What's The Worst Current Gaming Trend??

Tired & Broke · Post by **Tired & Broke** » Thu May 17, 2012 11:34 pm

Pre-Planned DLC/Season Pass:

Known Culprits:

The Pros: Guaranteed Longevity for said game, discounted price when compared to buying individual DLC separately.

The Cons: Obvious evidence of work being held back to be release later for an extra fee (SFxT).
Also Companies get your money in advance and then mail it in and release half ass DLC within Season Pass (Gears Of War 3).

Online Pass For Used Games:

Known Culprits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_pass

The Pros: None

The Cons: Having to pay an extra fee in order to access the full capabilities of a game.
Most games limit you from accessing online/multiplayer features unless you pay for a code to grant you access.

Single Player Franchises Adding Multiplayer Modes:

Known Culprits:

The Pros: Sometimes developers strike gold and create fun and engaging co-op/multiplayer experiences (Mass Effect 3). This is generally the exception and not the norm.

The Cons: Usually gaming companies venture into this territory as an obvious cash grab with sub-par gameplay. The Multiplayer mode isn't thoroughly fleshed out and it becomes painfully obvious they should of spent more time on the Single Player aspect.

LilLeftBrain · Post by **LilLeftBrain** » Fri May 18, 2012 12:54 am

#2 with a blaow blaow
all your cons are spot on though

Spartan · Post by **Spartan** » Fri May 18, 2012 2:45 am

Voted option 3.

Great poll btw.

drobizhek · Post by **drobizhek** » Fri May 18, 2012 4:32 am

1. Pre-planned DLC that's already on the disk (see: Street Fighter x Tekken)
2. All this bullshit about having to be connected to the internet just to play single player mode.
3. Gems in SFxT or any other bullshit in fighting games that makes your Ryu different from my Ryu.
4. Not being able to play used games online.
5. Bunch of other current fighting game moronic design choices (mostly Capcom) that I'm not going into because nobody cares about it except a few thousand people that actually plays FGs regularly.

ThaJim2 · Post by **ThaJim2** » Fri May 18, 2012 5:01 am

Voted other. Independent games are the worst trend.

Tommy Bunz · Post by **Tommy Bunz** » Fri May 18, 2012 7:40 am

#2 is definitely the worst but #3 affects me personally the most as I don't fuck with multiplayer shit at all.
I'd add motion control but I guess that's beyond a trend now.

drobizhek · Post by **drobizhek** » Fri May 18, 2012 8:07 am

Tommy Bunz wrote:#2 is definitely the worst but #3 affects me personally the most as I don't fuck with multiplayer shit at all.
I'd add motion control but I guess that's beyond a trend now.

You could add quick-time events to that.

Balzac · Post by **Balzac** » Fri May 18, 2012 9:11 am

ThaJim2 wrote:Voted other. Independent games are the worst trend.

could you elaborate on that? theres some amazing indie games out there (meatboy, fez, journey, braid, limbo) that would never have emerged from a big studio.

regarding the poll

very tough one.

Planned DLC isn't a bad thing imo. But day 1 DLC that is already on the disc pisses me off. Its a pure cash grab. Those extra GTA mission packs for example were great and extended the life of the game. Where as shit like the batman arkham city catwoman episode that you had to buy but was already on the disk was pure

I'm going with #3.

Single player is what I love to play. I would rather companies spend all their time and effort to make it a memorable experience then to waste time and resources making a half assed multiplayer mode that gets old in a few weeks.

Combo7 · Post by **Combo7** » Fri May 18, 2012 9:56 am

From the poll, #3.

Also:

Quick-time events
Regenerating health
Motion controls
Cutscenes

Balzac · Post by **Balzac** » Fri May 18, 2012 10:07 am

Combo7 wrote: Regenerating health

ehhhhhhh i gotta disagree with you on this one.

was it the halo franchise that did this first? I think it was. Either way the system works great in a first or third person shoorter scenario. I like how you don't have to hunt around and backtrack for health packs. You can be more reckless diving straight into a firefight. You can face a higher volume of enemies. Its a more fluid firefight when you don't have to break away from a battle to find health.

That being said it could be tweaked a bit to make it not so easy as just ducking behind an obstacle for 30 seconds to get back to 100% health. I thought the halo ODST system of having shields and health and only shields regenerating to be a happy medium.

