In the video game world in general, what are you SICK of????

[swlovinist]

I do not want to rely on the negative, but I thought that alot of things in the video game world have gotten me bummed as of late. I am not going to vent on what they are, instead, I want to hear other fellow gamers vent what THEY are SICK of. This topic is open ended, and could be anything game related, old or new.

[scooterb23]

I'm sick of games where you have to sneak around (Metal Gear, Splinter Cell etc.)

Dammit, if I wanted to go sneak around like that, I'd go steal my neighbors car again.

[zmeston]

I do not want to rely on the negative, but I thought that alot of things in the video game world have gotten me bummed as of late. I am not going to vent on what they are, instead, I want to hear other fellow gamers vent what THEY are SICK of. This topic is open ended, and could be anything game related, old or new.

* Bullet time. If I want a slow-motion videogame, I'll play a SNES shmup.

* The Devil May Cry combo system ("2882 Hits! Thoo-per!"), which apparently must now be used in every new action/platformer.

* Shitty voice acting. Hire real thespians or don't use voices at all. (The latter was possibly my favorite thing about The Wind Waker.)

* Female characters with impossibly large breasts. Just kidding.

-- Z.

[Phosphor Dot Fossils]

I'm sick of what sometimes seems like 75%+ of everything that comes out new these days being locked down into a handful of genres: FPS, racing, sports sim, flight combat sim, RPGs requiring three uninterrupted years of playtime plus the strategy guide and a hunting dog and a ouija board, the likes. I don't mind any one of those styles of game in moderation, but damn, the wacky innovation that used to bring us stuff like, oh, say, Pac-Man or Tetris...just doesn't seem like it's there anymore.

One of the reasons I haven't bought any of the current generation of consoles is because I haven't seen anything that really looked appealing to me. Please understand, I'm not asking for Pac-Man or Tetris specifically, but think about how those games seemed completely different than anything that had come before them. Games that challenge conventional genre lines and players' skills, and defy attempts by the media or anyone else to pigeonhole them into a specific genre.

Maybe I'm just not looking in the right place. Maybe these games I'm looking for are, in fact, out there, and I just haven't seen them. Maybe I'm crazy, but Pikmin is the closest anyone's come to catching my eye with a new game for a new console in the past couple of years. And even then...not enough for me to buy either the console or the game.

[Needle]

I'm sick over overly-developed and complex systems that are impossible to figure out yet have little to no bearing on the game. Xenosaga comes to mind. When you consider how complex the fighting system is yet how little actual fighting you do... it doesn't seem to balance out.

I'm also sick of people who complain about random battle encounters in old-school RPGs. I'll never understand the argument to actually REMOVE gameplay aspects. While I'm sure I'll catch some slack for saying that (I always do), it just will never make sense. Random encounters are the meat of the game! It's what makes the game a game, instead of a 40-hour cinema scene, and an occasional romp through a dungeon trying to be as stealth as possible.

Sigh.

[zmeston]

I'm sick over overly-developed and complex systems that are impossible to figure out yet have little to no bearing on the game. Xenosaga comes to mind. When you consider how complex the fighting system is yet how little actual fighting you do... it doesn't seem to balance out.

I'm also sick of people who complain about random battle encounters in old-school RPGs. I'll never understand the argument to actually REMOVE gameplay aspects. While I'm sure I'll catch some slack for saying that (I always do), it just will never make sense. Random encounters are the meat of the game! It's what makes the game a game, instead of a 40-hour cinema scene, and an occasional romp through a dungeon trying to be as stealth as possible.

Sigh.

I was wondering how long it'd be until there was a post in this thread I disagreed with. Heh. I hate random encounters, and their elimination from most modern RPGs is wonderful. Random encounters aren't a "gameplay aspect" -- they're pure filler, a leftover from the days when "RPGs" were all plotless dungeon-crawlers. Making monsters visible, and allowing the player to pick and choose his encounters, adds strategy to the gameplay and gives the player more control over the experience. How can you not approve of that?

-- Z.

[Videogamerdaryll]

I'm sick of all the crap masses of games that are coming out and that have come out..
It seems like everybody and their brother is making games today..too many people trying to make a quick buck..

It gets too hard to buy a good game these days unless you do a ton of research on it....
I like quality instead of quantity..
"Playwise" for the newer systems I'd rather have one great game instead of 10 crap games for the same system...

Hey swlovinist..do you use this name on Ebay too?
If so..I'm the guy who won your Top Players Golf AES cart..

My name here is the same as my Ebay ID.

Small world..

EDIT UPDATE..
I got the Top Players Golf AES cart today..Thanks swlovinist..
Great Seller..

[Jorpho]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and mention armchair CEOs.

Are there really that many people who are so qualified to evaluate the complexities of manufacturing, marketing, development, et cetra that they can give accurate predictions of the future of the video game market?
________
HOW DOES EASY VAPE WORK (http://www.vaporshop.com)

[AB Positive]

Negative fanboyism. I'll admit, I'm a big linux geek, and I'm rather against Microsoft's buisness practices.... but that doesn't change the fact that the XBOX is a valid video game system. Not one I've personally enjoyed as I'm not a FPS kind of person but it deserves to be there. Just because they're beating the Gamecube (a system I enjoy more) doesn't give the nintendo faithful the right to start swinging wildly at a system that got it's share in a fair manner.

I remember back in the bloody 16-bit wars, I said my share of "Nintendo sucks, Sega rools~!" but we tried to back it up with how good our system was, not how bad the opponent's were. Ah, the memories. But still, fanboyism on the whole annoys me, especially the ones that make up 'news they heard' to try and bury another system. It's video games folks, not life and death.

-AG

[YoshiM]

-Cinemas. I am so sick of sitting through a butt load of cinemas in game. If its trying to advance the story or if it's calling up some demonoid to pound your opponent, it's too much. I never finished MG: Sons of Liberty as I don't have the time to sit through an HOUR of unskippable video. That was in between the five or ten minute video I just got out of and the next movie I got into after. Add to this the "Final Fantasy" effect where you see a good section of quality CG FMV that drives the story but then are dumped into see some jaggy models. This totally takes the immersion away. Consoles are power enough, go real time.

