The Changing face of Gaming: Pros and Cons

Fouloleron

I started gaming on a Atari St, back in the 80's.

The first ever game I even encountered was Gauntlet, the first game I played was Indiana Jones.

From my humble beginnings as a kid, I have pretty much played games on most games platforms over the years or at least had a console/up to date PC for each generation of gaming.

I have seen the games industry grow and evolve over 2 decades and for the most of it agreed with its progress. Lately though I find it harder to agree what I am seeing.

With console gaming becoming especially more prominent, there are certain trends that have emerged which from it which I epically disagree with or anything which you do agree with.

To name a few would be paid downloadable content instead of expansion packs, dumbed down gaming and games losing SP game-play in favor of its multi-player.

Anyone else see such new trends in gaming which are less than welcome?

Icyseanfitz

yes im pretty much on the verge of selling my consoles and giving up gaming but the pc still might have a few things that interest me. After to seeing what has happened to bioware ive pretty much given up on gaming

Azza

Too tired to go into detail tonight but breifly the trends I don't like are!

Ping bars.
Match making.
Lack of Lan support.
DLC.
Achievements.
Perks, unlocks and rewards.
Regenerating health.
Bloody Screen.
QTE.
Unfinished games on release.

Grumpypants

Its something i think about quite a bit, i must say i love games right now but i do feel some titles have lost their "fun". I also have to take into account the looking back with rose tinted glasses effect too.

I was recently talking about games getting shorter and saying how games used to take ages to finish like Star Wars on the NES, that kept me going for months, but i recently dragged it out again and its only about 30mins long !!

I don't like the paid DLC on release day, or even before it as this week saw with Dragon Age having content on the PSN with the game not even in the stores.

I don't like the move to digital distribution, and i don't like the lack of freedom for bedroom developers to work in.

When i started gaming, game were made by weird guys with beards in their bedroom and given out for free. So a complete move to large corporations monetising the industry still doesn't sit completely comfortably with me, but at the same time its the only way games can reach the level they are at now.

Fouloleron

Grumpypants wrote: »

When i started gaming, game were made by weird guys with beards in their bedroom and given out for free. So a complete move to large corporations monetising the industry still doesn't sit completely comfortably with me, but at the same time its the only way games can reach the level they are at now.

Personally I think there has been loads of interest in games partly due to the fact they are now compared to film industry.

Problem is, it attracts allot of douche bag yuppie types who think they know what is "Best" for the industry , case and point is this sack of crap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kotick

GothPunk

I think this is the best time to be a gamer.

With platforms like Steam and GoG.com only going from strength to strength, we're seeing indie games finding success in ways which before the existence of such platforms would have been much more difficult. Sales are frequent on AAA games too so you have a wealth of things to play just a few clicks away.

XBLA and subsequently PSN (and to some extent WiiWare) have brought a wealth of new gameplay experiences to consoles that may not have reached us otherwise. Games like Braid and Flower are great examples of games that would not work under the old gaming model of the past.

With the iPhone and Android app stores we're seeing small developers (even individuals) find success with unique gaming experiences. Sure it's a platform in it's infancy and it has it's issues, but games like GameDevStory make me interested in buying one of these devices.

As I get older I'm finding I have less time to play games, so I don't mind the trend of single player experiences getting shorter. When that is coupled with game mechanics that never get stale and a highly refined and polished experience, I don't mind Portal only being 3 hours long or Vanquish being about 7 hours from start to finish. Besides, statistics show that most people don't even finish the games they play anyway, so why should developers spend more time and money on making longer games if few people actually finish them?

We also have games like Fallout 3, Mass Effect 2 and Red Dead Redemption that offer not only enthralling stories, polished gameplay and great music, but they are 20-50 hour single player experiences (depending on how you play the game). Games like this are selling well and there are more games like that to come, not less. If you include MMO's there are a wealth of games (many of which are free to play or don't require a subscrition, and let you play solo) available for you to enjoy.

My partner is also a gamer and I really enjoy playing games with her. The addition of co-op modes to games these days is just a fantastic development, a trend that I hope only gets more popular. It's a great way to spend time together and it even allows us to expose each other to genres we wouldn't usually play - I managed to get her to play Killzone 3 with me and she has ended up really enjoying it.