Tired & Broke · Post by **Tired & Broke** » Fri May 18, 2012 11:21 am

Yea ThaJim needs to elaborate on his post, cause Indy games are always welcome because they can always push the envelope and go where big budget companies can't. Besides is being an Indy developer really a trend anyway??

Combo7 wrote:From the poll, #3.

Also:

Quick-time events
Regenerating health
Motion controls
Cutscenes

Are QTE's really that prevalent?? And I feel motion controls are more of a staple now than trend since Micro$oft/Sony are directly implementing this into the functionality of their respective consoles.
And come on man, What's wrong with cutscenes??

DJ Primate · Post by **DJ Primate** » Fri May 18, 2012 1:26 pm

Balzac wrote:
ThaJim2 wrote:Voted other. Independent games are the worst trend.

could you elaborate on that? theres some amazing indie games out there (meatboy, fez, journey, braid, limbo) that would never have emerged from a big studio.

I gotta agree with Balzac on this one. Major developers our now pumping out the next blockbuster fancy generic shooters while indie developers are usually doing the innovation. Most of the games I play today are indie titles (Fez, Legend of Grimrock, Cubemen, Super Meat Boy, Trials, etc.) because every experience is new and exciting. Sure, there are heaps of crappy indie titles rotting in the deep pits of XBLA hell, but the ones that succeed in being awesome do so in a big way. And when they do, they aren't forced into sequels that ruin the concept, much like the big studios pump out when they get a hit.

ric · Post by **ric** » Fri May 18, 2012 3:48 pm

went option 3. the first game i thought of was splinter cell. there is so much fucking potential but they choose to not develop it, and in the meantime youve got the assassins creed seemingly purposely avoiding the splinter cell-esque play mechanics, and maybe thats a failure of the design. how many times when playing assassins creed did you wish you could crouch down and creep? or press up against the wall and do a 360 pirouette to a nearby pillar?

disagree with jim in general but its a double edged sword. some of the greatest games/franchises ever have been basically indy games or medium-indy games like xcom (why there is not a current, up to date, xcom-ish game i have no fucking idea - maybe its because the og series was so goddamn deep and ahead of its time in every fucking way. if anybody has any recommendations for anything close to xcom, please recommend that shit)

stupidregister · Post by **stupidregister** » Fri May 18, 2012 7:04 pm

Easily #2. What's the point of getting a PS3 to play online for free if you have to pay to play your games online anyway?

I actually think non-free-DLC is the worst. Who wants to spend $100 on one game?

an-also · Post by **an-also** » Fri May 18, 2012 7:11 pm

Easily online campaigns

360 · Post by **360** » Sat May 19, 2012 7:36 pm

I don't mind franchises that are known for being single player games adding a multiplayer aspect. All it does is increase the game's playability. Besides, most of them add a co-op MP with is vastly different from PvP.

All of the other trends suck, though, and it's going to continue to suck as they figure out how to make more money.

ric · Post by **ric** » Sun May 20, 2012 11:58 am

an-also wrote:Easily online campaigns

im recently reminded of this when i cant login to play starcraft 2. WHY THE FUCK AM I LOGGING INTO PLAY A GAME THAT IS ALREADY 100% ON MY COMPUTER?

battlecatmeowstab212 · Sun May 20, 2012 2:41 pm

Balzac wrote:
Combo7 wrote: Regenerating health
ehhhhhhh i gotta disagree with you on this one.

was it the halo franchise that did this first? I think it was. Either way the system works great in a first or third person shoorter scenario. I like how you don't have to hunt around and backtrack for health packs. You can be more reckless diving straight into a firefight. You can face a higher volume of enemies. Its a more fluid firefight when you don't have to break away from a battle to find health.

That being said it could be tweaked a bit to make it not so easy as just ducking behind an obstacle for 30 seconds to get back to 100% health. I thought the halo ODST system of having shields and health and only shields regenerating to be a happy medium.

Yeah, as someone who always played as Wolverine in the X-Men games, I got no beef with regenerating health, bub.

Combo7 · Post by **Combo7** » Sun May 20, 2012 2:43 pm

Tired & Broke wrote:And come on man, What's wrong with cutscenes??