-Character RPGs. Whatever happened to using one's imagination and creating your own group of heroes? Most of the RPGs today are epic stories that pull your from point to point in a linear quest with some side stops of adventure along the way. Along with that you get cliche' inter character interaction. But hey it looks purrrty. Another problem with most CRPGs is that weapons have become these odd ball upgradable items with the help of some magic rock/crystal/dragon spooge. Whatever happened to buying different weapons of different material ala Phantasy Star? Speaking of weapons, why are most weapons in new RPGs oversized (ie a pier with a handle that's so prevalent), unwieldy and looks "useless" as an effective weapon but looks cool or are silly in concept (gunblade?! A big-ass sword with a revolver built in. Riiiight). This is why I like games like Morrowind-I create my character and I take my own path. Or a game where I can at least SEEM like I'm not being hearded to the end of the story.

-"True" random encounters. In the past I dealt with it. It was filler but even then it got old. Even with the latest incarnation of FF we still get the swirl screen. Like zmeston, I too want to be able to see my opponents and try and sneak away if I know I'm gonna get my team's tails whupped.

-Bad cameras. Nothing ticks me off WORSE than if I can't see what the hell I'm doing in game because the camera decides to get stuck on something. Wind Waker is a perfect example of where I was in the middle of a fight and my camera got wedged into a pillar and I could NOT see the battle I was in. 3D games have been being made since like the early to mid 90's. You would think by now someone would have figured out how to make cameras work and then everyone else use that approach. Again, consoles have the power, make background object transparent if the camera goes near it. Or just lock the sucker in one place.

[Oobgarm]

What am I sick of?

1. The milking to death of a once-innovative concept.

Once a game does something well or breaks into a new "genre" (do those even exist anymore?), the others scramble to do the exact same thing, usually with lackluster results. What ever happened to originality?

DOA Volleyball was NOT innovative by any stretch of the imagination, but now there are 2-3 other volleyball games where the female characters are the focal point. DOA Volleyball didn't sell that well.

2. The fact that most games aren't "games" anymore, they're "experiences", like a movie.

I fondly remember playing the classic arcade machines, when the GAMEPLAY itself was the focus. New games like Amplitude and Wario Ware are just as addicting as the classic stuff, since the main focus of those games is the HIGH SCORE.

3. The fact that everyone and their damn brother is getting into the games industry. (This kinda ties into my first gripe)

We're seeing crap shoveled out the door at an alarming rate. Some of this stuff will be collectible, sure, but it's definitely not helping the industry as a whole. Games about the Playboy Mansion? Come on, there's bound to be some unique title form Japan that's worth porting over here. If they're not careful, another crash could be imminent. O_O

[Videogamerdaryll]

What am I sick of?

1. The milking to death of a once-innovative concept.

Once a game does something well or breaks into a new "genre" (do those even exist anymore?), the others scramble to do the exact same thing, usually with lackluster results. What ever happened to originality?

DOA Volleyball was NOT innovative by any stretch of the imagination, but now there are 2-3 other volleyball games where the female characters are the focal point. DOA Volleyball didn't sell that well.

2. The fact that most games aren't "games" anymore, they're "experiences", like a movie.

I fondly remember playing the classic arcade machines, when the GAMEPLAY itself was the focus. New games like Amplitude and Wario Ware are just as addicting as the classic stuff, since the main focus of those games is the HIGH SCORE.

3. The fact that everyone and their damn brother is getting into the games industry. (This kinda ties into my first gripe)

We're seeing crap shoveled out the door at an alarming rate. Some of this stuff will be collectible, sure, but it's definitely not helping the industry as a whole. Games about the Playboy Mansion? Come on, there's bound to be some unique title form Japan that's worth porting over here. If they're not careful, another crash could be imminent. O_O

We'll written.....
That's how I would of liked to write it..

[Achika]

The way I view PC games right now, I'm sick of them. All I see is 3 categories: FPS, Strategy, and MMORPG. After 200 hours of Phantasy Star Online with very little story to go with it, I'm bored to death. But, half of the stuff out for PC is MMORPG. And don't get me started on Everquest. -_- I want the good old days of PC back, the old Lucas Arts & the old Sierra.

And as for the random encounters, how else do you propose to build your character the way they have the games set up? :/

[swlovinist]

What am I sick of?

1. The milking to death of a once-innovative concept.

Once a game does something well or breaks into a new "genre" (do those even exist anymore?), the others scramble to do the exact same thing, usually with lackluster results. What ever happened to originality?

DOA Volleyball was NOT innovative by any stretch of the imagination, but now there are 2-3 other volleyball games where the female characters are the focal point. DOA Volleyball didn't sell that well.

2. The fact that most games aren't "games" anymore, they're "experiences", like a movie.

I fondly remember playing the classic arcade machines, when the GAMEPLAY itself was the focus. New games like Amplitude and Wario Ware are just as addicting as the classic stuff, since the main focus of those games is the HIGH SCORE.

3. The fact that everyone and their damn brother is getting into the games industry. (This kinda ties into my first gripe)

We're seeing crap shoveled out the door at an alarming rate. Some of this stuff will be collectible, sure, but it's definitely not helping the industry as a whole. Games about the Playboy Mansion? Come on, there's bound to be some unique title form Japan that's worth porting over here. If they're not careful, another crash could be imminent. O_O



Oh my gosh! I actually found somebody who thinks outside the box like me! I couldn't agree with you more man! Seriously, I believe that you cant look at the sales numbers but you need to look at the game numbers......There is alot of schlock out there flooding the market. I dont think that another crash is upon us..........I however do agreee that at least a correction is coming!

[Sylentwulf]

3-D, and RPG's with Machinery/Guns

[Videogamerdaryll]

What am I sick of?

1. The milking to death of a once-innovative concept.

Once a game does something well or breaks into a new "genre" (do those even exist anymore?), the others scramble to do the exact same thing, usually with lackluster results. What ever happened to originality?

DOA Volleyball was NOT innovative by any stretch of the imagination, but now there are 2-3 other volleyball games where the female characters are the focal point. DOA Volleyball didn't sell that well.

2. The fact that most games aren't "games" anymore, they're "experiences", like a movie.

I fondly remember playing the classic arcade machines, when the GAMEPLAY itself was the focus. New games like Amplitude and Wario Ware are just as addicting as the classic stuff, since the main focus of those games is the HIGH SCORE.

