Things in games that need to stop.

[pixiejedi]

Swearing in videogames. It annoys me that writers think that an M game needs to have a ton of F-Bombs in order to be seen as "mature" Seriously is there any real need for it? Let's look at Resident Evil 5 as an example, it has an F-Bomb totally out of nowhere and wasn't needed at all.

Reading this I looked back at Mass Effect a series full of violence, some graphic gore, overall a lot of mature themes, and to my memory no one ever swears.

Really? Cool. I haven't played the Mass Effect games admittedly, one of my many gaming sins. (P.S. I didn't say every game does this)

Ummmmm, well the first one is darn clean, which makes sense since they are more military. The second though? Jack swears a lot, thats how they show you "she's a tough criminal who doesn't care what other people think." I hated her personally but at least it was used for more than set dressing I guess.

OT: stop it now with the "rpg elements" It was cool for a while but now it reminds me of the extra credits about skinner box games. I want to feel my character grow and be shaped by me. I don't want to feel forced to play 2 more hours just so I can get some arbitrary ability or item.

 

[Amondren]

Stop giant on screen popup's I'm tired of playing a game and then having something jump out at me telling me I leveled up, I'm fine with having a little icon at the bottem right corner thank you.

Voice acting! Dragon Age Origin's is one of my favorate games and the Warden doesnt have voice acting is that bad no! I still love the game and dialog I can fill in the voice with what I want it isnt essential for me give me back the DA:O dialog over the DA2 dialog wheel anyday.

Invisible wall's need to stop they break immersion and are just stupid I'd rather have a bad reason why I cant go somewhere.

 

[The Floating Nose]

- Stop fixing what isn't broken: Honestly, i am scared that the new Hitman will be complete shit (trying to fit with the clichés of the industry and the game resembles Splinter Cell: Convinction which was complete shit too).

-DLC or How to release a half game at full price with 20 bucks or more of downloadable content: Ok, when i buy a game that has DLC it gives me the impression that i just bought half of the game at 80$ and that the next half will cost me another 30 bucks. It's like if the developpers made the entire game and then cut 1/5 of it just so they can hype that part and pass it as a DLC.

- Games taking themselves WAY too seriously: Now, don't start with your "But...but games are art...durr hurr ignorance blah blah" Honestly, i don't have any problem with games that take themselves seriously but when EVERY game developpers is trying to make a game with an "incredible story" (most of the time the stories are cliché anyway) with a lead character that is so "deep" and dark with brown graphics (unshaved beard, short black hair, posing walking towards you with their head slightly down to look badass on the cover) i would like to see more funny, charming, colorful and wacky games or games that mix some kind of seriousness with wackyness (Left 4 Dead for example).

-Shitty endings/cliffhangers: You know what im talking about. Games that never end or want to end. Jesus christ is that so complicated ? I remember a time when endings were called ENDINGS for a fucking reason. The industry has way WAYYYYYY too much sequels 60% of the game coming out right now are sequels.

-Cliché box art: I would really REALLY like to see more efforts into box arts (Im not talking about European and Japanese covers im talking about North American box art). They are HORRIBLE, they are ALL made with photoshop with stupid collage. In the DVD industry there is a company called "The Criterion Collection" and they re-release classic films with remade covers and their new covers are GORGEOUS. Why does the game industry doesn't take example on the "Criterion Collection" to make their box art. I know it would cost more but im sure that it wouldn't hurt the image of the video game industry it would be a million time more appealing to the eye and im sure a little more acceptable to those who don't play video games. I can't remember the last time i saw a cover of a game made me interested enough to check it out...im just so used to these UGLY ASS COVERS that i just don't notice them anymore...i just read the title and then that's it i would like to be able to look at a box art and say: " Oh wow...look at this one...or this one...or this one !" It just doesn't happen.

-Over realism: I thought that i was playing a game to escape and to be entertained not to see something that i see 24/7. Realism is dull and depressing i mean...honestly there is other world to explore or other facade of our world to explore. Imagine a game where you explore another dimension where the colors are reversed (the sky is brown and the ground is blue, the humans are green and the trees are slightly pink). That's a little exagerated but c'mon there's other things to see other than brown graphics all the time.


-Sandbox games: Too many of them and most of them take place in shitty environments. They all take place in a city or in a jungle. Why not make a sandbox game that would take place in the pirate time where you would be able to choose if you want to become a pirate or go in the British army to hunt down pirates that would be Brilliant.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Reading this I looked back at Mass Effect a series full of violence, some graphic gore, overall a lot of mature themes, and to my memory no one ever swears.

So you never chatted with Jack then?

 

[OManoghue]

Weapon management is pretty balls. I'm tired of 2 or 3 guns, which is why I often go back to Half-Life and other older style games.

