The Gaming World would be a better place without....

[valkeminator]

Hackers, Griefers, Cheaters, people who just cause a lose-lose situation.

Edit:

Flamewars
Angry young people screaming at you over Online...
noobs....wait nah, who do I kill then?
trolls
Australia's NO 18+ rating
Go back and forth quests >_>

Essentially these...

 

[chiggerwood]

The need for games to turn a profit.

All games NEED to turn a profit or else the entire industry would collapse. If someone pours 20 million dollars into a game, and the game only returns 10 million on a consistent basis no one is going to invest in game because they would always lose their money. Even if they break even it's still not a good business plan, because you're then just spinning your wheels, and everyone with sense will move on to ventures that can give a better return on their investments. Without profit hardware, and software innovations cannot be fueled. This even applies to the indie market. Learn basic economics.

 

[hexFrank202]

SO many comments here I strongly agree or disagree with.

bad games

LOL! Genius! 100% agree!

the console wars

40% agree
The fun, creative, spectacular, playfully aggressive console wars they had back in the 90's that I WISH I could have lived to experience? No way, it made for a healthier competitive gaming environment in the industry, and helped Sega to cut Nintendo down to size a little (preventing them from taking over everything and basically becoming like Microsoft).

The smuggy, smart-ass, actually-believes-this-crap console wars we have now? Okay, that's pretty annoying. But you know what I hate more? The people saying "let's not fight! Why fight? We don't need to fight. You know I really don't see the point of all this fighting."
BECAUSE IT'S FUN! I mean gawl! Way to be a big McBummerpants. I admit that the CWs have become too pretentious and mean, but that's better than nothing.

children.

kids under the age of 10

0% agree
Maybe the ones who were wrongly given headsets... but without kids, we wouldn't even have games! I can't stress the importance of children in gaming enough. But this guy can: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9joAb4XMaUs&feature=related

fox news

Fox news.

20% agree

The same way in which many newspeople have stupidly, close-mindedly started to use games and gamers as a punching-bag of blame for all the violence and corruption in the world, gamers are starting to, more and more, stupidly and close-mindedly use Fox News as their own punching bag to represent all the assholes who are prejudiced against games.

It's a shame; for a while it looked like the game culture was going to be fair, open minded and unbiased, but it's taking a hard turn left alongside Hollywood and rock'n'roll. And all probably because of their pointless hatred against Fox News. You know, not EVERYBODY on there is a big-time gaming-basher or even conservative. There ARE liberal dudes on Fox News, they just don't get as many Youtube clips.

Yeah, you know the two-minute long videos of Fox News you watch on the internet once or twice a year that accounts for your entire opinion of the network? The liberal shows aren't on those videos.

The need for games to turn a profit.

5% agree

Without games' need to turn a profit, again, we wouldn't have games for the most part! The high production costs and used-game market is making it hard to make good games, for now, but "the problem is them needing to make money" is a huge oversimplification.

the Wii

25% agree

There is some truth to this, but for the most part, no, no, no, no, no. Everybody should have figured it out like three years ago. I'm almost numb to the painful annoyance of it by now.

Arnold Schwarzenegger

?% agree

What? There's even a problem here? His movies are just about the biggest influence in video game mechanics and narrative. So he's being all political against them now, so what? Don't you realize he's not really going after video games; they're just another pawn in his ultimate goal? (Fitness professional > actor > politician > ruler of Earth > ruler of galaxy.)

Crap Steam. A working Steam would be a god-send for small companies who don't have the money to ship a physical copy of their game world-wide. I realise that Steam tends to work properly. But when it screws up, by god, when it screws up...

90% agree

Lemme tell you, after all this shit about "Steamsteamsteamsteamsteam!!!! Steam is pure gold from the heavens! Games for Windows Live is horrible! Steamsteamsteam is sexy and smart and perfect in every way oh my god I love steam!" I got steam, because I had to play Fallout: NV, played Fallout: NV for a few months, loved it, and then Steam stopped working. I can't bring it up, and therefore can't play NV anymore. Which I bought. At a store. And that happened at least a month ago, and none of the help instructions have fixed it.

I can, however, play Fallout 3, because--here it comes--it's on Games For Windows Live. And you know what? I can see what everyone's talking about. GFWL is slow, and sluggish, and confusing, and Steam is fast, clean, efficient and cool. But none of that matters for as long as Steam is in a fucking coma on my computer. GFWL might be a lot less sexy and a lot less smart, but she can still DO stuff.

Exclusives

0% agree

Amazing. This is probably the most backward statement I've heard ever spoken about video games.

E.T. for the Atari.