I'm more a fan of the "show, don't tell" method of storytelling utilized by games like Half-Life. Most video game cutscenes are melodramatic, cliched, and poorly written and acted.

Would like to add sequels to my list of despicable gaming trends as well.

battlecatmeowstab212 · Sun May 20, 2012 2:49 pm

Combo7 wrote:
Tired & Broke wrote:And come on man, What's wrong with cutscenes??

I'm more a fan of the "show, don't tell" method of storytelling utilized by games like Half-Life. Most video game cutscenes are melodramatic, cliched, and poorly written and acted.

I agree, especially with how absurdly long they're getting. Absolutely no cut-scene in the history of video games should have ever been more than 5 minutes long for any reason. It's not a movie.

DJ Primate · Post by **DJ Primate** » Sun May 20, 2012 3:15 pm

Combo7 wrote: I'm more a fan of the "show, don't tell" method of storytelling utilized by games like Half-Life. Most video game cutscenes are melodramatic, cliched, and poorly written and acted.

Just Cause 2 is an excellently awful example of this. The game is fun as all hell, but the cutscenes are cringe inducing, and just serve as a barrier to the actual fun part of blowing everything up.

However, Rockstar games are usually great story-wise, and the cutscenes enhance the gameplay, rather than hinder it.

I guess it depends on the game.

wheels · Post by **wheels** » Tue May 22, 2012 10:34 pm

ric wrote:went option 3. the first game i thought of was splinter cell. there is so much fucking potential but they choose to not develop it, and in the meantime youve got the assassins creed seemingly purposely avoiding the splinter cell-esque play mechanics, and maybe thats a failure of the design. how many times when playing assassins creed did you wish you could crouch down and creep? or press up against the wall and do a 360 pirouette to a nearby pillar?

disagree with jim in general but its a double edged sword. some of the greatest games/franchises ever have been basically indy games or medium-indy games like xcom (why there is not a current, up to date, xcom-ish game i have no fucking idea - maybe its because the og series was so goddamn deep and ahead of its time in every fucking way. if anybody has any recommendations for anything close to xcom, please recommend that shit)

There's a new xcom coming, you should check it out. A lot of new info was released 3-4 months ago

Moolah · Post by **Moolah** » Tue May 22, 2012 10:41 pm

Cosigned on motion controllers and regenerating health.

Running around in Doom 2 when you're on like 20% health, looking for a health pack or a couple of blue potions to keep you alive was so much triller than the

1. Strafe out from behind wall.
2. Shoot a few people and get shot a few times to the point of near death.
3. Strafe back to wall for 20 seconds.
4. See step 1.

experience of playing Modern Warfare or Battlefield.

ric · Post by **ric** » Wed May 23, 2012 1:04 am

wheels wrote:There's a new xcom coming, you should check it out. A lot of new info was released 3-4 months ago

oh man, fuck. that is the best video game news ive heard in a long long time

LameAim · Post by **LameAim** » Wed May 23, 2012 5:16 am

Voted online passes for used games. Fuck those things. First-day DLC gets runner up.

While the phenomenon of seeing single-player franchises change up to incorporate multiplayer annoys me a bit, there are still good examples that really add to what you're getting, IMO. The recent ones that come to mind for me are the Mass Effect and Assassin's Creed franchises.

ThaJim2 · Post by **ThaJim2** » Wed May 23, 2012 4:17 pm

Balzac wrote:
ThaJim2 wrote:Voted other. Independent games are the worst trend.

could you elaborate on that? theres some amazing indie games out there (meatboy, fez, journey, braid, limbo) that would never have emerged from a big studio.

There are plenty of fine examples but there is a lot more crap. I should have also added retro gamers also to the mix. Plus the biggest fans are annoying as hell they are the same people that used to argue gameplay over graphics. Ignoring advances in graphics tend to bring new and often times better game play.

HomeSkillet · Post by **HomeSkillet** » Wed May 23, 2012 4:55 pm

The reason I voted 3 is because although paying more money sucks butt, it should - in theory - lead to better content in the end, albeit more expensive content.

I can't fucking STAND playing games that already have hurried and limited development cycles waste precious resources on some BS multiplayer that sucks, or even moderately fun multiplayer like Red Dead had - why have moderate fun when I really want MORE of the same?