 

[Drakmeire]

make less realistic big budget games.
The core audience of gaming (the ones who have been gaming the longest) enjoy lush, stylized visuals rather than the hyper-realistic sort of depressing kind.
also Stop releasing DLC the same week the game comes out. Keep DLC ideas in studio so you will have good things to add to the sequel rather than causing it to be a cash-grab.

Enjoying it up there on your high horse are you? You really think it's a good idea for developers/ publishers to not release DLC anymore? That's a good one, why not just ask them to give out games for free, and then burn their money.

I agree with your less realism sentiment though, it's never going to be hyper realistic to the point where you cannot tell what's real any more, so why try?

My rant would be no invisible walls, immersion is key to a great game.

And maybe consistent voice acting too, sick and tired of 'hysterical' NPC's suddenly sounding fine, mid conversation.

I meant to make sequels less of a cash-grab, if you have a DLC idea good enough to make a very good sequel than just release a good sequel instead of a mediocre one.
I'm not saying all DLC is bad, just the stuff that is released the same week as the game or random things that would make better unlockables. keep DLC relegated to extra levels/missions or new gameplay types.

 

[Porecomesis]

I have a better idea:

Make gamers more like actual human beings and less like morons who would massacre everyone at a virtual funeral in complete disrespect of the real dead person it's for.

 

[CrankyStorming]

This has less to do with games themselves and more with how they are seen, but stop rating games out of 10. All it does is raise expectations way too high, where a game that gets a 6 or a 7 is considered 'awful' as opposed to 'nothing special'.

 

[Porecomesis]

I have a better idea:

Make gamers more like actual human beings and less like morons who would massacre everyone at a virtual funeral in complete disrespect of the real dead person it's for.

/facepalm

people actually gave a shit about that?

The funeral was dedicated to a person who died in real life. I'd be pissed too if someone did the same at a funeral I was intending.

 

[Jakub324]

5: Stop making foreign countries into your patriot scapegoats.
I'm looking at you, America. Games like Homefront are honestly the most sickening and horrible examples of what I hate about war games: the use of actual contries as the villains. COD did it with Russia, Homefront with North Korea, and so on. I get using the Middle East as a setting, because that's a little more topical considering America has real conflicts going on there, but Russia and North Korea? Come on. America hasn't been at war with either (the Cold War doesn't count), and in Russia's case is even on good terms with them. Why make people of other nations out to be barbaric and inhumane when things like that have not even happened?

I was fine with Russia being the bad guts. They were not lie the Russia of today. It's like if the EDL became the British Government.

I'm just going to say if you put regenerating health (a concept I like) make it happen quickly, otherwise you will just end up staring at a wall for 20 seconds while your fingers grow back.

 

[TheLastTatlFan]

2: Move away from motion controls.
Yeah, the Wii was neat for a while, and yeah it sold a lot, who cares? But can you honestly name a game that involves motion controls that would be less fun without them? Most of the best games on the Wii use very little of the console's wiggle and waggle hoopla, so why not just go with what works? All the greatest games that have come out of the industry have been controller based (FACT), but gimmicky ones like the Wii and Kinect and that Playstation... thing... have sold like crazy. So yeah, keep motion controls, but focus more on the games without them, because those are the games with more potential to be great.

For the "Name a game where motion controls enhanced the experience," there's the No More Heroes titles, where a swipe in the indicated direction for the slash that finishes your opponent is much more viscerally satisfying than the result of translating that to a regular controller (I don't know if the Japan-only 360/PS3 ports did this, but if you use a Classic Controller for No More Heroes 2 the Death-Blows are performed by... Nudging the analog sticks in different directions. Le sigh...).

Also Yahtzee, in his review of Red Steel 2, said that the sword fighting in that version wouldn't have been as enjoyable with button-presses. I can't confirm that for myself as I never saw the game on a store-shelf and felt compelled to buy it or even rent it, but when you consider Yahtzee is a man who never lets an opportunity to trash the Wii as hard as he can in what methinks is protesting too much, the fact that he admitted that must be worth something.

As for pretty much the rest of that rant, you're wrong in the motion control-less games having more potential, as the potential for great button-pressing games has been explored for the past twenty-odd years of gaming history while motion controls still have plenty of great games left not yet made because people are looking at the shovel-ware and assuming nothing good can come from motion controls. The same can (and still is) said of games adapted from films, but that didn't stop Goldeneye from being awesome and Spider-Man 2 being in a certain critic's top five games of all time alongside the likes of Silent Hill 2 and Prince of Persia: Sands of Time.

So what I'm saying is, don't write off motion controls altogether just because you haven't seen any great games for it yet. It's partially your own fault for making hard-core motion control experiments too risky to fund.