3. The fact that everyone and their damn brother is getting into the games industry. (This kinda ties into my first gripe)

We're seeing crap shoveled out the door at an alarming rate. Some of this stuff will be collectible, sure, but it's definitely not helping the industry as a whole. Games about the Playboy Mansion? Come on, there's bound to be some unique title form Japan that's worth porting over here. If they're not careful, another crash could be imminent. O_O



Oh my gosh! I actually found somebody who thinks outside the box like me! I couldn't agree with you more man! Seriously, I believe that you cant look at the sales numbers but you need to look at the game numbers......There is alot of schlock out there flooding the market. I dont think that another crash is upon us..........I however do agreee that at least a correction is coming!

I dont think that another crash is upon us..........I however do agree that at least a correction is coming!

Oh I agree with you 100%.I just don't know how to really express my disgust in gaming today..It's worded so perfecty..

This morning I was just talking about this subject with my uncle..
I too don't believe they will be another crash..gaming has entered too many homes now...it's all over..phones/etc it's big,big bucks..every damn movie now has to become a game or vice versa....
I'm hoping on a correction though..somebody has to straighten this crap out...it's getting ridiculous now.

Last night I was looking at just how much certain genres of games or milked beyond the limit..it's sickening..
My uncle brings me a bunch of PS games today...I call them 20th party games made by small companies...milking the genres..Racing/Fishing/Saltwater Fishing..etc.
Just how many fishing games can they make..Soon I'll be fishing for Crayfish or eels..oh//wait maybe Whales..(Whale Fishing)..or (Toxic Water fishing).

I look at games for the GBA..just how much can you milk Mario..?
Combine him with other characters and you got another game..milked.
Mario & Donkey Kong/Mario and Luigi etc.

I have found some great games in the masses of cheap games being made..but It's so hard to get a grasp on what's good when it's being done over and over....

I'm ranting and could talk about this all day..
With the tons of crap games coming out/or that's out it's kept me away from buying lots of new games.

[Captain Wrong]

2. The fact that most games aren't "games" anymore, they're "experiences", like a movie.

I fondly remember playing the classic arcade machines, when the GAMEPLAY itself was the focus. New games like Amplitude and Wario Ware are just as addicting as the classic stuff, since the main focus of those games is the HIGH SCORE.


Man, I've said this time and time again. If I want to watch a movie, I'll watch a damn movie. During the PSX era, I was willing to chalk it up to abuse of new tech, like how every damn game had lense flair just because they could. But we're well into the next gen, and there seems to be no end in sight!

Other things that annoy me:

-Everybody trying to turn nearly every game into a franchise with annual updates. I miss the days when the sequel to a game was actually different from the first and not a handfull of tweaks and some new characters.

-Games that offer zero replay value. Tying into the "expirence" thing, it seems like most games today are designed to be a one-shot deal where you "expirence" them and then put them on the shelf or trade them in. I'm still playing 2600 games I bought 20 years ago, yet I can't think of too many PSX or newer games I have a desire to touch again.

-The lack of real challenge in most games. Seems like in the 16 bit era we had games that were hard, yet fair, and you could beat them if you had the skill to do so. Now games allow too much saving, are too much trial and error based, and really don't put up that much of a fight anyway.

-Load times. Why is this still an issue? (Yeah, I know it's a lack of RAM thing, but sheesh, it's annoying.)

I could go on...

[NE146]

Lots of GREAT answers here.. I agree with so much. I'm more or less repeating it here but it's SO DAMN TRUE! :P

1. CINEMAS / the "Movie" experience. Good lord those things are long.. It takes forever to just play the damn game! And it more or less ties right in with the whole "experience" games that offer no replay value. I want to play a friggin GAME.. not watch a damn movie with "characters" >:(

2. The same old same old FPS/Racing/Sports/Flight.. I'll stop here. Again I'll just be repeating what's already been said. Anyway, I know I'm preaching to the choir! LOL

[dave2236]

Sports games coming oout every year and being exactly the same.

The only cool one has been Rugby and that was only 1 year

[Oberfuhrer Hamm]

I SO agree with the "milking everything" bit. Heck, the whole reason I became tired of the N64 was because there were too few good games and too few new ideas. ("Hmm, yet another pokemon/puzzle/fighter/unintuitive FPS. What a waste of my time just looking at all of this") I got a PSX just for something new, for crying out loud. >:(

Edit: I did not want to double post, but I also hate the "experience" games woth no replay value. Anyone remember a PSX game called X-Files? (Or something to that effect. It was an X-Files game anyway.) It spanned 4 disks, but was completely TV quality pictures/FMV's. Being a point and click thing, I beat it in a weekend. Apparently, the replay value began and ended with picking different choices in ceartin spots (should I act "Cool & Collected" or "Run away like the pansy ass I am" at the sight of the dead body? Ooh, the indecision.), but this was not enough to get me to play it again.

[SoulBlazer]

I can't help but shake my head here at some of these responses. I guess I really AM a 'modern' gamer and not hung up on the 80's.

I LIKE cut scenes and what not in my games. Granted, MGS2 and Xenosaga had about as much as I could stand in one game.....

But that's the trend these days, and I like the games that have great graphics, great music, no random encounters, well developed charcters, and a good story line.

You don't like them, go play the Ultimas or Might and Magics or Dragon Warriors.

My biggest pet peves? Over using a concept (too many similar games and none of them are any good), a game only being available on one console, and the high prices of games these days. And how long it takes to get them on the market.

[Sniderman]

I hate two things with a passion:

1. Any and all fighters. Why? Because I suck at them. I mean, I suuuuuuuuuuck at them. We're talking "suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck."

2. Any game that features Mary Kate and Ashley. Is there really that much of a demand for games with them in it? Jesus H. Christ, Esq.! Make the deep hurting stop!

[Oberfuhrer Hamm]

I hate two things with a passion:

1. Any and all fighters. Why? Because I suck at them. I mean, I suuuuuuuuuuck at them. We're talking "suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck."

2. Any game that features Mary Kate and Ashley. Is there really that much of a demand for games with them in it? Jesus H. Christ, Esq.! Make the deep hurting stop!

Damn straight!

Fighter games must DIE! :snipersmile:

[calthaer]

I agree with most of the posts here. I think that a large percentage of the answers are a result of the takeover of the games industry by corporate execs and market researchers.

