Things you're tired of seeing in video games

I cant stand DLC,$70 games,online play,crossovers.

I don't get the point of DLC the way the games are made now by the time it comes out your done and on to the next game and most likely traded it in to Gamestop. Also can't understand the jump in price. I used to hate paying $40 for a SNES or PS1 game but at least they kept you busy for 40 or more hours.Online play makes me violent ether its a rpg that will never end so there is no point in playing or your fighting someone else who conveniently looses internet connection when they loose.Finally I hate crossovers a majority of games suck on their own so they bring in someone else who has their own craptacular ideas or stipulations. Mortal Kombat vs.DC ruined all respect I had for both game franchises.

The game industry is looking for every way to squeeze out a buck so the publishers force the studios to rip out entire chunks of game to make DLC, Capcom did it with entire game endings. I can see DLC for special items or something but not for entire chunks of game that was there in the first place. Destiny is that way: all the DLC was in there originally and it's been proven. The game industry and movie industry are both in love with fancy graphics and nothing else because they know it gets teenagers to buy stuff. They forget that most gamers are over 30 and have been around since the industry was teething but they still think they can skimp on story and just use flashy graphics like the movie makers focus on cgi and nothing else.

niennumb1 said:

It's a GAME, I want to see the game. If I wanted to be sold on cinematics I'll go watch a movie.

Click to expand...

^ This.

I play games to shoot stuff in the face.
If I want to watch a movie, I'll watch a frikkin' movie.

To me cinematics and the game are intertwined but they should make all of them skippable that way everyone can get what they want but sadly that seems to escape designers. The entire problem is that the publishers are now the backers for the game studios and have way too much power and no idea what gamers what so they ruin games by removing what the designers knows what works. Destiny is a good example: it's published by Activision who owns blizzard and warcraft yet they're going about the MMO thing so backwards that it makes you wonder why they didn't ask blizzard for help.

People who play games and hate cinematics are bad people, and they should feel bad.

That said I've seen some good games without any cinematics such as Wasteland 2 and the new Shadowrun games.

I like cinematics when they are there to start or end a level and help the story progress.

Wes R said:

To me cinematics and the game are intertwined but they should make all of them skippable that way everyone can get what they want but sadly that seems to escape designers. The entire problem is that the publishers are now the backers for the game studios and have way too much power and no idea what gamers what so they ruin games by removing what the designers knows what works. Destiny is a good example: it's published by Activision who owns blizzard and warcraft yet they're going about the MMO thing so backwards that it makes you wonder why they didn't ask blizzard for help.

Click to expand...

This. I read an interview with Chris Roberts (Wing Commander/Star Citizen) where he said that in traditional game companies the publisher will come to you and "suggest" things. For instance they would say "Well Call of Duty has X, so we think you should add X to your game". Then if you don't add that they take away money from your team because their projected earnings are less. They think they will make less because you don't have the same crap in your game.

Having finished Metro, I would say that I don't like when the game intentionally makes what's going on in the game fuzzy to force you to make a bad decision at the end. I won't spoil it for anyone, but I really couldn't figure out what the whole purpose of the game was other than he needed to get to a certain station and then they kind of trick you into making a decision at the end by leaving out details about your enemy. Looking back you can figure it out, but it's really vague without knowing the ending.

Well to be fair one of the endings in Metro was the ending from the original novel and another they added later on. I have to admit i was pleasantly surprised by metro but now that the company that made it sold it to someone else they've said they're going to make it more profitable so there comes the COD "addons". This is also why i like backing games on kickstarter: nobody brings out turn based RPGs despite them being in japan still so we have to fund it as the big publishers won't.

Dracosfire83 said:

Also can't understand the jump in price. I used to hate paying $40 for a SNES or PS1 game but at least they kept you busy for 40 or more hours.

Click to expand...

Back in the late 80's to early 90's games would cost $100 or more and only a handful of people were involved in making them.

In the late 90's they cost around $50 and it took maybe 25 people to make a AAA game.

