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

[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 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)

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.

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.

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!

... "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..

[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

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.