in them better than others. As you stated, there are times in Gears and Mass Effect where they push forward if you hunker down too long but a lot of times, as soon as I pop up to shoot them back, they just keep charging instead of realizing that I'm back up shooting them in the face.

I also 100% agree on the pricing thing, although I think that's far less of an issue nowadays than it used to be. It has been a long time since I've paid a full $60 on a game with either specials on launch day (Best Buy LOVES giving me money for buying on launch day) or just waiting nine months or so and the games plummet in price. But back to the original point, there's nothing wrong with a short game...as long as the price reflects that (see Portal 1).

 

[Nazulu]

Why can't when I duck down under cover in a shooter that the AI doesn't advance forward since it's enemy (me) is busy cowering (or at least throw a damn grenade my way)?

Interestingly, Half-Life was praised for it's AI when it came out because it did that. If you hide behind some crates against the marines, prepare to eat some grenades. And the soldier AI also cooperated and stuff, as well[footnote]erm, when not throwing grenades at each other by accident, but still[/footnote]. It was pretty much revolutionary. And that was about 16 years ago.

People talk a lot about Half Life doing that. I don't notice it happen once playing the game.

I did. They would swing around the corner sometimes if you get too close, otherwise they waited for you to show yourself.

I can see they did that so the game wouldn't be a pain since they can fire bombs your way so easily, and those soldiers are pretty tough.

Also some enemy's like the ninja assassins and some later aliens didn't wait for you at all.

 

[Vault101]

So a decent number of users have recently expressed their joy that the Escapist is moving away from sociopolitical commentary.

was it even there in the first place?

or do we just place a big scary label on certain topics so that we can dismiss them? is discussing the fact that games (like other mediums) tend to pander to one demographic reeeeeaaaaly a "political" topic? I thought it was just common knowledge?

 

[Fappy]

So a decent number of users have recently expressed their joy that the Escapist is moving away from sociopolitical commentary.

was it even there in the first place?

or do we just place a big scary label on certain topics so that we can dismiss them? is discussing the fact that games (like other mediums) tend to pander to one demographic reeeeeaaaaly a "political" topic? I thought it was just common knowledge?

I think gender, race, etc, discussions are inherently political, but it doesn't mean they should be dismissed. For the record I don't agree with the site's stated direction and hope they change their mind about it.

 

[Vault101]

I think gender, race, etc, discussions are inherently political, but it doesn't mean they should be dismissed. For the record I don't agree with the site's stated direction and hope they change their mind about it.

of coarse EVERYTHING is inherently political

I just don't agree with throwing a "political" label on thease things so we can dance endlessly around them, like some people actually thought what Anita Sarkeesian was saying was "radical" (*snnrrrrrrk*) when in reality it was feminism 101

its not radical to point out the disparity in representation
its not "extreme" to point out why certain characters designs are objectifying and the societal aspects that cause that
it CERTAINLY not some terrible man-hating conspiracy to operate on the base assumption that woman are (more often than not) the ones getting the raw end of the deal here

if it makes people uncomfortable then if they had any exposure to *actual* radical believes it would probably make their heads explode

instead they seek out validation and point to those as the REEEASONABLE ones and the REEEEEAAAAAALLL "feminists"

 

[Fappy]

I think gender, race, etc, discussions are inherently political, but it doesn't mean they should be dismissed. For the record I don't agree with the site's stated direction and hope they change their mind about it.

of coarse EVERYTHING is inherently political

I just don't agree with throwing a "political" label on thease things so we can dance endlessly around them, like some people actually thought what Anita Sarkeesian was saying was "radical" (*snnrrrrrrk*) when in reality it was feminism 101

its not radical to point out the disparity in representation
its not "extreme" to point out why certain characters designs are objectifying and the societal aspects that cause that
it CERTAINLY not some terrible man-hating conspiracy to operate on the base assumption that woman are (more often than not) the ones getting the raw end of the deal here

if it makes people uncomfortable then if they had any exposure to *actual* radical believes it would probably make their heads explode

instead they seek out validation and point to those as the REEEASONABLE ones and the REEEEEAAAAAALLL "feminists"

I think the main issue a lot of people have is that they don't understand that feminists are allowed to disagree with each other on feminist issues. A difference in opinions doesn't make either one any less feminist than the other unless they have blatantly sexist beliefs. Such is the case with every "ism", really.

A lot of these same people also don't seem to understand why so-called SJWs protect people like Anita. This may surprise them, but most of the people on this site they'd happily give the SJW label don't actually care for Anita's content, nor do they agree with everything she has to say. They defend her on principle because most of her critics seem to want to assassinate her character rather than challenge her assertions.

*Edited a bit for clarity

 

[Sleepy Sol]

This is already fairly obvious, and I wouldn't call it glossed over, though I don't think it gets as much attention as it should.

Developer working conditions, and the ability of a publisher to use a product's performance on FRIGGING METACRITIC as a guillotine of sorts on payments. And no, that is not a problem with a journalist giving a certain score to a game. It's that something like Metacritic would be used at all to create worse conditions for people who spend months or years of their lives working on these products only to be cut loose by their employer or robbed of benefits.

We know all about "crunch time" and how typically overworked many developers are. But what can we do about it?