Today, a typical AAA will, at times, employ 1000+ people working on it. The cost of making a game has gone up by an extreme amount. So the $60-70 isn't that bad. Most games (nine out of ten a few years ago) didn't break even. The reason that the price of games hasn't gone up more is that the industry is now mainstream and sells a lot more copies.

Wes R said:

The game industry is looking for every way to squeeze out a buck so the publishers force the studios to rip out entire chunks of game to make DLC, Capcom did it with entire game endings. I can see DLC for special items or something but not for entire chunks of game that was there in the first place. Destiny is that way: all the DLC was in there originally and it's been proven. The game industry and movie industry are both in love with fancy graphics and nothing else because they know it gets teenagers to buy stuff. They forget that most gamers are over 30 and have been around since the industry was teething but they still think they can skimp on story and just use flashy graphics like the movie makers focus on cgi and nothing else.

Click to expand...

Apologies, but I need to chime in here and say that's just not the way it is. I've worked in the industry for 14 years now on both developer and publisher "sides". The simple fact is that for X amount of expenditure you need Z amount of return or the company goes under. Very few people get rich from making games. DLC has always been around in one form or another but we used to call it the better-sounding "expansions". It costs a lot of money to make and that money needs to be earned back. Car makers plan and prepare the based model of the car for the mega-deluxe stereo (i.e. "the content was there" argument) that you need to pay extra for right from the start and games are so complicated today (code and structure-wise) that things often have to be semi-prepped to accommodate future content. People are not generally up in arms when filmmakers do extended cuts of their movies even though it's usually already shot, you pay more for the hardback version of a book, you don't get the special paint job for free and you pay extra for more toppings at the hamburger joint... why should games be different? You pay extra for the deluxe stereo and it gets installed from the already-existing stock. Why is a game different just because the installation is immaterial? The content still cost money to produce. I also find it fascinating that many people regard paying $5 or even $1 for extra content that adds a few hours of enjoyment to be expensive when you'd pay more for a meal that you consume in five minutes at a fast food place. ("Perceived value" is an interesting topic.)

Now, if you got to the end of a story-based game and the game said "pay $10 more to see the ending", with no forewarning, then yeah... I'd be angry as hell too! But if you get the base game and it has at least one ending in there... but you have to pay another $5 to get the other three potential endings or other content, it's up to you how much of an experience you want. The alternative would be that the game just cost $5 more up-front and would include them at the start. I know that some would simply prefer not to have to make the choice though. Perhaps that is one of the issues. It's difficult to decide how "complete" you want to get up-front since you don't know how much you will like the game before playing it.

Now, there have been occurrences where people have gotten "greedy" just like there will be in ANY industry. (I personally hate certain free-to-play setups, like "pay to win", for example.) I know a couple true douchebags working in games as well, but they are the exception, not the rule. It's rather disheartening working on stuff that is supposed to entertain and spread enjoyment when you've got so many people assuming off-the-bat that you're just out to fleece them. Are there any other industries like this? (Car mechanics maybe?)

I also find it funny that so many regard developers as all-together altruistic souls and publishers "evil". Developers want to earn money too, believe me, and I can tell you that most people I know that work in publishing are gamers themselves, not corporate suits with no understanding of fun. Also, publishers don't have exclusivity on making bad decisions regarding game design. A lot of the time when a publisher "forced the developer to release the game" it's due to the fact that the developer simply couldn't deliver on the promises they made when they signed the agreement. Publishers don't like releasing buggy games any more that we like playing them. Quite the opposite... when you release a buggy game you have to deal with the consequences, which are not always pretty. Oh, the things I've seen and heard. I've been on the brunt of a few bad publisher decisions (like when a marketing dept forced us to change our serious, well-written antagonist into a leather-clad, sex bomb poster-babe or when they visually changed our wise-cracking brooklyn-accented sniper sidekick to a different nationality just to sell more copies) but I've also been on the other side, helping developers change some very bad designs they had no clue how to fix.