Why do they produce sports titles every year that are the same game but updated? EA's big-corporation model for a quick buck.

Why do they release sequel after sequel, and all the same? Market research. This game sold well, so X game will probably sell well.

We need companies who care more about making great games than turning a quick buck. Give me an Ion Storm (Spector's, not Romero's) over EA any day of the week.

The only way these problems will correct themselves is if people stop buying the same old game. There needs to be a crash, an upheaval. Just don't buy a game if it's the same thing. Download the demo, rent the game from Blockbuster, and if it's the same thing you played last year / a few years ago, don't buy it.

Anyone ever read Chris Crawford's rants / articles on this stuff at www.erasmatazz.com?

[Kim Possible]

I really hate all these Metal Gear Solid Knock offs, as someone said above. Enough is enough.

I'm sick of RPG's that have TOO much story and not enough game. FF7 was the last RPG I fully enjoyed. I can take or leave the FMV.

I hate RPG's that require me to read a 80 page booklet in order to undestand the controls.

I hate system controllers with 80 buttons and only 3 get used on any regular basis.

The TOTAL loss of anything 2-D.

I'm sure there is more, but don't get me started.... >:( >:( >:( >:(

[Kid Fenris]

At the risk of sounding like the most cynical jerk ever, I must say that I'm a little tired of gamers complaining about things that are hardly new to the industry. The milking of franchises and the proliferation of rip-offs are long-standing characteristics of the gaming world, and both practices were common during the classic eras so beloved by us. Crack open an old gaming magazine and take a long, hard, and nostalgia-free look at what's featured there. You won't find a world of innovation and future classics. You'll find a load of uninventive, forgettable titles and a paltry selection of high-quality games that have stood the test of time.

It also irks me that those who long for unique, genre-breaking titles often fail to notice when such things actually arrive. Critics and gamers alike harp about the lack of invention in today's market, then turn around and marginalize titles like Ikaruga, Rez, Shadow of Destiny, Pikmin, and Cubivore. It's almost as though we don't want new concepts; we just want modern games to deliver the same sense of wonder that we knew decades ago, when the widespread gaming industry was scarcely out of its larval stage and many ideas were new ones by default.

And the "If I want to watch a movie, I'll watch a movie" argument makes little sense to me, as it's akin to disparaging songs with lyrics because "if I want to hear verses, I'll pick up a book of poetry." Even the most mediocre storyline can enhance a game, and as long as the cut scenes can be skipped (as they can in many non-RPGs), there's not much to gripe about. I like score-based reflex tests as much as anyone, but I also like games that show some reach beyond basic entertainment, and this evolution is usually embodied by storylines and their fusion with gameplay.

Of course, there are some above points that I agree with. Random combat must be expunged from RPGs, most of today's PC releases bore me, and the level of console fanboy stupidity has been raised to sickening excesses by the internet's ease of communication. I long for the days when debates over system superiority were confined to schoolyards and the EGM letters section.

And yes, 2-D must live.

[YoshiM]

The way I view PC games right now, I'm sick of them. All I see is 3 categories: FPS, Strategy, and MMORPG. After 200 hours of Phantasy Star Online with very little story to go with it, I'm bored to death. But, half of the stuff out for PC is MMORPG. And don't get me started on Everquest. -_- I want the good old days of PC back, the old Lucas Arts & the old Sierra.

Preach it! I haven't seen anything real interesting in the PC world in the last two years except Freedom Force. Oh and Civilization III for my wife.


I can't help but shake my head here at some of these responses. I guess I really AM a 'modern' gamer and not hung up on the 80's.

I LIKE cut scenes and what not in my games. Granted, MGS2 and Xenosaga had about as much as I could stand in one game.....

But that's the trend these days, and I like the games that have great graphics, great music, no random encounters, well developed charcters, and a good story line.

Musically, I'm stuck in the 80's. Game wise, I'm fairly stuck in the 90's.

When you mention the trends (great graphics, music, yada) I notice that "gameplay" wasn't in there. A slip perhaps? ;)

[ManekiNeko]

1) The term "extreme". Everything's extreme these days, people. This buzzword has become so overused that the only things that are truly extreme don't have that word plastered all over them. Knock it off, it's old.
2) 3D. Do we have to have this jammed down our throats at every given opportunity? Not everyone likes falling to their deaths over and over because they couldn't properly guage the distance of a jump (thank you, Maximo). The Game Boy Advance used to be a refuge from the constant inundation of 3D, but now even that won't save us from it thanks to a new SuperFX chip currently in development at Nintendo. I've had enough.
3) Computer rendering. The new systems don't use this much anymore, but you see a lot of it on cheap Game Boy Advance games where the artists were too lazy to draw the sprites by hand. It looks artificial and unconvincing, making all the characters look as though they've been made from cheap plastic.
4) Image dependant marketing. Image is nothing. Thirst is everything. Respect our thirst for good games, and stop wasting your time making your product look cool. Some of my favorite games are anything BUT hip and trendy... take Super Mario World 2, for instance. You play a cute little dinosaur with an even cuter little baby on your back. Most of the artwork is drawn in crayon and looks like something you'd find hanging on a parent's refrigerator wall. It's not slick, it's not edgy, but it's fun, and that's ultimately what's important.

JR

[NE146]

I can't help but shake my head here at some of these responses. I guess I really AM a 'modern' gamer and not hung up on the 80's.

I LIKE cut scenes and what not in my games. Granted, MGS2 and Xenosaga had about as much as I could stand in one game.....

But that's the trend these days, and I like the games that have great graphics, great music, no random encounters, well developed charcters, and a good story line.

You don't like them, go play the Ultimas or Might and Magics or Dragon Warriors.