 

[mjc0961]

5: Stop making foreign countries into your patriot scapegoats.
I'm looking at you, America. Games like Homefront are honestly the most sickening and horrible examples of what I hate about war games: the use of actual contries as the villains. COD did it with Russia, Homefront with North Korea, and so on. I get using the Middle East as a setting, because that's a little more topical considering America has real conflicts going on there, but Russia and North Korea? Come on. America hasn't been at war with either (the Cold War doesn't count), and in Russia's case is even on good terms with them. Why make people of other nations out to be barbaric and inhumane when things like that have not even happened?

America actually has been at war with North Korea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War And yes it does count, the Cold War wasn't actually a war in the sense of armies duking it out, but the Korean War was.

Aside from that though, what we really need is less damn realistic war games. If it's not other countries, then it ends up being PMCs, because we can never get enough PMCs. I'd rather see more fantasized things like Halo's aliens or Gears' monster things from under the planet's surface. Sure, people will whine about that too and lump them all in as aliens, but it's better than another fucking PMC or country's army and it also allows for more variation in enemy types than "generic foot soilder #24,568,283" or "time for a boss fight with a dude on a helicopter". All of this is pretty much why the only FPS I play with humans VS humans is Killzone. I likely would not be able to put up with any others.

...Anyway, on to what I came in here to say in the first place.
[HEADING=2]Quick Time Events[/HEADING]
In cutscenes, anyway. Get these the hell out of my game already. When it's cutscene time, I want to sit back and watch as it should be a nice little break from gameplay. If you wanted me to keep playing, you shouldn't have started a cutscene. Save quick time events for God of War type stuff when you're already playing and it doesn't feel like this "Oh did you want to watch that cutscene TOO BAD you died because you didn't see this coming and now you get to watch it all over from the start."

And that brings me to another thing: all cutscenes should be skippable. Just take some care in making sure they aren't too easily skippable. Don't make the skip button the R2 or L2 button on a PS3 game where those buttons are so sensitive that you can activate them just by setting the controller down. Many games will let you push one button to bring up a little thing that asks you to push another button to skip. Say, B on the 360 controller is skip, but first you have to push any button on the controller but B to bring up the option.

Tutorials need to be skippable too. Not nonexistant: just skippable. Sometimes we're returning fans of a franchise who already know how to play. Sometimes we're replaying a game after we beat it. But we don't always need to be taught how to play, so if you could just include a skip button for those who don't need a tutorial, that would be grand.

 

[Evil Top Hat]

Having certain parts of the game that are already on the disc sectioned off to people who preordered from some specific shop, or (even worse) selling it as DLC separately later on.

Or in other words, being EA.

 

[FireFenix]

That, F'n, HEARTBEAT!

Also what Capcom seems to have done for the last 2 years.

 

[King Toasty]

Quicktime events, especially ones that come out of fucking nowhere. I'm looking at YOU, Uncharted.

Other than that, ironic parodies of popular games. BulletStorm, Duke Nukem. They need to stop. It's not funny.

 

[aba1]

I don't mind motion controls if it means we eventually get full round tv's and full motion controls basically next to full on emersion with kinect were so close you can practically taste it

 

[Lord Of Cyberia]

Stop blaming Americans/Russians/Chinese for absolutely everything, because at this point, it's a tired cliche?

 

[Baconmaninspace]

Make games about something other than killing things.

While I love plenty of combat-focused games, there's no reason why that should be the focus of nearly every game's mechanics.

 

[ScottyMuser]

EDIT: Oh and I totally just remembered something else that bugs me. Adding titles to sequels instead of numbers. This probably only bugs me, but I find it so annoying that Assassin's Creed went from 2, Brotherhood, Revelations. I mean what happened to the numbers Ubisoft?

Why? Books, films, video games, all these mediums have been adding words rather then simply jusrt numbers since the beginning of time. And your use of assassins creed is possibly the worst, most inaccurate comparison you could make. The entire point is, the Assassins Creed games have number on them if the main character (other then Desmond) is a brand new character, and if instead they are a continuance of the existing characters then they shouldn't.. This is because the whole series is building up to the modern day conflict, and therefore you playing the point of different ancestors in the main games as they drive forward that meta-story. Ubisoft may have been better served prefixing brotherhood and revelations with a "2" just so its more obvious it is a continuation of the AC2 story through Ezio, rather then the AC1 Altair's story, but thats debatable as it does seem to be clumsy to say.

 

[LobsterFeng]

snip

Being someone that has never played Assassin's Creed, that totally confuses me. See why this is a bad thing to an outside observer? And really, since the beginning of time? Woah.