The last few years I've been working with more indie-focused niche games. Many people say that graphics don't matter, but in the end, they actually do when it comes to sales, review scores and public opinion if you aim (or need) to sell more than a few thousand copies. (Note: "good graphics" don't always mean throwing 500 artists at them. A good art director can work miracles with a minimal budget, but they are a very rare breed.) Story, on the other hand, often doesn't matter as much as people think or want. I've been involved with a few very story-heavy games (as a writer, designer and producer) and from a production standpoint you get very little return on your investment (in terms of gamer satisfaction, sales, review scores) when it comes to the different aspects of creating story content. That's why I always say that if you can't potentially have a great narrative, you shouldn't have one at all. Compared to certain other things, like experimental and innovative game features, there is no "try" when it comes to story. (The are a few exceptions, such as RPGs and adventure games.)

I'll round off here. (Did anyone even read all that?) This is just such a huge and deep subject that is immensely complicated to unravel. I just wish folks would stop treating it as such a back-and-white situation, because it isn't.

Now, to keep this on topic:

I'm rather tired of bad writing in games. (I hate bad voice acting and cinematics as well, but it starts with the writing.) There are so many poor game narratives where you have designers that are wannabe-scriptwriters that think they are the next Tarantino but have absolutely no grasp on the subtleties of language (or culture of the character they are writing). This is what I often say to people looking for a games writing career: If you're not a native-speaker of English, don't try to write dialog in it. Don't try to tell a visual story with dialog. (Even established, well-regarded writers have been guilty of that one. They think they have to overdo it because it's a game.) It sounds stupid and you will fail. Don't think your writing is so good that people will just loooove to hear line upon line of your brilliant and witty dialog. Your audience will yawn, your voice actors will go hoarse and you will fail. Don't try to force drama or emotion. (See above comment about well-established writers.) You will fail spectacularly and people will laugh at you.

Also, I wish developers would stop blatantly quoting lines from films like Aliens. (I'm probably guilty of doing this myself when I first started out.) If you're gonna do an homage to something you love, go right ahead- just do it discreetly in an off-beat way. Every time I hear "in the pipe, five by five" or "stay frosty" in a game I (briefly) get the urge to dismember the person who put it there.

infymys said:

DLC's.

Click to expand...

I don't mind DLC in general, but if you haven't put out the game yet, put all of the DLC into the game! DLC ought to be additional content that is made after the release of the game because the game is so popular that the fans demand more. I find it absurd that so many games have a ton of DLC scheduled before the game is even released.

sanityattack said:

Missions where you get drugged or similar. Just an excuse to but weird ****** in a 'serious' game. I really enjoyed Far Cry 4, but the fact you have to do 3 or 4 missions under the influence was a pain in the arse.

Click to expand...

I've got a similar beef, not necessarily when you get drugged, but when your character is forced to do something absolutely stupid that the player would never, ever do. For instance, your character walks into a blatantly obvious trap. You know it's a trap. You just can't get out of walking into the trap because the story requires it. I don't want to be dragged by the nose through a story, I want to play a game my way.

- - - Updated - - -

Sluis Van Shipyards said:

I totally agree. I think Skyrim had about the right amount of work vs. WORK. I don't mind collecting supplies to make something, but not when it's just busy work. I've heard of people who enjoy MMOs where they can just make things for people. I don't get that. I want to be the hero.

Click to expand...

But that's just grinding, something MMO makers force you to do because they really don't have enough content for you to play through otherwise. It is, as you say, busy work, designed to keep you playing (and paying) for as long as possible. Some grinding is okay, so long as it isn't painfully obvious that it's grinding, but when that's all you do, why bother?

When levels in a game are obviously meant for the MP part and reused because they're too lazy to make full sized areas for campaign stuff, Mass effect 3 is an example of this. They didn't even hide the fact that they reused MP levels to cut corners.

Cephus said:

I've got a similar beef, not necessarily when you get drugged, but when your character is forced to do something absolutely stupid that the player would never, ever do. For instance, your character walks into a blatantly obvious trap. You know it's a trap. You just can't get out of walking into the trap because the story requires it. I don't want to be dragged by the nose through a story, I want to play a game my way.

Click to expand...

Battlefield 3 did that in the main story. There's a part where the game forces you to kill a U.S. soldier. Yeah it was because it would stop you from preventing a greater problem, but no American soldier would kill another unless one was doing something very bad. I would also add that I would feel that way if it was any U.S. ally as well. Even though it was a game, it just felt wrong.

