What do you think games should have more of?
- Thread starter Mrhenners12
- Start date
But if they did that they wouldn't be able to leach off their fan base as much, or they would make it as one game in 4 parts.TheRaider said:
story
people say they want more original ideas but when one comes out no one buys it, but people keep spending money on shooters. why dose the lest original game idea makes the most money.
Well, while I agree with this, there have been a few unique games that were done really well and sold well because of it. Portal and Bioshock to name a couple weren't mainstream and did really well. Braid and Plants vs Zombies did well (yes, PvZ is a tower-defence game, but come on, plants vs zombies? What's not original about that?) And Limbo is getting quite a bit of attention lately also.
Basically, if you make it (well), they will buy.
Anyways, personally what I want to see in a game is a better moral choice system, one without the extremes, and one where the outcomes aren't as dramatic. To paraphrase Yahtzee, "they either have you as a baby-eater or Mother Teresa, there should be some middle ground" What you choose should have a bearing in a game, but better than it's currently done. In Bioshock, if youre "bad" you get more resources, but a "bad" ending. If you're "good" you get a "good" ending. Whoo-whoo. In Fable II, if you're "good" everyone is in love with you, and the game plays out. If you're "bad", everyone is scared shitless of you, and the game plays out. What's the difference really?
Furthermore, I would like to know what impact my decisions will have on a game. It's taking me forever to play through Dragon Age Origins because I'm paranoid about everything I say at every dialogue choice (also because I'm an achievement whore, and I don't want to accidentally screw myself out of something.)
Also, I want RPGs (and other genres with items) to have tons and tons of varied items, creatures, weapons, etc. in them, more than you need and more than you'll find. It adds a lot to the game, the story, and the world. It's what was so fantastic about MMOs when I first played them, finding everything new in the game. Same with games like Pokemon and Dragon Warrior Monsters, all of the new creatures were fantastic. The only thing with this though, is I want all items to have an actual informative tooltip with them, saying what they do. It frustrates me to no end to either A) Have a pile of unused items in the fear that they'll be needed later, or B) say "screw it", go ahead and use what I think is appropriate, only to find that a gem that I used to give my crappy sword +5 attack is the only gem in the game that I can use to upgrade the sword I currently have to God-like status. That kind of thing.
Also, I want games that have "features" in them, to actually DO something. (I'm looking at you, Fable II). In that game, you can do woodcutting, blacksmithing, and bartending for some extra funds (but they're boring, tedius, and don't make you very much for the time invested.) You can gamble, but you only lose money. You can get married... which does, uhh, nothing. You can have kids, which does... uhh.. nothing. You can save money, buy buildings, make cash, buy more buildings, etc. etc. for... more money that you can spend on.. uhh... furniture for one of your houses? Clothing that won't affect other characters more than game progress already does? Potions that you find everywhere? You tell me. Half of that game is stuff that you CAN do, but why would you?
(Holy wall of text, Batman!)
people say they want more original ideas but when one comes out no one buys it, but people keep spending money on shooters. why dose the lest original game idea makes the most money.
Well, while I agree with this, there have been a few unique games that were done really well and sold well because of it. Portal and Bioshock to name a couple weren't mainstream and did really well. Braid and Plants vs Zombies did well (yes, PvZ is a tower-defence game, but come on, plants vs zombies? What's not original about that?) And Limbo is getting quite a bit of attention lately also.
Basically, if you make it (well), they will buy.
Anyways, personally what I want to see in a game is a better moral choice system, one without the extremes, and one where the outcomes aren't as dramatic. To paraphrase Yahtzee, "they either have you as a baby-eater or Mother Teresa, there should be some middle ground" What you choose should have a bearing in a game, but better than it's currently done. In Bioshock, if youre "bad" you get more resources, but a "bad" ending. If you're "good" you get a "good" ending. Whoo-whoo. In Fable II, if you're "good" everyone is in love with you, and the game plays out. If you're "bad", everyone is scared shitless of you, and the game plays out. What's the difference really?
Furthermore, I would like to know what impact my decisions will have on a game. It's taking me forever to play through Dragon Age Origins because I'm paranoid about everything I say at every dialogue choice (also because I'm an achievement whore, and I don't want to accidentally screw myself out of something.)
Also, I want RPGs (and other genres with items) to have tons and tons of varied items, creatures, weapons, etc. in them, more than you need and more than you'll find. It adds a lot to the game, the story, and the world. It's what was so fantastic about MMOs when I first played them, finding everything new in the game. Same with games like Pokemon and Dragon Warrior Monsters, all of the new creatures were fantastic. The only thing with this though, is I want all items to have an actual informative tooltip with them, saying what they do. It frustrates me to no end to either A) Have a pile of unused items in the fear that they'll be needed later, or B) say "screw it", go ahead and use what I think is appropriate, only to find that a gem that I used to give my crappy sword +5 attack is the only gem in the game that I can use to upgrade the sword I currently have to God-like status. That kind of thing.
Also, I want games that have "features" in them, to actually DO something. (I'm looking at you, Fable II). In that game, you can do woodcutting, blacksmithing, and bartending for some extra funds (but they're boring, tedius, and don't make you very much for the time invested.) You can gamble, but you only lose money. You can get married... which does, uhh, nothing. You can have kids, which does... uhh.. nothing. You can save money, buy buildings, make cash, buy more buildings, etc. etc. for... more money that you can spend on.. uhh... furniture for one of your houses? Clothing that won't affect other characters more than game progress already does? Potions that you find everywhere? You tell me. Half of that game is stuff that you CAN do, but why would you?
(Holy wall of text, Batman!)
Of course you can play together!dragonslayer32 said:
If your in your own houses, on different systems, after you all bought the game, schedule so your all playing at the same time, spend 20 minutes in the lobby trying to find each other, only able to communicate with scratchy mics, and without eh ablitiy to switch to something else if everybody gets bored.
I usually do enjoy a well-done romance plot, but since entering a relationship of my own (and my boyfriend is a HUGE romantic) gaming time for me is simple time.IBlackKiteI said:
More romance, Im talking dating-sim romance... If a game is going to attempt to allow you to date a character, do it right... make me really, really care about my potential lover...
Also more consequences, not like in Mass Effect or Fable, But major world altering consequences. From something as simple as stopping to enjoy the scenery, will completely change the outcome of the game, preventing almost nobody to get the same ending...
Also more consequences, not like in Mass Effect or Fable, But major world altering consequences. From something as simple as stopping to enjoy the scenery, will completely change the outcome of the game, preventing almost nobody to get the same ending...