Being able to party up with friends and play games online together is just wicked fun and hilarious to boot. I don't know how this could be seen as a bad trend. Playing TF2 on a good server has been one of the greatest gaming experiences ever for me. What little I have played of Left4Dead was a blast too. I play my PS3 online regularly and I really enjoy partaking in the communities and clans that pop up around games.

I would say, don't tar all games with the same brush. Games like Assassin's Creed Brotherhood demonstrate that a game can have a lengthy and compelling single player campaign and an interesting and fun multiplayer component. Perhaps you're just not playing the right games?

As for DLC, some of it is ridiculous. The fact that literally millions of people are happy to buy €15 map packs for Call of Duty only encourages companies to nickel and dime gamers. However, there are plenty of games that deliver well priced or free DLC. I would much rather play the short €7 'Severed' campaign for Dead Space 2 than wait longer and pay more for an expansion pack. Valve are heroes pretty much for the support they give their games, so it's not all bad these days!

Syferus

Better than I could have ever put it, GothPunk.

I'd only add that there's never been a time of greater breath of choice or creativity than right now. There's less agreed upon sacred cows (partly due to the dissemination of information the Internet has caused) but if you can't find enough things you love then I'd say you're not looking hard enough.

We'll look back on these years with the rosiest of tinted glasses, that much is clear.

krudler

Azza wrote: »

Too tired to go into detail tonight but breifly the trends I don't like are!

Ping bars.
Match making.
Lack of Lan support.
DLC.
Achievements.
Perks, unlocks and rewards.
Regenerating health.
Bloody Screen.
QTE.
Unfinished games on release.

gving people extra reasons to play games is bad? Overpriced DLC yeah, but in general extra stuff a few months down the line for a few bucks isnt a bad thing.

Fouloleron

GothPunk wrote: »

I would say, don't tar all games with the same brush. Games like Assassin's Creed Brotherhood demonstrate that a game can have a lengthy and compelling single player campaign and an interesting and fun multiplayer component. Perhaps you're just not playing the right games?

As for DLC, some of it is ridiculous. The fact that literally millions of people are happy to buy €15 map packs for Call of Duty only encourages companies to nickel and dime gamers. However, there are plenty of games that deliver well priced or free DLC. I would much rather play the short €7 'Severed' campaign for Dead Space 2 than wait longer and pay more for an expansion pack. Valve are heroes pretty much for the support they give their games, so it's not all bad these days!

You make many good, valid points and many of the games that you have listed I have played myself.

Also, there has been no better time for gaming than now due to online connectivity and ease of multi-player (also i love TF2 and L4D), but you have to agree that a lot of negative practices have arisen too.

Yes there are a lot of games who provide long refreshing story lines and who have long SP campaigns, but (controversial point here) there is nothing new here and many are .. well the same.

For instance, I have played Assassins creed 2 and Brotherhood and they are the same game, the only difference being a tacked on multi-player with a leveling system oddly similar to MW2, (Dead space 2 and Red dead redemption as have done similar in their multi-player. so it looks like all the time we would have spent on SP will be to unlock standard items in Multi-player)

Again I have played Fallout 3 which is, in my opinion (and I am a fan of the game btw) Oblivion with guns. You also need to pay for its download content to provide any decent ending to the main story line.


In regards to Mass effect series, due to how the games all link up, forget about closure on plot points if you don't download some of the extra paid content (looking at you Lair of the Shadow broker)

I can go on and on about the industry but suffice to say : that for its good points, there is negative aspects springing up in gaming which are not good.

EDIT: Im more so pointing out the negative aspects which make games less fun for me to play and will negatively impact an industry which has been so far A+ in what it does.

GTR63

Anyone else fúcking despise the iPad & the obsession with apple products the last few years.Particularly people saying they are ahead of Ninty & Sony with handheld gaming.I doubt the majority who play Angry birds has played Uncharted or finished Mario Galaxy.
Oh & devs removing stuff from the finished product to sell as DLC eg Marvel vs Capcom 3,Star Wars Force Unleashed 2 & Assassins Creed II being scandalous examples of this.

Syferus

GTR63 wrote: »

Anyone else fúcking despise the iPad & the obsession with apple products the last few years.Particularly people saying they are ahead of Ninty & Sony with handheld gaming.I doubt the majority who play Angry birds has played Uncharted or finished Mario Galaxy.

