What is the worst thing a game can do?

[Treblaine]

Sacrificing singleplayer for multiplayer.

Even if it meant a complete focus on Multiplayer?

Would that makes the likes of:
-Unreal Tournament
-Team Fortress 2
-Quake Arena
-Left 4 Dead

all these are examples of the worst things games can do!???

I think trying to split efforts between multiplayer and singleplayer and being good at neither is bad, and that with limited time and resources it's better to focus on one area.

 

[Delsana]

Sacrificing singleplayer for multiplayer.

Even if it meant a complete focus on Multiplayer?

Would that makes the likes of:
-Unreal Tournament
-Team Fortress 2
-Quake Arena
-Left 4 Dead

all these are examples of the worst things games can do!???

I think trying to split efforts between multiplayer and singleplayer and being good at neither is bad, and that with limited time and resources it's better to focus on one area.

You misunderstand. You can't sacrifice something if it's not even a thought in the first place. That's fine, though it's arguable that Left 4 Dead is an example of a sacrifice that is half and half that's poor in my opinion. TF2 had no SP so it doesn't factor. UT had a SP but it was added on just for practice.

I mean games that have a great singleplayer but then the focus on multiplayer additions or having one as well requires sacrifices on the SP.

Halo, Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo Reach, and every other FPS.

 

[DocApoc]

Underwater escort quest.

 

[Orks da best]

being fun, anything else is fine, but not being fun? a game has failed if its not fun to play.

 

[luckshot]

boring, too many fetch quests and plot doors

 

[Bostur]

The same thing that anything can do, squander potential. I've played games that are fine, but I can't stand because I'm distracted by how much better it could have been.

Oh I hate that :-/

When I get riled up about something truly genious in a game, and then get let down because it's left in a broken state or simply not used to its potential.

 

[IamQ]

Escort missions. Need I say more?

In case that I do, I specifically mean those that involve the AI being able to be killed, but not able to defend itself, meaning if you get swarmed, and you forget about your partner for 5 seconds, you're fucked.

 

[Treblaine]

Sacrificing singleplayer for multiplayer.

Even if it meant a complete focus on Multiplayer?

Would that makes the likes of:
-Unreal Tournament
-Team Fortress 2
-Quake Arena
-Left 4 Dead

all these are examples of the worst things games can do!???

I think trying to split efforts between multiplayer and singleplayer and being good at neither is bad, and that with limited time and resources it's better to focus on one area.

You misunderstand. You can't sacrifice something if it's not even a thought in the first place. That's fine, though it's arguable that Left 4 Dead is an example of a sacrifice that is half and half that's poor in my opinion. TF2 had no SP so it doesn't factor. UT had a SP but it was added on just for practice.

I mean games that have a great singleplayer but then the focus on multiplayer additions or having one as well requires sacrifices on the SP.

Halo, Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo Reach, and every other FPS.

Unreal Tournament came from Unreal, a single-player PC game.

Quake Arena of course came from Quake 1 & 2

I don't see what difference it makes if there NEVER WAS a single player portion, or if there was. If a series has a single player portion then none of the subsequent games can focus just on the multiplayer, even if the multiplayer becomes the stand-out feature?

I say if the developers feel they can't do anything with a single player and want to focus much if not all on the multiplayer, then I think it is important to respect that.

Like if all the story of a game series has been wrapped up, they have done everything they wanted to do for that type of game in single player, then they should not fear moving on to focus on multiplayer if they should deem to. Or vica-versa, dropping multiplayer for a focused single-player mode.

 

[Delsana]

Sacrificing singleplayer for multiplayer.

Even if it meant a complete focus on Multiplayer?

Would that makes the likes of:
-Unreal Tournament
-Team Fortress 2
-Quake Arena
-Left 4 Dead

all these are examples of the worst things games can do!???

I think trying to split efforts between multiplayer and singleplayer and being good at neither is bad, and that with limited time and resources it's better to focus on one area.

You misunderstand. You can't sacrifice something if it's not even a thought in the first place. That's fine, though it's arguable that Left 4 Dead is an example of a sacrifice that is half and half that's poor in my opinion. TF2 had no SP so it doesn't factor. UT had a SP but it was added on just for practice.

I mean games that have a great singleplayer but then the focus on multiplayer additions or having one as well requires sacrifices on the SP.

Halo, Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo Reach, and every other FPS.

Unreal Tournament came from Unreal, a single-player PC game.

Quake Arena of course came from Quake 1 & 2

I don't see what difference it makes if there NEVER WAS a single player portion, or if there was. If a series has a single player portion then none of the subsequent games can focus just on the multiplayer, even if the multiplayer becomes the stand-out feature?