Sluis Van Shipyards said:

Battlefield 3 did that in the main story. There's a part where the game forces you to kill a U.S. soldier. Yeah it was because it would stop you from preventing a greater problem, but no American soldier would kill another unless one was doing something very bad. I would also add that I would feel that way if it was any U.S. ally as well. Even though it was a game, it just felt wrong.

Click to expand...

Sometimes i think they throw stuff like that in there just to make you feel uncomfortable, that way it feels less like a halo style shooter and reminding you that even games can evoke emotion.

Sluis Van Shipyards said:

Battlefield 3 did that in the main story. There's a part where the game forces you to kill a U.S. soldier. Yeah it was because it would stop you from preventing a greater problem, but no American soldier would kill another unless one was doing something very bad. I would also add that I would feel that way if it was any U.S. ally as well. Even though it was a game, it just felt wrong.

Click to expand...

Wes R said:

Sometimes i think they throw stuff like that in there just to make you feel uncomfortable, that way it feels less like a halo style shooter and reminding you that even games can evoke emotion.

Click to expand...

I agree with both of you on FPS just "trying" to do something that separates them from being too Haloish or CODish. I think an interesting concept would be for an FPS to have you make some decisions and face different consequences ala Mass Effect or similar just to stop being so linear.

Solos blaster said:

I agree with both of you on FPS just "trying" to do something that separates them from being too Haloish or CODish. I think an interesting concept would be for an FPS to have you make some decisions and face different consequences ala Mass Effect or similar just to stop being so linear.

Click to expand...

It also stops games from being replayable. After all, if you can't change your decision, why play again? Shooters on rails might have their part, but if you're going to pretend that there are options, at least give the player options.

Well I think it worked in Modern Warfare 2 (I think 2...) where they had the airport massacre. That, if you played the mission, was a really icky situation, but it was a really clever way to move the plot forward. I won't spoil it in case someone hasn't played it.

The problem in games with choice is sometimes they don't matter in the end: mass effect 3 did that and even in fallout it really makes no difference to anything if you're a good guy or a bad guy. I mean the factions will shoot at you but it's not like a drastic thing. They should end a game with you facing war crime trials for some stuff that could be done as a consequence and it could even be an optional opening in a sequel.

They won't do that kind of stuff because the cost to develop vastly different endings and other paths is prohibitive. This is why the Mass Effect thing was always kind of dubious. In the original Fallout and all of its sequels, your decisions/interactions affected not merely who shot at you, but also the ending montage. That's about as good as you can hope for nowadays.

I think that FPS games are going to be limited in how they push the envelope until some kind of technological development makes new things possible.


You ask me, the next evolution of FPS games will be in terms of scope/scale. The Star Wars Battlefront demo for #3 kind of brushed up against this -- where you could seamlessly play on the ground or in outer space, but I'm talking about MASSIVE increases in scale. Processing power for NPC AIs would also be a big jump, to the point where the world could exist independently of you and your actions, and carry on without you -- and change over time. Those kinds of steps would make FPS games far less linear and far more lifelike.

Solo4114 said:

They won't do that kind of stuff because the cost to develop vastly different endings and other paths is prohibitive.

Click to expand...

Text-based story content is relatively cheap compared to creating "fully produced" content unique graphics and things that are unique to specific paths. (As an extension, voice acting doesn't have to be super expensive either unless you're using actors that are very expensive.)

For that reason, (and keep in mind that this is a broad generalization) AAA developers are extremely wary of creating content that might not be seen by players. Since a surprisingly large amount of players never finish games, you will not get much collective player satisfaction by having a lot of varied content towards the end. It will essentially be "wasted effort" for all but a small part of the audience, so you really have to carefully plan any "special case" content that you want to maximize impact. (This fact actually makes it surprising that so many games save a lot of their cooler content for late in the game.) Think of it as if Ridley Scott had put the Space Jockey scene (which he described as a defining scene) at the end of Alien and that 80% of moviegoers had walked out of the theater before it was shown...