The Biggest Joke in Gaming

[KazeAizen]

Kind of right there in the title. I know there are plenty of big ones but I want you to try and narrow it down to one and explain your reasons.

For me that would be the Spike VGA's. For one I have nothing against Spike. They have James Bond marathons on the holidays and I've occasionally watched some of its programming. Still the one thing it has produced that I think is the biggest joke in gaming is the awards show they've made. Its not necessarily the idea. I'd love a gaming award show that could be as prestigious and watched as the Academy Awards or Grammies so that the medium could start progressing on names alone. I'll come back to that. Still it has devolved and melted faster than ice cream in the sun. I'm not aware of how the entire voting system works but if I remember correctly it is largely open voting for the public. If that is the case then the awards show is already doomed. It devolves into a popularity contest rather than a quality contest. Games that get nominated for the game of the year are the ones that sold the most that year essentially.

Besides that the presentations and "entertainment" at the thing don't make sense. Sure every now and then they get someone who likes nerd ephemera and video games like Sam "badass" Jackson but when you get the Jersey Shore Cast or a Jonas Brother out there, who are almost universally despised on the internet, you've done screwed it up. This is the kind of event that Internet celebrities would be welcome at. Like Jim, Bob, Yahtzee, or the Extra Punctuation crew. The celebrities in the room shouldn't be the mainstream celebrities. They should be Shigeru Miyamoto, Hideo Kojima, Keiji Inafune, Tim Schaffer, Gabe Newall. If your hosts are celebrities that obviously don't care or don't know about this kind of stuff you've done screwed up.

As for the awards themselves most of the categories are pretty standard but I saw at least three that can just plane go. "Most Anticipated", "Best Graphics", "Best DLC". These could be replaced with best character design, best level design (which might as well be the Nintendo award I kid). With the winners be recognized by the main creator of pieces. I know making games is always a collaborative effort so perhaps instead of doing individual bull crap the people that made the level or character are nominated. Teams win and whoever is on said team suddenly becomes a potential asset that you may want to pick up. Point being make awards that acknowledge the people that actually make the game and perhaps not only give them something to put on their shelves but some push and pull in the game industry. No one told George no for the Star Wars prequels because of the original and they were his brainchild. Wether that was for good or ill is up to you personally but the point remains. Because of that success he could do what he wanted and if you start giving that kind of recognition to the game makers then the industry will really start to change in a big way. So what is the biggest joke to you then? I'd like to hear it and I promise I won't get too made if you mention Final Fantasy or Kingdom Hearts.

 

[tippy2k2]

I'll take the low hanging fruit and let everyone else do actual work

The Launch announcement of the Xbox One

I don't think a Sony executive could have asked for a better presentation from Microsoft. Whether it was "always online DRM", the "Kinect will be mandatory", the video game system that forgot the video games, or the fact that if you asked five Microsoft execs the same question, you would get five different answers, EVERYTHING went wrong for Microsoft. Even after 180ing on just about everything on their system, they're still hurting from this.

Only time will tell just how much damage was done based on one night...

 

[T_ConX]

Gone Home and The Stanley Parable.

You don't like these games because they're 'smart', and you're smart for playing them. You like them because they make you feel smart.

 

[Clowndoe]

You don't like these games because they're 'smart', and you're smart for playing them. You like them because they make you feel smart.

Who's "you?"

Here I was thinking I liked those games because one gave me an enticing sense of discovery and the other was funny, among other reasons.

Mine's people who think they're smart because they tell people they think feel smart for playing games the first group think is too artsy. Not looking at anyone in particular here.

 

[RJ 17]

I'll take the low hanging fruit and let everyone else do actual work

The Launch announcement of the Xbox One

I don't think a Sony executive could have asked for a better presentation from Microsoft. Whether it was "always online DRM", the "Kinect will be mandatory", the video game system that forgot the video games, or the fact that if you asked five Microsoft execs the same question, you would get five different answers, EVERYTHING went wrong for Microsoft. Even after 180ing on just about everything on their system, they're still hurting from this.

Only time will tell just how much damage was done based on one night...