I say if the developers feel they can't do anything with a single player and want to focus much if not all on the multiplayer, then I think it is important to respect that.

Like if all the story of a game series has been wrapped up, they have done everything they wanted to do for that type of game in single player, then they should not fear moving on to focus on multiplayer if they should deem to. Or vica-versa, dropping multiplayer for a focused single-player mode.

My point is from a budget perspective.

 

[Treblaine]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.319248.13037505

My point is from a budget perspective.

Hmm.

(Well it's not like Halo Reach's single-player was completely worthless. surely that was worth the $60 or swiftly discounted price?)

I'd rather the developers do One thing right than Two things poorly. if they can to a great multiplayer AND sngleplayer, great, but not many can. Black Ops had an unbearable single-player and the hinting of a great and truly balanced multiplayer, instead I paid $60 for something that wasn't that great at either.

It's like; would you rather pay for and eat a $15 gourmet burger? Or three shitty $5 burgers? A single $5 ain't the option. It's quantity or quality.

When it comes to games, quantity is NOT a quality in itself.

Unreal Tournament games were sold as other full price PC games and it was worth it because back in the good old days there was a matter of FOCUS. Developers would decide from the outset what kind of game they were making and didn't try to make something that was the lowest common denominator for both single and multiplayer.

Single-player-only games can stand on their own. Why not multiplayer only games?

Especially if they are TOTALLY FOCUSED on being the god damn best multiplayer games that you can get in that price range.

 

[Delsana]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.319248.13037505

My point is from a budget perspective.

Hmm.

(Well it's not like Halo Reach's single-player was completely worthless. surely that was worth the $60 or swiftly discounted price?)

I'd rather the developers do One thing right than Two things poorly. if they can to a great multiplayer AND sngleplayer, great, but not many can. Black Ops had an unbearable single-player and the hinting of a great and truly balanced multiplayer, instead I paid $60 for something that wasn't that great at either.

It's like; would you rather pay for and eat a $15 gourmet burger? Or three shitty $5 burgers? A single $5 ain't the option. It's quantity or quality.

When it comes to games, quantity is NOT a quality in itself.

Unreal Tournament games were sold as other full price PC games and it was worth it because back in the good old days there was a matter of FOCUS. Developers would decide from the outset what kind of game they were making and didn't try to make something that was the lowest common denominator for both single and multiplayer.

Single-player-only games can stand on their own. Why not multiplayer only games?

Especially if they are TOTALLY FOCUSED on being the god damn best multiplayer games that you can get in that price range.

No, Reach's singleplayer wasn't even near worth 60 dollars.

I'd rather they choose which games will have multi and which will sp and kept it at that, full budget focus on SP... not some sp added as a flavor or MP added to spice things up. That splits budget.

 

[Shadowfang21]

Not have an engaging storyline or have terrible graphics for its generation.

For somebody who sometimes reads Hentai for its story, the storyline means a lot for me to be interesting. That's why I don't play most first person shooters. Another thing: no matter how complicated the story, I have to be able to follow it. I hate playing a game with an AMAZING story, but I just can't understand it, or they never piece it all together.

And, being a very aesthetic person, I love playing a game with good graphics, but as I said it depends on the generation. I won't expect Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time to have the best graphics unless they remade it, but it was pretty good for 1997. Final Fantasy XIII was a mindfuck for my eyes, and I enjoyed every last bit of the storyline. Sure, the gameplay was a tad easy, and a few bosses nearly impossible, but that's not what turns me away.

Now I have to go look at the Eidolon summons again.

I was going to disagree with the second point, but after a bit of thought I realize you've got a bit of a point. Let me just add something to it, though. Graphical quality depends on the technology available and the number of people working in that department. Games with horrid graphics can turn out great, it's one thing that made Silent Hill 2 great where they couldn't really animate or make out every single thing so they put in a fog to keep the player in suspense. I do agree, however, with the point you are making; it's a shame that it's 2011 and ugly games like Rouge Warrior or Duke Nukem: Forever get made, considering the budget for making games going up.

Also, I agree with your first point wholeheartedly; even reading Hentai for the story sometimes. I also hate when they have an awesome story, then about halfway through it starts showing chinks in the armor and falls apart at the end. Mortal Kombat 2011/MK 9? I'm glaring di-rect-ly at you when I say that...

 

[Treblaine]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.319248.13037505

My point is from a budget perspective.

Hmm.

(Well it's not like Halo Reach's single-player was completely worthless. surely that was worth the $60 or swiftly discounted price?)

