Things in games that need to stop.
- Thread starter ArcaneFyre
- Start date
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.
Other than that, ironic parodies of popular games. BulletStorm, Duke Nukem. They need to stop. It's not funny.
Stop blaming Americans/Russians/Chinese for absolutely everything, because at this point, it's a tired cliche?
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.
While I love plenty of combat-focused games, there's no reason why that should be the focus of nearly every game's mechanics.
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 said:
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.ScottyMuser said:
Sorry for the sarcasm, was exagerrating a bit there. And, no, I don't see why it is a bad thing - again, because of the whole mythos of the story Assassins Creed means that the developers want to tell the story a certain way, and want gamers to understand this (and all the reviews would/shouldhave pointed this out).LobsterFeng said:
As for games which do have words rather then just numbers, there are plenty which seem to be fairly random - the new Call of Duty games (although I understand why), and the Halo games (which the names *are* utterly silly) for instance may seem confusing. But again, it's an artistic decision for the developers to use tsomething that could describe what happens. Much like the sequel to Alien wasn't Alien 2, but Aliens, the sequel to Die Hard is Die Harder, etc
I disagree. If we minimize the costs then we may also end up with a cheap, poorly made game. It would be far better to do things to their best degree so that the game brings in a tidy profit.EverythingIncredible said:
OT: Stop being cunts to the developers. This goes for projecy managers and publishers. Every time you're a dick to your developers you reduce their moral which means that they're far more likely to fuck up the game. As for publishers, stop trying to bring the game out on a specific date, bring it out when it's ready. No, it's not ideal for the marketing department or for many other things, but if you want a steady stream of high quality games that people enjoy that actually reach those ridiculous review scores that you demand then you need to make some fucking leeway for the devs to work with.
Indie developing has all these things, that's why you rarely see rushed indie games. Learn from the indie kids.
Dunno if this got pointed out, but they do. At least Aria definitely does.rofl jet said:
But yes, your point still stands, Swearing is very rare in it, and it doesn't make the game any less mature. Sometimes, swearing is needed in dialogue to enforce a sense of realism, as it's not like no-one ever swears in real life, but swearing every other word like many games like to is a good way of making the dialogue feel even more forced.
Anyway, I think games need to stop being rushed out. Too many games have been pushed out the door with lacklustre campaigns and less single player enjoyment time than you can get for £10 at the cinema, games like Brink that could have been so much better with the time to actually finish them, and fighters being released with hardly a single heed given to balance. Here's lookin' at you Marvel Vs Capcom 3. I know a lot of the time it isn't realistic for games to have had that extra time in development, but it would be better none the less.
2 kinda linked things....
1) A personal, selfish gripe first, stop making exclusives!!!, I don't want to have to buy everything of X generation to play the games I want, not to mention, companies think for a second, you sell to one console, you get X ammount of people to sell to, you sell to every playform, you get 3-4 times that ammount!
2) When making things multiformat, dont make the PC version just a console port, I'm tired of seeing promts turn up on screen as Xbox or Playstation controller buttons when I'm playing on my PC!
oh n just thought of another along the exclusives line, stop with the timed exclusives, I'm looking at you Microsoft, with your "look we have the shiney demo on xbox live before everyone else, oooooo! thats right, follow the carrot on the stick silly consumers!", just no!
1) A personal, selfish gripe first, stop making exclusives!!!, I don't want to have to buy everything of X generation to play the games I want, not to mention, companies think for a second, you sell to one console, you get X ammount of people to sell to, you sell to every playform, you get 3-4 times that ammount!
2) When making things multiformat, dont make the PC version just a console port, I'm tired of seeing promts turn up on screen as Xbox or Playstation controller buttons when I'm playing on my PC!
oh n just thought of another along the exclusives line, stop with the timed exclusives, I'm looking at you Microsoft, with your "look we have the shiney demo on xbox live before everyone else, oooooo! thats right, follow the carrot on the stick silly consumers!", just no!
Obviously there are some exceptions but, at the risk of being heavily criticized, a lot of DLC, expansions, and the lot are really annoying to me. I mean I already paid upwards of 50 or 60 bucks for a game and you want me to buy MORE stuff for something I just bought? When I spend my money on a game I'd like to have the ENTIRE game please.
Fixed that for you.ArcaneFyre said:
I agree with most of the OP's points except for number 5. I enjoy it when the enemy is an actual country because it makes the game feel like it could have actually happened. It can also cover up shitty writing because they can just draw from actual events.
I personally hate DLC when it's something other than cosmetic stuff like hats or mounts, it makes the game you're playing feel cheap because you know you don't actually have the whole game.
I also hate the fact that newly released games usually cost 100-120 dollars in Australia despite our dollar being stronger than the US's, that needs to change.
I think you're misunderstanding this a little bit. By cutting costs he means putting money where it matters, currently the game industry pours so much money into making everything realistic and marketing the hell out of it. We need to pour more money into every other aspect and make graphics a lower priority.The Unworthy Gentleman said:
You'd be surprised how good things can turn out when developers have limited budgets or toolsets, you can take 8-bit tunes and indie games as a solid example. Not to mention having a low budget puts less at risk, and means more risky games can be created.
Also indie games are largely well-developed because they're not in it for the money. There's no higher ups holding their paychecks and saying "we need this game in X weeks and just how we like it". And because little or no money is at stake they can make their ideas as risky as they want - again the benefit of lower budgets.
I feel like I've heard this argument before, its almost as if these are the same arguments that everyone else in the forums has been making for the past few years. Oh well.
I'd just like to see people stop giving games numerical rankings. I don't believe in such a rarification of games into a single omni-value. I don't support it in any medium actually. I know that a full review mighty be a bit much to read for every game but can we at least get a panel of scores and values and not just one ultimate number here?
I'd just like to see people stop giving games numerical rankings. I don't believe in such a rarification of games into a single omni-value. I don't support it in any medium actually. I know that a full review mighty be a bit much to read for every game but can we at least get a panel of scores and values and not just one ultimate number here?