Pffft, that's not the easiest (or even the best) joke in the gaming industry, though to be fair it is right up there in both categories. :3

No, the easiest/best joke in the gaming community is that Don Mattrick got hired to be Zynga's CEO. Seriously, I still laugh my ass off every time I think about that.

 

[Racecarlock]

Mafia II, a sandbox game with no freedom. A crime game with no fun. You even have to follow traffic laws and get fuel. And then it makes you clean toilets and sell cigarettes and chaperon drunk friends around and slowly carry crates to trucks, not in that order.

I guess it's okay if you're into narrative, but why have the open world if that's what they were going for anyways?

 

[Sarge034]

Easy, player choice.

Until games are being composed on the fly by an AI there is no way a dev could code everything every player might do and it would be ungodly expensive if they tried. This is why I get so mad when terms like player choice are used. Mass Effect 3 is the obvious example. The ending pissed so many people off because none of those choices are things their Shep would have done.

 

[teebeeohh]

Mafia II, a sandbox game with no freedom. A crime game with no fun. You even have to follow traffic laws and get fuel. And then it makes you clean toilets and sell cigarettes and chaperon drunk friends around and slowly carry crates to trucks, not in that order.

I guess it's okay if you're into narrative, but why have the open world if that's what they were going for anyways?

because the first mafia was open back before open worlds were about as common as a jump button.

 

[Asita]

Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing. Essentially released as a pre-alpha, the game 'boasted' a lack of collision detection (meaning you could drive straight through trees, buildings and bridges), nothing in game could affect your speed or traction (not terrain, not walls. You could literally go up walls without any loss of speed), no boundaries for the map (so you could drive off into the void), infinite acceleration in reverse (made all the more face poundingly stupid by the INSTANT halt after releasing the acceleration), it could count the starting line as the finish line (A perk, really, as it would mercifully spare the player from the multitude of other flaws the game had by instantly ending the race), one of the maps didn't work, the police you were supposed to avoid made NO appearance, the opposing rigs didn't even have working code (so they just idled at the starting line indefinitely), and of the five available maps one of them caused the game to crash upon load (again, mercy)...Oh, and then of course there's the "You're Winner!" congratulations message. Heightening the joke status of this title is the fact that they actually released a patch for the game including, most famously, a fix for the opposing vehicles so they'd actually race you...and they still stop before they reach the finish line, making them just as pointless as before.

 

[Racecarlock]

Mafia II, a sandbox game with no freedom. A crime game with no fun. You even have to follow traffic laws and get fuel. And then it makes you clean toilets and sell cigarettes and chaperon drunk friends around and slowly carry crates to trucks, not in that order.

I guess it's okay if you're into narrative, but why have the open world if that's what they were going for anyways?

because the first mafia was open back before open worlds were about as common as a jump button.

Okay, but the open world in Mafia II is completely redundant. No side activities, no big mountains or even small hills to jump off of. You can change clothes, customize your car, or get drunk, but there's barely any point other than appearances and sometimes getting the cops off of your tail, which is pointless because unless you have the speed limiter on, they'll be back on your ass in thirty seconds for going slightly over the speed limit.

This isn't the PS2 era anymore. People want more. People want just cause 2 and prototype and SRTT and even GTA IV and V to an extent. But mafia II was a relic when it came out and is even more so now. Also, it's constant insistence on realism over fun pretty much ruined the whole game for me, like someone took some already bland paste I was eating and just shit on it.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Gone Home and The Stanley Parable.

You don't like these games because they're 'smart', and you're smart for playing them. You like them because they make you feel smart.

Confirmed for not having played The Stanely Parable or understanding why people like it.

Do both of those things, then come back and try again.

Can't speak on Gone Home. You may be completely right on that one.

OT:
I would say "Broadening our audience"

Every single time it is used, a sense of doom surrounds the topic it described. Every single gamer just [i/]knows[/i] the product is going to be more shit as a result. Yet somehow companies still think it's a good thing to say in press releases.

 

[mrdude2010]

The number of multiplayer maps a AAA game comes with: they expect you to buy map packs, so they release like 8 maps (way less than Halo 2, for example), then charge you $3.33 per map and don't let you play certain game modes unless you've bought them.

 

[mrdude2010]

Gone Home and The Stanley Parable.