I'd rather the developers do One thing right than Two things poorly. if they can to a great multiplayer AND sngleplayer, great, but not many can. Black Ops had an unbearable single-player and the hinting of a great and truly balanced multiplayer, instead I paid $60 for something that wasn't that great at either.

It's like; would you rather pay for and eat a $15 gourmet burger? Or three shitty $5 burgers? A single $5 ain't the option. It's quantity or quality.

When it comes to games, quantity is NOT a quality in itself.

Unreal Tournament games were sold as other full price PC games and it was worth it because back in the good old days there was a matter of FOCUS. Developers would decide from the outset what kind of game they were making and didn't try to make something that was the lowest common denominator for both single and multiplayer.

Single-player-only games can stand on their own. Why not multiplayer only games?

Especially if they are TOTALLY FOCUSED on being the god damn best multiplayer games that you can get in that price range.

No, Reach's singleplayer wasn't even near worth 60 dollars.

I'd rather they choose which games will have multi and which will sp and kept it at that, full budget focus on SP... not some sp added as a flavor or MP added to spice things up. That splits budget.

Uhhh, but for $60 you are NOT JUST getting Reach's single player, you are also getting the multiplayer, and their take on hoard mode. That's three different ways of playing the game, and you don't have to buy it for $60, I can only speak for the UK where i'lll have you know we are routinely shafted in prices but I bought Halo each a few months ago for only £13 which would be $20.

I'm a great proponent of focused game design, but if a studio can make good multi + single player I won't be dogmatically against that. But clearly, some studios cannot do both multi and single player in the time/budget they have, the next Treyarch COD game would ideally be all multiplayer.

 

[MidnightSt]

Treat me not as a PLAYER, but as an ACTOR in its story.

 

[Delsana]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.319248.13037505

My point is from a budget perspective.

Hmm.

(Well it's not like Halo Reach's single-player was completely worthless. surely that was worth the $60 or swiftly discounted price?)

I'd rather the developers do One thing right than Two things poorly. if they can to a great multiplayer AND sngleplayer, great, but not many can. Black Ops had an unbearable single-player and the hinting of a great and truly balanced multiplayer, instead I paid $60 for something that wasn't that great at either.

It's like; would you rather pay for and eat a $15 gourmet burger? Or three shitty $5 burgers? A single $5 ain't the option. It's quantity or quality.

When it comes to games, quantity is NOT a quality in itself.

Unreal Tournament games were sold as other full price PC games and it was worth it because back in the good old days there was a matter of FOCUS. Developers would decide from the outset what kind of game they were making and didn't try to make something that was the lowest common denominator for both single and multiplayer.

Single-player-only games can stand on their own. Why not multiplayer only games?

Especially if they are TOTALLY FOCUSED on being the god damn best multiplayer games that you can get in that price range.

No, Reach's singleplayer wasn't even near worth 60 dollars.

I'd rather they choose which games will have multi and which will sp and kept it at that, full budget focus on SP... not some sp added as a flavor or MP added to spice things up. That splits budget.

Uhhh, but for $60 you are NOT JUST getting Reach's single player, you are also getting the multiplayer, and their take on hoard mode. That's three different ways of playing the game, and you don't have to buy it for $60, I can only speak for the UK where i'lll have you know we are routinely shafted in prices but I bought Halo each a few months ago for only £13 which would be $20.

I'm a great proponent of focused game design, but if a studio can make good multi + single player I won't be dogmatically against that. But clearly, some studios cannot do both multi and single player in the time/budget they have, the next Treyarch COD game would ideally be all multiplayer.

They didn't make good singleplayer and multiplayer in one game they made average story and in my opinion, still average multiplayer.

No game can have both great SP and great MP, add MP in an expansion if you'll do it that way... In any case, I play for SP... Halo wasn't worth it.

 

[Treblaine]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.319248.13037505

My point is from a budget perspective.

Hmm.

(Well it's not like Halo Reach's single-player was completely worthless. surely that was worth the $60 or swiftly discounted price?)

I'd rather the developers do One thing right than Two things poorly. if they can to a great multiplayer AND sngleplayer, great, but not many can. Black Ops had an unbearable single-player and the hinting of a great and truly balanced multiplayer, instead I paid $60 for something that wasn't that great at either.

It's like; would you rather pay for and eat a $15 gourmet burger? Or three shitty $5 burgers? A single $5 ain't the option. It's quantity or quality.

When it comes to games, quantity is NOT a quality in itself.

Unreal Tournament games were sold as other full price PC games and it was worth it because back in the good old days there was a matter of FOCUS. Developers would decide from the outset what kind of game they were making and didn't try to make something that was the lowest common denominator for both single and multiplayer.