That's taking it a bit too far. I AM a modern gamer and always have been :D I was a modern gamer in the 2600 days and have been upgrading to the "latest and greatest" from the 5200 on up to today's consoles.. each one graphically better than the other. But, I still play games from every era (the choice ones of course) 8-)

I have a buttload of Xbox/PS2/GC games and play them, but man.. I can't understand how you like lengthy un-skippable cutscenes? ;) It just bugs me that I'm sititng there to PLAY a game and yet, I'm sitting IDLY there.. controller in hand for what seems like 10 minutes at a time.. not even pressing buttons! Bleh.. it just seems like filler. It's sort of like downloading some mpeg/mov of a game off the net and watching that. Even if you can skip them.. come on you do have to watch these things to figure out what's happening, what you have to do and I guess to get the most out of that particular game. But fuck.. some of them just have too much B.S. "dialogue" and crappy attempts at character development and interaction. Maybe if the production quality was better.. but let's face it, videogame cutscenes are worse than bad tv :P

Yes most games are going to have a story.. but there's a difference between games that have you as a minor 3rd party where it's trying to tell you a story and you just advance the plot, vs games that have a background story and immerse you in it. As for me, I prefer to be in the thick of things rather than sitting there advancing and watching the love story of some chick and some dude who'm I don't care about. :P

[Needle]

I was wondering how long it'd be until there was a post in this thread I disagreed with. Heh. I hate random encounters, and their elimination from most modern RPGs is wonderful. Random encounters aren't a "gameplay aspect" -- they're pure filler, a leftover from the days when "RPGs" were all plotless dungeon-crawlers. Making monsters visible, and allowing the player to pick and choose his encounters, adds strategy to the gameplay and gives the player more control over the experience. How can you not approve of that?

I guess I love plotless dungeon-crawlers. :D

I think there's a survival aspect involved in random encounters that I enjoy. I'm not really talking about when you're on the overworld map of any given game and you're being attacked by enemies you can slice through in seconds - Ido think someone should invent a progressive system that removes these battles from the game. But micromanaging party statistics through healing, MP conservation, and the ability to survive from save point to save point is part of the challenge of old games. And for those aspects, I love random encounters.

[Kid Fenris]

I have a buttload of Xbox/PS2/GC games and play them, but man.. I can't understand how you like lengthy un-skippable cutscenes? ;) It just bugs me that I'm sititng there to PLAY a game and yet, I'm sitting IDLY there.. controller in hand for what seems like 10 minutes at a time.. not even pressing buttons! Bleh.. it just seems like filler. It's sort of like downloading some mpeg/mov of a game off the net and watching that. Even if you can skip them.. come on you do have to watch these things to figure out what's happening, what you have to do and I guess to get the most out of that particular game. But fuck.. some of them just have too much B.S. "dialogue" and crappy attempts at character development and interaction. Maybe if the production quality was better.. but let's face it, videogame cutscenes are worse than bad tv :P

ALL video game cutscenes are worse than bad TV? Oh please. We have our Resident Evils and whatnot, but I've come across some excellent storytelling in video games. Vagrant Story, for example, has better dialogue and subtlety than most of the fantasy novels I've read, while Eternal Darkness is a much finer specimen of well-scripted, mind-warping horror than some of the great fright films to come out of Hollywood over the last decade. I can't guess your standards, but to say that video games are beneath bad television and cinema is either giving too little credit to games or too much credit to TV and movies.


Yes most games are going to have a story.. but there's a difference between games that have you as a minor 3rd party where it's trying to tell you a story and you just advance the plot, vs games that have a background story and immerse you in it. As for me, I prefer to be in the thick of things rather than sitting there advancing and watching the love story of some chick and some dude who'm I don't care about. :P

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here, as any game that tells a decent story does indeed provide background and immersion, and I can't recall a single game that casts players in a minor supporting role. The difference you seem to suggest depends on a storyline's quality, and not its focus.

[NE146]

ALL video game cutscenes are worse than bad TV? Oh please. We have our Resident Evils and whatnot, but I've come across some excellent storytelling in video games. Vagrant Story, for example, has better dialogue and subtlety than most of the fantasy novels I've read, while Eternal Darkness is a much finer specimen of well-scripted, mind-warping horror than some of the great fright films to come out of Hollywood over the last decade. I can't guess your standards, but to say that video games are beneath bad television and cinema is either giving too little credit to games or too much credit to TV and movies.

Vagrant Story. Own it. Played it. Finished it. Liked it. But ironically, it and it's theatrical storyline/characters and all it's attempts at profound depth were one of the factors that eventually turned me off to playing modern RPG's. (it was definitely one of the last I played). The story wore me down.. it was just so convoluted! Luckily the underlying game kicked ass. I've heard a lot about Eternal Darkness.. but I just dread these days sitting there for another storytime to be told by my videogame. It's the same reason I can't really sit and watch a movie in one sitting.. it just takes too long. :P

[ubersaurus]

I was wondering how long it'd be until there was a post in this thread I disagreed with. Heh. I hate random encounters, and their elimination from most modern RPGs is wonderful. Random encounters aren't a "gameplay aspect" -- they're pure filler, a leftover from the days when "RPGs" were all plotless dungeon-crawlers. Making monsters visible, and allowing the player to pick and choose his encounters, adds strategy to the gameplay and gives the player more control over the experience. How can you not approve of that?

I guess I love plotless dungeon-crawlers. :D

I think there's a survival aspect involved in random encounters that I enjoy. I'm not really talking about when you're on the overworld map of any given game and you're being attacked by enemies you can slice through in seconds - Ido think someone should invent a progressive system that removes these battles from the game. But micromanaging party statistics through healing, MP conservation, and the ability to survive from save point to save point is part of the challenge of old games. And for those aspects, I love random encounters.

I liked the random encounter system in earthbound, wherein if you at a high enough level, barring the enemy getting the jump on you, you didn't have to waste time with the fight, and you still got experience. That was cool, and an idea I want to see again.

What gets me about modern games? Everything and its mother is cel-shaded. Cel shading is nice and all in moderation, but when everything looks like a wannabe cartoon, thats when it starts buggin me.
I miss simple games. Complex ones are good now and then, and I do like the depth a good fighter can give, but something easy to pick up and play is good for when you got a few minutes to kill. Thank god for ikaruga, smash bros melee, beach spikers, and my old consoles.
And games are too easy now! I breezed through Wind Waker. Mario Sunshine wasn't even that hard. I think ever since the save features became widespread, games just got simpler to beat. Fucked up? reset and go back to your last save. I hated Mario 3 on the SNES because of tha save feature...it made it too easy to get through the game.

[Boogiemanwb]

1: Final Fantasies! Final Fantasy is a series that needs to die! There were only 3 good ones. Final fantasy 4, 6, and 7.

2: Sims. For a game that was fun for about 10 minutes, there's billions of new crap comin' out for it.

What we need are more games like Ristar and Flashback! Those were real man's games.