It's a completely different market that is having zero effect on you playing those 'hardcore' games. The thing I despise is the artificial battle between casual and hardcore some people try to create. There's some fantastic and wholly unique experiences to be had on iOS, just as there is on PS3 and DS. If people can't put petty hatreds of a company (Apple) or an idea (quick burst gaming) aside I feel sorry for them as they have neither their own best interests as gamers nor gaming at large at heart.

Healium

Azza wrote: »

Bloody Screen...

...SO REAL!

Fnz

Microsoft's effort to harm the PC as a gaming platform is quite repugnant. It's to the point where PC gaming press basically laugh when MS promise, yet again, to better support, what is essentially, their own platform. MS have a closed garden with their console. A place where they can charge €3 for jpegs and €5 for a virtual outfit. A place where the UI is covered with adverts and online, peer-to-peer, multiplayer costs each user €40 a year. MS would rather everyone play there and their efforts on the PC are solely an attempt to stave off competition rather that genuinely wanting to further the platform.

Did they even offer an explanation as to why Alan Wake was cancelled for PC... beyond implying it wasn't "the right fit"?


Kinda OT but regarding "Dumbing down". People throw around that phrase so much I think they believe it applies to any design element that don't agree with. I hate fussing about with poorly designed interface elements (inventories and skill trees are often where this is manifest) and am a proponent of streamlining these systems. The shift from Mass Effect's inventory to that its sequel would be an extreme example of this. Efforts to make these processes less bass-ackward are not, necessarily, simplification for a mainstream to stupid to appreciate tradition. The misuse of the phrase by indignant old-schoolers is, perhaps, even more irritating than hearing it used thusly:

"they're after dumbing-down the graphics"

GothPunk wrote: »

Hooray for everything!!!

Once again, you disgust us with your positive outlook, "Gothpunk"!

How is this rage-fest ever supposed to get off the ground?

Azza

Just to go into details on my list.

DLC. Some of it is fine, but some of it feels like milking the player for content that should of been released in the game.

Achievements. Mostly in multiplayer I have issues with them. You find people online trying to get whatever achievement be it get X number of kills via melee instead of playing as a team or focusing on capturing/defending the objective. I don't mind offline achievements although I'm not interested in them myselg.

Perks, unlocks and rewards. Not a fan of anything that doesn't require player skills like the call in air strikes, choppers, dogs and stuff like that in the COD series. I'd rather everyone be on the same level.

Fnz

Azza wrote: »

Achievements. Mostly in multiplayer I have issues with them. You find people online trying to get whatever achievement be it get X number of kills via melee instead of playing as a team or focusing on capturing/defending the objective. I don't mind offline achievements although I'm not interested in them myselg.

Perks, unlocks and rewards. Not a fan of anything that doesn't require player skills like the call in air strikes, choppers, dogs and stuff like that in the COD series. I'd rather everyone be on the same level.

Yeah, such a poor choice to incentivise selfish actions in team-based games.

Rewarding the most skilled by boosting their killing ability seems like a poor system. Brink's method of rewarding skilled players, through a sort of 'increased infamy', looks interesting.

Magill

Newsflash guys.... there are other games out there than CoD !!!!

There are lots of really good single player games... deadspace/bioshock/reddead/dragonage/masseffect/Uncharted etc etc and a **** load of great games coming out this year... Portal 2/Uncharted 3/Resistance/ LA Noira/Skyrim/Zelda/Last Guardian etc. Comparing 2011 to any other year in gaming history..... it is diffo gonna be up there with the best of them.

Just because a few developers are focusing on the online MP aspect of gaming does not mean that there is a lack of good quality single player games.

DLC.... fvck it... you dont have to buy it.





So yeah... pretty much what gothpunk said

5uspect

What really bugs me about today's games is the fans.
They seem to completely ignore the point of certain threads on message boards.

Anyhoo. I hate the obsession with MW2. It's an awful, awful game. CoD4 was fun but MW2 is horrible. It's the lowest common denominator when it comes to cheap lazy design and **** you attitude to gamers. I can't understand why so many people play it when there are so many better MP shooters out there and why so many developers try to copy it. I'm looking at you Crytek.