15% agree

Well you know, that is the game that supposedly helped kill the entire old, crappy industry and ready the birth of the new, better one... so I think the gaming world would actually be a lot worse without it. Maybe.

competing consoles...seriously can you imagine if all companies got together to create one console? that would be epic

0% agree

This would, at absolute minimum, destroy mainstream gaming and any chance it had at ever being respected as an art form. It would at worst, ruin games entirely; forever. And will, without a doubt, never happen. Thank God.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

The Console Wars, which I suppose should be renamed the Platform Wars since Apple and their i-devices have gotten in on it too.

Edit: Yeah I know I've been ninja'd. I felt this warranted a repeat.

 

[onikaze26]

moral choice systems, done well they can be good, but they almost never are, (even mass effect isn't really doing it right, but they are close)

 

[Findlebob]

Blandy Mac EveryMan

 

[mew4ever23]

Escort Missions.
Jack Thompson.
Fox news.. oh wait, everything would be better without them.
Game saves that can't be moved around.
Games with only 1 save slot.

 

[RandallJohn]

...elitist FPS players. They're the one reason I can't get into shooters. I enjoy playing, but going online is a freaking nightmare for a newbie. Even local play isn't exempt, as most of my LAN games have gone like this:

Dude 1: "Hey, you wanna play (insert shooter here?")
Me: "No thanks, man. I'm not very good with multiplayer."
Dude 2: "Aw, come on. It'll be good practice. You'll get better."
Me: "Yeah, but I'm not too familiar with the game just yet, and I know you guys are all really good, so I'll hold off for now."
Dude 3: "We'll help you out! It's pretty easy to learn."
Me: "Well, I guess..."

-Starts game-

Me: "So which button switches my weapon-"
Everyone: "BOOM! HEADSHOT! BOOM! HEADSHOT! BOOM! HEADSHOT! BOOM! HEADSHOT! BOOM! HEADSHOT! GTFO NEWFAG!"
Me: "I hate you all."

 

[Squilookle]

Amazing. This is probably the most backward statement I've heard ever spoken about video games.

You're welcome to your opinion of course- just don't expect me to pay it much attention when it's almost two months late.

competing consoles...seriously can you imagine if all companies got together to create one console? that would be epic

0% agree

This would, at absolute minimum, destroy mainstream gaming and any chance it had at ever being respected as an art form. It would at worst, ruin games entirely; forever. And will, without a doubt, never happen. Thank God.

Why? All it means is the Hardware is under the control of either one company, or the shared resources of partnered companies. It'd be just like when Nintendo had the Monopoly in the 80s. I see no problem with the competition of quality becoming exclusive to software. Especially now that consoles can push graphics as far as they'd ever really need to go. I think you're seeing it as far more of a doomsday event than it would ever even remotely come close to. Matter of fact I agree with Oly J- with more focussed avenues to sell new games through, sales would only increase, and with cross platformgame construction now boiled down to one console and the PC, overall optimisation quality would skyrocket across the board.

 

[thrillingsuspense]

Generic platformers based off of kids movies.

 

[hexFrank202]

You're welcome to your opinion of course- just don't expect me to pay it much attention when it's almost two months late.

...wow. Can't you come up with a better excuse? Are you that creatively bankrupt?

Why? All it means is the Hardware is under the control of either one company, or the shared resources of partnered companies. It'd be just like when Nintendo had the Monopoly in the 80s.

The huge control Nintendo had in the 80s would have been a serious problem if it had gone on much longer. Microsoft! Hello! People complain about Microsoft every moment of every day! And it got to where it was by its 90% market share.

I see no problem with the competition of quality becoming exclusive to software.

Don't you see that basically no other industry does that? Movies don't do that. DVD player companies compete, TV networks compete, and even though movies at the box office all use film, they all make their OWN film, and there's not one big, ultimate company that controls production of every movie. You need to see the problem, because, as you said, you currently aren't able to see it, which you might want to get checked out.

Especially now that consoles can push graphics as far as they'd ever really need to go.

It's not just about graphics. Game consoles are all going to get better in some way or another.

I think you're seeing it as far more of a doomsday event than it would ever even remotely come close to.

No a one-console domination would just about mean the end of mainstream gaming, for a while, at minimum. But as I said, it won't ever happen, because it's a terrible business idea.

Matter of fact I agree with Oly J- with more focussed avenues to sell new games through, sales would only increase,

More focused avenues? Right now, we have three consoles, two handhelds, the various cell phones, and different varieties of PC gaming. It's pretty simple and focused as it is and what you said was a BS statement pulled out of nothing. The fact that there's a level of variety with consoles is a good thing.

and with cross platformgame construction now boiled down to one console and the PC,

And the handhelds. :\

overall optimisation quality would skyrocket across the board.

Except for the fact that there'd be no competition and quality would go nowhere. Then there will be no motivation for some talented company to not make their own, better console and compete with them. And then, holy crap, we've got console wars again.

Saying the one console future is a good idea is comparable to saying sticking your head into your butt and up through your body is a good idea; no, it isn't, and it's impossible.