[Tempest]

A few things that have been annoying me lately:

- Bad cameras (one reason I detest 3D)

- Ungodly amounts of unlockable secrets

- Classic game remakes that aren't even remotely similar to the classic game

- Unbalanced gameplay

- Limited genres

- Yearly sport game updates that aren't really updates at all

- 1,000's of games being released every month

- Piss poor games based on popular movie/tv titles (Evil Dead anyone?)

- Ultra violent games made ultra violent for no reason other than to appeal to 12 year olds

- Lack of likeable characters

- Lack of decent non-predictable plots

- Pointless sequels and remixes


Tempest

[Videogamerdaryll]

I hate two things with a passion:

1. Any and all fighters. Why? Because I suck at them. I mean, I suuuuuuuuuuck at them. We're talking "suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck."

2. Any game that features Mary Kate and Ashley. Is there really that much of a demand for games with them in it? Jesus H. Christ, Esq.! Make the deep hurting stop!

LOL... "Mary Kate and Ashley" as I wrote my earlier post that game kept popping into my head..just knocking to be spoken about..
I bought a PS copy of one of their games for $2.00 just to have it..but man that sucker will never see the inside of my PS..
:D

[Kid Fenris]

I'm going to echo zmeston and add that I'm dismayed at some of the translations that Japanese games have received recently. We seem to have reached the point where spelling mistakes and nonsensical grammar are rare, but there are many cases where a game's decent storylines and interesting characters have been dulled by bland localizations and dialogue that real people would never utter. Heck, even something like the Legend of Dragoon would be more enjoyable if the characters didn't speak like Babelfish results.

[zmeston]

Anyone ever read Chris Crawford's rants / articles on this stuff at www.erasmatazz.com?

Chris Crawford is great. One of the very few game designers in the history of the industry with the life experience and fiendish intelligence to push the boundaries. I'd love to see him work on another major game release, but I don't think any amount of cash could lure him out of his self-imposed exile, so much does he despise what the game industry has become.

-- Z.

[zmeston]

At the risk of sounding like the most cynical jerk ever, I must say that I'm a little tired of gamers complaining about things that are hardly new to the industry.

I admit to being guilty of this crime, especially with my after-E3 post. Just a while ago, I was paging through an issue of VG&CE from the early '90s and read an editorial by Arnie Katz that listed every complaint I'd made: too many sequels, too many rip-offs, too many tie-ins, etc. It was a humbling moment.

-- Z.

[zmeston]

I think there's a survival aspect involved in random encounters that I enjoy. I'm not really talking about when you're on the overworld map of any given game and you're being attacked by enemies you can slice through in seconds - Ido think someone should invent a progressive system that removes these battles from the game. But micromanaging party statistics through healing, MP conservation, and the ability to survive from save point to save point is part of the challenge of old games. And for those aspects, I love random encounters.

You can have all the gameplay aspects you mention and STILL eliminate random encounters, but now I better understand their appeal to you -- thanks for the explanation.

-- Z.

[The Unknown Gamer]

A game you don't need a stradegy guide just to play the stupid game.
You know on G4TV on the show Cheat they interviewed a man from
Prima Gaming Guides and he said The Guide is just as important as the game.
Fill in your own reaction...

[Captain Wrong]

At the risk of sounding like the most cynical jerk ever, I must say that I'm a little tired of gamers complaining about things that are hardly new to the industry. The milking of franchises and the proliferation of rip-offs are long-standing characteristics of the gaming world, and both practices were common during the classic eras so beloved by us. Crack open an old gaming magazine and take a long, hard, and nostalgia-free look at what's featured there. You won't find a world of innovation and future classics. You'll find a load of uninventive, forgettable titles and a paltry selection of high-quality games that have stood the test of time.

Fair enough there. I thought it sucked back in the day, and still think it sucks today. I'm under no illusiuions that games just started sucking in the past 3 years. Trust me, my 2600 collection proves that wrong (ET, anyone?)

One comment I will stand by is every game shooting to become a yearly instalment sort of thing. That seems to be a fairly recent phenonum and it blows too.


It also irks me that those who long for unique, genre-breaking titles often fail to notice when such things actually arrive. Critics and gamers alike harp about the lack of invention in today's market, then turn around and marginalize titles like Ikaruga, Rez, Shadow of Destiny, Pikmin, and Cubivore. It's almost as though we don't want new concepts; we just want modern games to deliver the same sense of wonder that we knew decades ago, when the widespread gaming industry was scarcely out of its larval stage and many ideas were new ones by default.

Yeah, I can see your point here too and that's why I own several of the games you mention and continue to seek them out. I must say this though, often times it seems like the companies themselves burry these games and don't give them the ad space and hype they do the "safe" titles. It's almost like they can say "Well, we're not going to advertise Rez because we know it won't sell as well as NFL 2k2" and then, suprize, it doesn't because no one outside a select few have any idea what it's about or even that it exists.

I'm not saying that gamers aren't at fault for not buying innovative titles, but the companies that actually put them out rarely do them any favors by giving them advertising or getting them into magazines. Like it or not, this is an industry largely based on hype. If companies were willing to put a little muscle behind an innovative game, it'd be interesting to see what would happen. (Example, I heard from a EB guy that when they put Ikaruga in a demo kiosk, their sales of the game went up dramatically and were substancially higher than other stores in the area that didn't have Iky featured.)


And the "If I want to watch a movie, I'll watch a movie" argument makes little sense to me, as it's akin to disparaging songs with lyrics because "if I want to hear verses, I'll pick up a book of poetry." Even the most mediocre storyline can enhance a game, and as long as the cut scenes can be skipped (as they can in many non-RPGs), there's not much to gripe about. I like score-based reflex tests as much as anyone, but I also like games that show some reach beyond basic entertainment, and this evolution is usually embodied by storylines and their fusion with gameplay.

OK, this is where we're gonna have to agree to disagree. My problem is games where you know there was more thought and effort put into the cut scenes than the game itself. To be honest with you, I don't care about story in games. Never have, probably never will. Maybe I'm just too old school, but I will always prefer a game where I can watch an attract screen and know everything I need to know. If I wanted story telling, I'll read a book or watch a movie. I play games for interaction and cut scenes are not interactive.