You don't like these games because they're 'smart', and you're smart for playing them. You like them because they make you feel smart.

Confirmed for not having played The Stanely Parable or understanding why people like it.

Do both of those things, then come back and try again.

Can't speak on Gone Home. You may be completely right on that one.

OT:
I would say "Broadening our audience"

Every single time it is used, a sense of doom surrounds the topic it described. Every single gamer just [i/]knows[/i] the product is going to be more shit as a result. Yet somehow companies still think it's a good thing to say in press releases.

I didn't think of this until I saw you're post. You're completely right though, when they try to "appeal to a larger audience," it tends to get more generic and less skill-based, which makes people who take the game seriously annoyed.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

The number of multiplayer maps a AAA game comes with: they expect you to buy map packs, so they release like 8 maps (way less than Halo 2, for example), then charge you $3.33 per map and don't let you play certain game modes unless you've bought them.

On both the EA and Activision grey warshoot updates from last year the season passes cost just as much as the fuckin game. Shit's crazy. I second this.

Actually, just season passes and DLC tactics in general. I can't even remember the last time I bought a game and felt like I was getting the complete experience.

 

[mysecondlife]

Kinnect.

Even Blizzard agrees with me.

 

[Excelsior789]

I think I'll go with season passes and the whole idea behind them. You are expected to pay up front for content which:

A) Has not been created(or even formally planned out in some cases)
B) May or may not have completion deadline
C) Is only very loosely defined so what you get could drastically differ from what you expect

 

[Yopaz]

I'm going for an old one here and say Nintendo and their console names for the last decade.

They announced they were working on a new console with the project name Revolution, I was psyched, being a massive Nintendo fan (I still am, but not as zealous) and then they announced the Wii... the jokes were endless and it took quite some time before you could say you were going to play with your Wii before no-one would chuckle at what it sounds like. I still wanted the console, but I've had so much fun with the name.

Then Nintendo was moving away from the Wii and then they announced... the Wii U which was even more hilarious, the sound of an ambulance? I love my Wii U, but I still mock the name. It was also really stupid in terms of marketing since its name has caused some confusion that it's just a peripheral to the Wii.

Nintendo, I love you guys, but stop feeding us easy jokes, you're giving Xbox One a run for its money.

 

[josemlopes]

Mafia II, a sandbox game with no freedom. A crime game with no fun. You even have to follow traffic laws and get fuel. And then it makes you clean toilets and sell cigarettes and chaperon drunk friends around and slowly carry crates to trucks, not in that order.

I guess it's okay if you're into narrative, but why have the open world if that's what they were going for anyways?

Mafia 2 isnt a sandbox game, its a linear game that happens to use an open map since you travel in a lot of places the size of a city. They could have made it all corridors for driving and such but making just one big map is a lot easier.

Just think about the fact that the main story is entirely composed of levels where you are never out of one, in actual sandbox games you usually are out of missions until you accept one but in Mafia 1 and 2 you are always inside them.

 

[Evilpigeon]

Easy, player choice.

Until games are being composed on the fly by an AI there is no way a dev could code everything every player might do and it would be ungodly expensive if they tried. This is why I get so mad when terms like player choice are used. Mass Effect 3 is the obvious example. The ending pissed so many people off because none of those choices are things their Shep would have done.

It's possible for an RPG to cover a very wide apectrum of player choice (although obviously not every possible one.) To make it work, you sacrifice voice acting. Text responses makes it much easier for the game to acknowledge choices you made without it costing very much in terms of money or extra work. Simple examples:

Characters can call you by your custom name.

It's extremely easy to embed references to past events, even specific details such as how you did it without having to re-record dialogue.

Text allows a greater variety of 'flavour' responses without expensive dialogue recording.

If you're willing to put up with old games, have a look at something like Fallout 2 or Arcanum to see the sorts of depths of player choice studios with a 10th or even a 100th of Bioware's current budget could build into their games 10 years ago.

Obviously no major publisher is ever going to spend Mass Effect money on a game with text dialogue but between that and a graphical style that would allow for malleable environments, it would probably be possible to make a game that could acknowledge and handle the vast majority of choices a player could want to make.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Duke Nukem Forever...it's sorta a shame they killed the joke by making the game people had been mocking for years.