 

[noles82]

Opening titles that I can't skip through.

I'm looking at you, EA. I get it, you made the game, thank you. But for fuck's sake I don't need to be reminded of it every time I turn on the console. It shouldn't take me 30 seconds of flashy, gratuitous EA symbols just to get to the start menu.

 

[Se7enUpMustang]

COD- MW, MW2, Blops

Anybody who thinks the recent cod games are any good.

fanboys

PETA

FF (actually any JRPG)

Those screaming pre-pubescent bad mouthed little 10 year old shits

Movie games (and vice versa)

EA

Sony's BS where they try to control what ppl do with their products

pirates (Ninja's rule)

Regenerating health

QTE's

Unwanted sequels (bioshock 2 im looking at you)

Stereoypical characters (macho guy, penis envy girl with huge gun, etc...)

Bad games (i dont mean games you didnt like, i mean really truely awful games. EX: soldier of fortune 1 & 2, blacksite area 51, hour of victory, Mindjack etc...)

badgers

mushrooms

mushrooms

The list goes on

 

[Squilookle]

...wow. Can't you come up with a better excuse? Are you that creatively bankrupt?

I don't need a better excuse. Taking two months to come up with a reply is a poor effort no matter how you look at it.

The huge control Nintendo had in the 80s would have been a serious problem if it had gone on much longer. Microsoft! Hello! People complain about Microsoft every moment of every day! And it got to where it was by its 90% market share.

And yet, it's still heaps better than Apple. Interesting, eh?

Don't you see that basically no other industry does that? Movies don't do that. DVD player companies compete, TV networks compete, and even though movies at the box office all use film, they all make their OWN film, and there's not one big, ultimate company that controls production of every movie. You need to see the problem, because, as you said, you currently aren't able to see it, which you might want to get checked out.

Um, yes they do- Competing companies make DVD and Blu Ray players, but every one of them must be able to play the same dvds and blu ray disks. TV networks compete to own broadcasting rights, but do they need to port a film reel when they want to show it on another channel? Of course not.

I think it's actually you that isn't seeing right- you're assuming that if one company owns the console, suddenly they are also the only company making games for it. I'm not sure what bizarro land your logic originates from, but if two of the three major players (being Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo just so we're crystal clear) bowed out of the hardware race, they'd do exactly what Sega did and turn to releasing software on the hardware that is available. Nobody ever said it'd be one company overlooking every aspect of every game made. It doesn't work like that. The console makers would be only too happy to receive their former competitors' new games on their console- the existing fanbase for those companies would ensure continued support for their games. The new Sonic games aren't even particularly good but they are still selling enough to fund further sequels.

It's not just about graphics. Game consoles are all going to get better in some way or another.

Fair point, but you have to wonder how far they really need to go from here. It's not like progress would stop, anyway.

No a one-console domination would just about mean the end of mainstream gaming, for a while, at minimum. But as I said, it won't ever happen, because it's a terrible business idea.

...Only under your assumption that all other companies stop making games. I still can't work out how you arrived at that conclusion...

The fact that there's a level of variety with consoles is a good thing.

I disagree. Competing consoles split the resources of multiplatform game development, and denies the majority of player bases from even experiencing an exclusive game. Having one console to accomodate all upcoming games removes both of those problems in one stroke. Sure you could just shell out more money for the other consoles, but even that is ridiculously cost-prohibitive compared to owning a single console that accommodates all the games.

And the handhelds. :\

Yeah, alright, I'm ignoring the handheld market, which is something else entirely. I apologise.

there'd be no competition and quality would go nowhere. Then there will be no motivation for some talented company to not make their own, better console and compete with them. And then, holy crap, we've got console wars again.

Good luck launching a console up against one that has the combined game libraries of Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft alongside every other developer that ever made a console game...

Besides- does the quality of consoles really need to go anywhere from here? as long as it plays the games made for it, it would be fine. And the mere possibility that one of the big three could regroup and enter the hardware war again would be enough for the console company to make the effort to keep the console up to user's standards.

Saying the one console future is a good idea is comparable to saying sticking your head into your butt and up through your body is a good idea; no, it isn't, and it's impossible.

And saying it isn't could be seen as equally ignorant. But at the end of the day they're both merely opinions, and like you say it will probably never happen, so much like alternate history, it will always be nothing more than speculation.

 

[Antari]

Unreasonable development deadlines, Immoral business practices, Greed, Lawyers ... I could be here all day.

 

[priestswearseatbelts]

Platform exclusives.

 

[Sehnsucht Engel]

DLC. Seriously, put it in the original game.

 

[EHKOS]

Scripted intro sequences where you can only pan the camera and watch annoying sub characters set the "plot".

Also, can we please get rid of this Captcha?

I actually kinda like that.

OT:Bankruptcy. Oh the games that could have come out...