 

[Fappy]

This is already fairly obvious, and I wouldn't call it glossed over, though I don't think it gets as much attention as it should.

Developer working conditions, and the ability of a publisher to use a product's performance on FRIGGING METACRITIC as a guillotine of sorts on payments. And no, that is not a problem with a journalist giving a certain score to a game. It's that something like Metacritic would be used at all to create worse conditions for people who spend months or years of their lives working on these products only to be cut loose by their employer or robbed of benefits.

We know all about "crunch time" and how typically overworked many developers are. But what can we do about it?

Honestly the discussion surrounding this has quieted down substantially over the course of the last two console gens. I'm not sure if that means working conditions are proving or not, but there have been far fewer instances of developers reporting such abuse as of late.

As for Metacritic the only people you can blame are those that signed such a deal. It sucks when your boss makes a call that fucks you over, but that's kind of just the reality of business. The good news is that most developers realize how stupid it is, which is why I think we have so few instances of it happening.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I think many of the issues needing to be discussed are not really surprising. Thing like yearly iterative sequels, which are both bad and good in various measures, proper use of DLC and pricing, the place of remakes and remasters, etc. I'm just not sure that the new approach of The Escapist is actually geared to talking about. For me, I read the notes about the sites new direction as not just avoiding the tough topics but also trying to avoid negativity as a whole. Of course, in most cases I see the further examination of the above topics to be kind of pointless even if they do get the spotlight since I'm sure most of us generally agree on them anyway.

So a decent number of users have recently expressed their joy that the Escapist is moving away from sociopolitical commentary.

was it even there in the first place?

or do we just place a big scary label on certain topics so that we can dismiss them? is discussing the fact that games (like other mediums) tend to pander to one demographic reeeeeaaaaly a "political" topic? I thought it was just common knowledge?

I agree, but at the same time it's become fairly obvious that too many people just can't handle actual discussion about these sorts of topics. Just mention a few keys names, or even just words and concepts, and things explode into a firey shitstorm. The Escapist feels (perhaps rightfully) that it can't control this sort of thing and so they have decided they'll just try to avoid it altogether. Of course, they also don't want to face the potential backlash of being seen as someone who takes a side. It's safer to just stay in their little foxhole and pretend that these issues aren't important in gaming because it's all about the happy happy positive side of everything! *insert cheesy grin here*

 

[Thanatos2]

I think the best thing the game industry could do is shift some of it's development budget away from making games graphically on the bleeding edge and start to focus more on gameplay content and bug fixing. Alot of AAA games are coming out with ridiculous game breaking bugs nowadays, treating first day consumers as beta testers which is beyond horrible.(Assassin's Creed Unity comes immediately to mind) Games need to also stop being so damn short. 6 hour Single player campaigns are not acceptable, unless there is a superlative Multiplayer component, and even then, it's disappointing. The Halo series I've always found to be a good example of how to develop both a meaningful Single Player Campaign and awesome multiplayer. I wish game studios would focus less on the graphical bells and whistles and more on making a better game, that for 60 bucks, I shouldn't be able to blow through in one or two nights.

 

[Vault101]

I agree, but at the same time it's become fairly obvious that too many people just can't handle actual discussion about these sorts of topics.

I'll sadly agree...to the point where GG should really be ghettoized

I don't agree with the "take no sides" mentality, you don't have to treat both "sides" as equal because sometimes they fucking *aren't*

sorry...have to dial down the rant-o-meter

 

[Bat Vader]

I agree, but at the same time it's become fairly obvious that too many people just can't handle actual discussion about these sorts of topics.

I'll sadly agree...to the point where GG should really be ghettoized

I don't agree with the "take no sides" mentality, you don't have to treat both "sides" as equal because sometimes they fucking *aren't*

sorry...have to dial down the rant-o-meter

I agree with not taking sides. It's not about seeing both sides as equal so much as it is not wanting to be labeled by either side. I'm interested in what people say on both sides but I couldn't care any less about the sides themselves if that makes any sense.

 

[Steve Waltz]

lack of sufficient QA for AAA releases

I think the best thing the game industry could do is shift some of it's development budget away from making games graphically on the bleeding edge and start to focus more on gameplay content and bug fixing. Alot of AAA games are coming out with ridiculous game breaking bugs nowadays, treating first day consumers as beta testers which is beyond horrible.(Assassin's Creed Unity comes immediately to mind)

That?s not an issue.

Games ARE getting good quality assurance testing; the problem lies with deadlines. QA testers find the majority of the bugs that are in the game, but publishers put serious pressure on deadlines, so much so, that devs have to choose which bugs to fix before the release and which to fix later in patches. If you bump into game-breaking bugs--then you *might* have reason to point your fingers at the testers. But if there?s just a bunch of cosmetic stuff, then that?s because the devs didn?t fix them. Trust me, QA testers can spend up to 14 hours a day burning through these games daily; it?s a safe bet that if you found a bug, the testers found it first. I mean, why is it that Evolve doesn?t have a lot of bugs? Because it was postponed--TWICE! If it was forced a release, like Assassin?s Creed: Unity was, then it probably would have been just as buggy and unplayable.

The problem of bugs in games lies with publishers and deadlines. Developers being forced to choose which bugs to fix before release and others on a day 1 patch.