I understand that many people welcome the combination of story with gameplay, but it seems like too many people making "games" are really frustrated film directors and the "expirence" they are crafting would probably work better as a straight up film than a "do some stuff, then watch a movie, rinse, repete" type of thing. I think this is totally different from your song analogy because I find the cutscenes get to a point where they interrupt the gameplay expirence rather than integrating with it. I don't like "gameus interruptus". Maybe it's just me...

[Kid Fenris]

OK, this is where we're gonna have to agree to disagree. My problem is games where you know there was more thought and effort put into the cut scenes than the game itself. To be honest with you, I don't care about story in games. Never have, probably never will. Maybe I'm just too old school, but I will always prefer a game where I can watch an attract screen and know everything I need to know. If I wanted story telling, I'll read a book or watch a movie. I play games for interaction and cut scenes are not interactive.

I understand that many people welcome the combination of story with gameplay, but it seems like too many people making "games" are really frustrated film directors and the "expirence" they are crafting would probably work better as a straight up film than a "do some stuff, then watch a movie, rinse, repete" type of thing. I think this is totally different from your song analogy because I find the cutscenes get to a point where they interrupt the gameplay expirence rather than integrating with it. I don't like "gameus interruptus". Maybe it's just me...

I don't think it's just you, since wanting no story with your game is a personal preference, albeit one that I don't believe has an objective basis. Still, today's games are at least less jarring in their cinematic presentation, since they often use the same (or an indistinguishably similar) engine for both gameplay and cutscenes. And more games are managing a deft play/story marriage; the boss battles against the Ninja and Psycho Mantis in Metal Gear Solid, for example.

I'm not sure if today's developers really prize movies more than gameplay, since modern titles with highly polished cutscenes usually have highly polished play mechanics as well. Both Metal Gear Solids are quite inventive, Xenosaga has an almost ridiculously complex battle system and a grueling difficulty curve, and a lot of thought clearly went into Grim Fandango's puzzles.

Of course, countless mediocre games try to have pretty CG openings and deep storylines too, but they're usually just as slapdash and inane in plot quality as they are in gameplay. Crap is a constant, even though it changes form with the times.

[tssk]

And as for the random encounters, how else do you propose to build your character the way they have the games set up? :/

You could for example, randomly seed a dungeon floor with visible enemies.

If Lufia 2 on the 16-bit SNES can do it I'm sure the current systems can do it.

[Gamemaster_ca_2003]

You people are a laugh LOL LOL

But you are right and wrong there are a lot of bad games out there, and too many of a few genders. There are still a few good modern games out there (ghost recon to name one). Don't get me wrong I still like Pac-Man as much as the next guy, but there are a few modern games not too bash.

[tssk]

Anyone ever read Chris Crawford's rants / articles on this stuff at www.erasmatazz.com?

Chris Crawford is great. One of the very few game designers in the history of the industry with the life experience and fiendish intelligence to push the boundaries. I'd love to see him work on another major game release, but I don't think any amount of cash could lure him out of his self-imposed exile, so much does he despise what the game industry has become.

-- Z.

I have heard he is working on a new version of Balance of Power.

[Achika]

I see what you're saying, but then 'some player' will skip around all those in order to 'cut down on time' get to the boss, get their ass handed back to them and then complain the game was too hard. :/

IIRC, you could see them in Lunar for PSX (not sure about Sega CD ver. since I haven't played that one) but then they would chase you down!

I just always found random encounters to be an intregal part of the game. I mean, at least in the FF and I'm sure others, holding down the trigger keys and the like would allow you to escape from battle

[tssk]

I see what you're saying, but then 'some player' will skip around all those in order to 'cut down on time' get to the boss, get their ass handed back to them and then complain the game was too hard. :/

IIRC, you could see them in Lunar for PSX (not sure about Sega CD ver. since I haven't played that one) but then they would chase you down!

I just always found random encounters to be an intregal part of the game. I mean, at least in the FF and I'm sure others, holding down the trigger keys and the like would allow you to escape from battle

Maybe strong creatures could try to hunt you down, weaker creatures would try to scurry away.

Besides, why should fighting be the only way to defeat a boss? I know of one RPG where you could defeat the boss with mere words...

[zektor]

I have been into the gaming "scene" for about 20 years. I really don't need to write fifty paragraphs about what pisses me off, but rather one sentence:

Games that don't give me a "come back" feeling make me feel like I wasted my money, and that pisses me off.


That's it. If the game gives me an hour of video before I can even start playing, I probably won't come back. If the game is rediculiously hard (ie: Deep Blue), I won't come back. If the game doesn't have that good game feeling, that heart I expect the programmers to give, I just won't play it again. This has happened in the past, and continues to happen. Fresh ideas and "come back" games are all it takes for any game company to excel.

[zmeston]

Anyone ever read Chris Crawford's rants / articles on this stuff at www.erasmatazz.com?

Chris Crawford is great. One of the very few game designers in the history of the industry with the life experience and fiendish intelligence to push the boundaries. I'd love to see him work on another major game release, but I don't think any amount of cash could lure him out of his self-imposed exile, so much does he despise what the game industry has become.

-- Z.

I have heard he is working on a new version of Balance of Power.

That would be awesome. I still bust out BoP: 1990 Edition for my Amiga on rare occasion, and I can only imagine how he could enhance the gameplay with today's PCs.

-- Z.

[briskbc]

I don't know if it has been mentioned yet but I'm going to have to say DDR games. Man I hate DDR games.

[Trellisaze]

I have heard he is working on a new version of Balance of Power.

That would be awesome. I still bust out BoP: 1990 Edition for my Amiga on rare occasion, and I can only imagine how he could enhance the gameplay with today's PCs.

-- Z.

I was under the impression that he was developing the new Balance of Power to show off the Erasmatron. I know that there's a PC version of the Erasmatron reader, but I'm not sure how well it's supported, since Chris Crawford got rid of the Windows version of the development kit.

All of this is probably a moot poit now anyway, since last I checked, the Erasmatron was still very much a work-in-progress.

[calthaer]

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here, as any game that tells a decent story does indeed provide background and immersion, and I can't recall a single game that casts players in a minor supporting role. The difference you seem to suggest depends on a storyline's quality, and not its focus.