DRM. I Steam, it earned it by providing an ever better service. It's success should be noted by everyone else. However the likes of Ubisoft seem obsessed with punishing their customers as much as possible.

I'm not so critical of consolitis, it's not all bad. I think the slower pace in hardware requirements in PC games resulting from it is easier on the cost of maintaining a good system. However we still have to suffer horrible ports. Certainly I would say the lower cost of entry, in hardware and game terms, is good for people who want to get into PC games with a €80 graphics card and a Steam sale.

However I would like to see some more original games coming on consoles. I really enjoyed Alan Wake (Yes I know it's not really original). Sure it was flawed but I like the idea and the story. It was a thousand times better than Halos of War CXVII.
Red Dead and L.A. Noire do seem to be taking the GTA model in interesting new directions.

Optimalprimerib

This is probably an issue that always existed but how game reviews are so fixed. It is true that most gamers (myself included) look at the scores and if it is any less than 90, it is not worth buying.

But if a game has an already built rep ie gears of war 2, it is gauranteed an above 90 average, even if it does not deserve it.

Another example is batman AA. The extremely seedy attempts to promote the game (only allowing early reviews if it is on the front cover and scores over 95) and making up silly Guinness book of records for it( best ever game based on a comic book). This made most magazines decrease the overall score in spite. But I will guarantee a high score for the sequel no matter how bad it is, just to increase their own sales.

penev10

Gaming isn't a hobbyist industry any longer, it's a multi-billion dollar corporate one. More money equals more investment meaning more developers and better paid ones.

Creativity has suffered to a degree due to the weight of investment leading most publishers to be risk-adverse but we havent done too bad in fairness!

Who's to say bedroom coders with only their dole to keep them going would have come up with anything to rival some of the great games of the last decade?

And for those independantly minded programmers there are plenty of outlets now for them to get their wares to the public via the many digital distribution platforms from flash-game sites like Kongregate to the corporate sponsored PSN et al.

I've been an avid gamer since the mid-80's and can honestly say we've never had it so good in terms of quality, selection and value for money.

Chairman Meow

Like the op, i started gaming with an Atari ST back in about 1991 (i had a 2600 in the 80s but only peoperly started gaming with my ST).
Ive seen the industry grow from people copying disks for each other and swopping games in the playground, way back when there no dedicated videogame shops, you had Virgin megastores on the Quay's computer games sections or the pre owned computer games in the old dodgy video shop that used to be on Marlboro St.

Gaming is defintiely better nowadays, i dont think anyones arguing that theyd rather go back to the days of playing adventure games like Kings Quest or Leisure suit larry over Mass Effect 2. Weve never had it so good really. If youd shown me games that looked liek Crysis, ME2, or S.T.A.L.K.E.R back when i was 11 years old, i wouldve **** myself.

BUT, there is a trend creeping into games that i really dont like the look of. And thats dumbing down. The recent Crysis 2 debacle is an example of this. You take an inventive, exceptional FPS that sold well, but not amazingly well, and retrofit it to be like every other shooter on the market to make money. The console crowd will ohh and aah over its 1337 graffix but people who played the original will be crying into their corn flakes. Im not holding onto much hope for STALKER 2 if its being developed with consoles in mind too.

Releasing broken games too. Look at Bulletstorm on PC. ****ing broken to all hell. A straight up port of a console game just up-res'd and with all the baggage thats associated with bad console ports. Aim assist, mouse smoothing, FPS lock, all these things had to be fixed by the gamers themselves.

****ty DLC is another. Some DLC is fantastic. Minervas Den for bioshock 2 for example. Genuine expansions to gameplay thats several hours long with a great story. Then you have the **** thats already ont he disc and youre paying for an unlock code, a la SF4's costumes, pure bull****.