EMCEE DARTH MALEK · Post by **EMCEE DARTH MALEK** » Wed May 23, 2012 6:07 pm

ThaJim2 wrote:
Balzac wrote:
ThaJim2 wrote:Voted other. Independent games are the worst trend.

could you elaborate on that? theres some amazing indie games out there (meatboy, fez, journey, braid, limbo) that would never have emerged from a big studio.

There are plenty of fine examples but there is a lot more crap. I should have also added retro gamers also to the mix. Plus the biggest fans are annoying as hell they are the same people that used to argue gameplay over graphics. Ignoring advances in graphics tend to bring new and often times better game play.

the jump from 2D to 3D brought this, but that was more than just an advance in graphics (and maybe not even: arguably super nintendo 2D looked better than ps1 3D). When have graphics themselves driven an advance in gameplay?

ThaJim2 · Post by **ThaJim2** » Thu May 24, 2012 11:34 pm

EMCEE DARTH MALEK wrote:
ThaJim2 wrote:
Balzac wrote:
ThaJim2 wrote:Voted other. Independent games are the worst trend.

could you elaborate on that? theres some amazing indie games out there (meatboy, fez, journey, braid, limbo) that would never have emerged from a big studio.

There are plenty of fine examples but there is a lot more crap. I should have also added retro gamers also to the mix. Plus the biggest fans are annoying as hell they are the same people that used to argue gameplay over graphics. Ignoring advances in graphics tend to bring new and often times better game play.
the jump from 2D to 3D brought this, but that was more than just an advance in graphics (and maybe not even: arguably super nintendo 2D looked better than ps1 3D). When have graphics themselves driven an advance in gameplay?

The easiest example is racing games. 60 FPS gives you a more immersive experience. The higher polygon counts give you a more detailed and realistic racing surface. Better graphics tend to coincide with better physics again leading to a more realisitic experience.

A game like Simcity greatly imporves with better graphics. Sim City 1 was flat by the time 4 came out you had semi 3D buildings that had more life and allowed expanded options. Sim City 5 going full 3D is going to open up more options then ever before. It will allow curved roads as a minor example.

RTS better graphics allow more units and air combat. Rise of Nations is a much richer experaince then Age of Empires due mostly to the better graphics. More units, larger maps, air combat.

Stealth games are another area. Arkaham City would not be possible on even the last generation. Better graphics allows better use of shadows and lighting to hide and plan attacks and allow programers to impliment better AI to react to the shadows. Instead of in dark equals can't see light equal can see now you program in if in shadow that is 80 percent dark with proper LOS you can become suspicious of movement.

That is before getting into games like GTA 3 and later just not being possible with PS1 level hardware/graphics. Or games like LA Noir that are not possible on PS2 level hardware/graphics.

If EA Sports was not so lazy they can improve greatly the gameplay of madden and ncaa just from graphics. Stopping the animation for 1 or using more animations. This year in NCAA they have increased the throwing animation to something like 30 from a couple. This alone will improve the game play.

ric · Post by **ric** » Fri May 25, 2012 1:18 am

jim wrote:RTS better graphics allow more units and air combat. Rise of Nations is a much richer experaince then Age of Empires due mostly to the better graphics. More units, larger maps, air combat.

i can agree with a lot of what you have above but the only reason rise of nations can even act like its better than aoe/aom is because of all the hidden dynamics like political lines. but when you get deep into that genre, the minor leaguers dominate the landscape with 2 exceptions: starcraft, aom/aoe (maybe warhammer games, and red alert games). games like sins of solar empire trilogy, galactic civilizations, heroes of might and magic, alpha centauri, and, of course, xcom - are just deep fucking games with par graphics at best (although some of the sins mods are fucking awesome and absolutely necessary). of course there are going to be the super promising but ultimately unplayable games like homeworld or gangsters (which is SO FUCKING PROMISING)

and splinter cell stealth was almost just as deep as arkham (and i didnt play chaos theory which is supposedly the best)

ps i looked into the new xcom - and it looks fucking awesome.
but i saw this video of this chick who has a funny video talking about peyton manning when he was rehabbing and throwing at duke - same chick talking about the new xcom. hilarious

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hy6h1e4g7OQ?ve ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hy6h1e4g7OQ?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>