If the game has a plot that is completely unalterable in any significant way, I would argue that you are always in a minor supporting role. The whole idea behind games is that they are supposed to be interactive. Pressing a few buttons to make the train-track-linear-story go forward is really no more interactive than flipping a page to read a normal book. I think the point being made is that people want a Choose Your Own Adventure book and not a long-winded and melodramatic Jane Eyre or Tess of the D'Urbervilles (sp?). I would agree with that sentiment - if I want a static story, then lots of movies and books do it far better than most games ever have.

Contrast Chronotrigger or Maniac Mansion, each of which had 4+ endings, with almost all recent story-based games. The last game I remember playing with good multiple endings was Deus Ex. And no - I do not consider a slightly different picture of Samus wearing less clothing the faster you beat the game a different ending.

[bargora]

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here, as any game that tells a decent story does indeed provide background and immersion, and I can't recall a single game that casts players in a minor supporting role. The difference you seem to suggest depends on a storyline's quality, and not its focus.

If the game has a plot that is completely unalterable in any significant way, I would argue that you are always in a minor supporting role. The whole idea behind games is that they are supposed to be interactive. Pressing a few buttons to make the train-track-linear-story go forward is really no more interactive than flipping a page to read a normal book. I think the point being made is that people want a Choose Your Own Adventure book and not a long-winded and melodramatic Jane Eyre or Tess of the D'Urbervilles (sp?). I would agree with that sentiment - if I want a static story, then lots of movies and books do it far better than most games ever have.

Contrast Chronotrigger or Maniac Mansion, each of which had 4+ endings, with almost all recent story-based games. The last game I remember playing with good multiple endings was Deus Ex. And no - I do not consider a slightly different picture of Samus wearing less clothing the faster you beat the game a different ending.
This was a major reason that I loved Colony Wars (the first one, for Playstation). While the plot outline itself (rebels from the colonies oppose the evil empire; sound familiar?) may be derivative, the execution was very cool. Your success or failure in each mission affected both the next mission you were given and the overall course of the game, with a CG cutscene coming every three to four missions to flesh out the course of the conflict. If you get a copy of the game and want to see the overall mission tree, enter the following password:

Commander*Jeffer

The scope of the game and the effort Psygnosis put into the backstory is unlike any other console action game I've ever seen.

And while the branches in the plot are based on your ability to meet mission objectives rather than arbitrary choices you make (excepting a choice to tank a mission), I still thnk that this type of branching plot tree is a great way to make a game hugely replayable and give a player true incentive to seek the best ending. It's too bad that it takes enough effort by the game designer that I've never seen it done to the same degree in another console release. Colony Wars: Vengeance (the second one) had a drastically reduced mission tree, and Coloy Wars: Red Sun (or 3) had you pick missions out of a list, as you were a mercenary type in that one.

The actual in-mission gameplay of Colony Wars may seem a bit shallow these days, but I guess the Playstation just couldn't animate the quantity of ships that you see in a game like Starfighter. And speaking of Starfighter, I greatly prefer the branching plotline of Colony Wars to the "play a mission over repeatedly until you can do it perfectly and maybe we'll unlock something for you" mechanism of Starfighter.

So actually, I can say that I don't care for that sort of mechanism where you play a mission over and over to achieve arbitrary benchmarks and thereby unlock new missions and ships. (Although I didn't mind facing opponents repeatedly in Puzzle Fighter to win things like Sakura's song and alternate Morrigan costumes, but those were simple win/lose propositions, and anyway a foolish consitency is a hobgoblin of small minds.)

[autobotracing]

I cant stand a ton of game sequals that all have the same ending boss



example


almost every mario game the end boss is bowser I mean come on how many times does the beast need his ass to be kicked before he dies


all crash games have dr neo cortex


All sonic games have robotnik



I also hate games that are rushed out because of a movie or whathave you .


I also think that there are way too many garbage games being releaced just because they can IE $10 psx games

[tynstar]

I am sick of cheaters and hack discs.

Any game that is GTA like.

Games with unlockable stuff if you beat it 200 times.

People thinking the PS2 has the best graphics.

People how copy games and play them on there modded system.

[Kid Fenris]

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here, as any game that tells a decent story does indeed provide background and immersion, and I can't recall a single game that casts players in a minor supporting role. The difference you seem to suggest depends on a storyline's quality, and not its focus.

If the game has a plot that is completely unalterable in any significant way, I would argue that you are always in a minor supporting role. The whole idea behind games is that they are supposed to be interactive. Pressing a few buttons to make the train-track-linear-story go forward is really no more interactive than flipping a page to read a normal book. I think the point being made is that people want a Choose Your Own Adventure book and not a long-winded and melodramatic Jane Eyre or Tess of the D'Urbervilles (sp?). I would agree with that sentiment - if I want a static story, then lots of movies and books do it far better than most games ever have.

Among video games, however, only digital comics present the sort of truly linear, page-flipping story that you're describing. Anything that involves actual gameplay is not a passive, text-scrolling experience, since it requires you to defeat that boss, navigate that dungeon, or dodge exploding beer cans and escape that burning building in order to advance the storyline.

Story-driven games are interactive, and even if a plot is unalterable, a well-crafted one can still enhance its accompanying gameplay by fostering a connection between the player and the characters they're controlling. After all, the best measure of a video game's success is the extent to which you can lose yourself within its fictional world. Some titles do this with simple and addictive concepts. Others present intense challenges that require pure reflexes. And others offer storylines and settings that create a convincing alternate reality for you to take in. Books and movies (good ones, anyway) may have better storytelling, but they'll never have that vital symbiosis that can arise between player and game. And a solid storyline, no matter how linear, makes that bond all the stronger for many players.

I also think you're confusing the player's role in the story with the influence that said player has over the plot. If you control the main character who often proves to be a catalyst for the game's events, that's not a supporting part by any measure. To be honest, I'd like to see a game where you control a minor character in a much larger drama, experiencing world-shaking events from the perspective of an average joe.


Contrast Chronotrigger or Maniac Mansion, each of which had 4+ endings, with almost all recent story-based games. The last game I remember playing with good multiple endings was Deus Ex. And no - I do not consider a slightly different picture of Samus wearing less clothing the faster you beat the game a different ending.

Off the top of my head, Chrono Cross, Valkyrie Profile, Tactics Ogre: The Knight of Lodis, and Eternal Darkness all featured both multiple endings and extensive stories. They're also pretty good games.