Single-player-only games can stand on their own. Why not multiplayer only games?

Especially if they are TOTALLY FOCUSED on being the god damn best multiplayer games that you can get in that price range.

No, Reach's singleplayer wasn't even near worth 60 dollars.

I'd rather they choose which games will have multi and which will sp and kept it at that, full budget focus on SP... not some sp added as a flavor or MP added to spice things up. That splits budget.

Uhhh, but for $60 you are NOT JUST getting Reach's single player, you are also getting the multiplayer, and their take on hoard mode. That's three different ways of playing the game, and you don't have to buy it for $60, I can only speak for the UK where i'lll have you know we are routinely shafted in prices but I bought Halo each a few months ago for only £13 which would be $20.

I'm a great proponent of focused game design, but if a studio can make good multi + single player I won't be dogmatically against that. But clearly, some studios cannot do both multi and single player in the time/budget they have, the next Treyarch COD game would ideally be all multiplayer.

They didn't make good singleplayer and multiplayer in one game they made average story and in my opinion, still average multiplayer.

No game can have both great SP and great MP, add MP in an expansion if you'll do it that way... In any case, I play for SP... Halo wasn't worth it.

Well there's also the thought that you can't make a good Halo anything, at least not any more, whether focusing on SP or MP or whatever.

Some things are just not that great and focus won't help.

Certainly COD4 had a good Multiplayer and a good single player

 

[Delsana]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.319248.13037505

My point is from a budget perspective.

Hmm.

(Well it's not like Halo Reach's single-player was completely worthless. surely that was worth the $60 or swiftly discounted price?)

I'd rather the developers do One thing right than Two things poorly. if they can to a great multiplayer AND sngleplayer, great, but not many can. Black Ops had an unbearable single-player and the hinting of a great and truly balanced multiplayer, instead I paid $60 for something that wasn't that great at either.

It's like; would you rather pay for and eat a $15 gourmet burger? Or three shitty $5 burgers? A single $5 ain't the option. It's quantity or quality.

When it comes to games, quantity is NOT a quality in itself.

Unreal Tournament games were sold as other full price PC games and it was worth it because back in the good old days there was a matter of FOCUS. Developers would decide from the outset what kind of game they were making and didn't try to make something that was the lowest common denominator for both single and multiplayer.

Single-player-only games can stand on their own. Why not multiplayer only games?

Especially if they are TOTALLY FOCUSED on being the god damn best multiplayer games that you can get in that price range.

No, Reach's singleplayer wasn't even near worth 60 dollars.

I'd rather they choose which games will have multi and which will sp and kept it at that, full budget focus on SP... not some sp added as a flavor or MP added to spice things up. That splits budget.

Uhhh, but for $60 you are NOT JUST getting Reach's single player, you are also getting the multiplayer, and their take on hoard mode. That's three different ways of playing the game, and you don't have to buy it for $60, I can only speak for the UK where i'lll have you know we are routinely shafted in prices but I bought Halo each a few months ago for only £13 which would be $20.

I'm a great proponent of focused game design, but if a studio can make good multi + single player I won't be dogmatically against that. But clearly, some studios cannot do both multi and single player in the time/budget they have, the next Treyarch COD game would ideally be all multiplayer.

They didn't make good singleplayer and multiplayer in one game they made average story and in my opinion, still average multiplayer.

No game can have both great SP and great MP, add MP in an expansion if you'll do it that way... In any case, I play for SP... Halo wasn't worth it.

Well there's also the thought that you can't make a good Halo anything, at least not any more, whether focusing on SP or MP or whatever.

Some things are just not that great and focus won't help.

Certainly COD4 had a good Multiplayer and a good single player

Slightly Above Average... yes.

I think Halo 2 and 3 would of been fine had they had better budgets and focus on the Sp rather than MP, but I recognize a TON of money was made on MP, I just don't want it that way for my game tastes.

 

[putowtin]

QTE in cut scenes, I can't tell you the amount of times I've got up to make a drink to find I've failed/died/upset the locals by missing a QTE!

 

[Treblaine]

Treat me not as a PLAYER, but as an ACTOR in its story.

But the acting is part of the play.

When control is wrenched from you for a cutscene or scripted sequence to begin... you are not longer a player or actor, you are forced to suddenly be a passive observer in your own story!

 

[Treblaine]

QTE in cut scenes, I can't tell you the amount of times I've got up to make a drink to find I've failed/died/upset the locals by missing a QTE!

But against quick time events entirely?

Like lets say you had a training sequence to increase the reload time of your gun, you had to - in warned queue - press some buttons in quick order to "level up". Is that different enough from cutscene QTE?