The focus on multipalyer is another thing that irritates the **** out of me. Even the original COD games had a good singleplayer mode, but not SP is practically an afterthought. And any game the ships without MP is seen as an abberation thats being sent to die. Then you get great sp games that jsut have **** MP modes tacked on just so that irritating xbox live scrotes can have someone to teabag, see Chronicles of Riddick, The Darkness, Prey, etc. Great games with **** tacked on MP that died a month after release. Id rather see the devs focus on giving a better sp campaign than waste their time with **** like that.

nyarlothothep

I really dislike the corporatization of games. A programmer in his room or a group of people in a small games company are probably not going to be so quick to shoot down left field ideas. Thats the problem as I see it. I would argue that in a corporate hierarchy if the idea doesn't fit in with the perception of what is marketable then it doesn't get a look in at all. And isn't it the case that level design/games creator jobs are pretty much non existent and exceedingly difficult to acquire, the games equivalent of being a rockstar or whatever? That doesn't really help with the fresh influx of ideas.

I think games are way too standardized graphically and in terms of content. For example I want a Roman epic rpg with sex and violence and all I can get are LOTR rpg clones. And another problem I have are the hackneyed plots of games, it usually involves some Alien inspired creature attacking you or an epic plot concerning the end of the world/universe. How about games that are about the characters moreso than an "epic" end goal? Or which don't involve end of the world scenarios? Imo corporate environments are terrible for creativity as the focus isn't on coming up with imaginative ways to do something but on making money, and that often comes to rest on familiarity and standardization.

Liber8or

Magill wrote: »

There are lots of really good single player games... deadspace/bioshock/reddead/dragonage/masseffect/Uncharted etc etc and a **** load of great games coming out this year... Portal 2/Uncharted 3/Resistance/ LA Noira/Skyrim/Zelda/Last Guardian etc. Comparing 2011 to any other year in gaming history..... it is diffo gonna be up there with the best of them.

There is trend for you OP. Every year, the same advertising agents come out with this very same statement.

So add this to the list:
Every successive year triumphs in quality over the preceding year, apparently.

:rolleyes:

Hercule

I dislike how most MP games made over the last few years are designed to give a more rewardable/enjoyable experience to less skillful/dedicated players. With generous auto-aim/hitboxes - simplified gameplay and such

This interview (below link) made me a bit sick in my mouth with the cheesiness -But it highlights a couple of the things that imo are wrong with the MP FPS for me these days. This kind of "everyone should be having fun independent of commitment" mentality punishes people who want to be rewarded for the time they put in, in the past you would get chewed up and spit out if you started playing an FPS for the first time, but the reward for sticking to it provided more enjoyment then this "press 5 to get kills" kind of game everyone gets bored of after a month.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/something-for-brink/711462

When he says "systematically hunting down all the stuff which makes multiplayer ****" he then goes on to talk about how ironsights and sniper rifles are not that useful in the game

Developers seem to have substituted the skill gap previously associated with games for persistant stats, but having a fancy logo beside your name in the scoreboard is a poor substitution for that rush of outplaying people of being better.

ShadowHearth

I think it's a double edged sword wit gaming industry.

Cons:
paying for dlcs would be my biggest issue.

Reginal pricing amd very idiotic digital pricing. Steam, xbox live etc.

Too much multiplayer. No more proper good single player games. Maybe I like tO play with myself! Damn that sounded wrong lol.

Too much rehashed content. Don't understand me wrong, I am the " if it's not broken, don't fix it " kind of guy, but for example modern warfare became great, so don't fix it, add more guns, customisation, maps, some few elements. Maybe third faction in to play etc? All we got was: same game with different skins. Mw2 looks a copy paste with black ops. Same amount of weapons.. I bet they just changed skins and leftvall ballistic aspect same lol.


Pros:

It is way easyer for small developer to be recognised! Minecraft and magicka are perfect examples.

Choise. It is sometimes too many games, remember old winters? So mang new games!! How many did you afforded to buy lol? So many good games got lost in time. This December was ****e thought.


Sicial aspect of gaming. Xbla and pc/ vent mmorpgs. I founded a few friends, gaming, which are now my really good friends in real life. I even found my sister which I haven't seen for 18 years, becouse of gaming!!!

Technology leveling out bow a bit. I still got my 3 year old pc which is powerful to play almoust any game on max. Remember early nineties? You buy newest pc for alot of money just to realise next day there is twice more powerful machine for same money...

mewso

It's the WoW factor for me. I've never played an mmorpaga and I'm sure there are lots of fans who thoroughly enjoy the experience of playing these games but it seems to me that every major dev with a successful franchise will inevitably look at moving that franchise into the mmo domain. KOTOR has gone that way and now Fallout is going that way. I play games for immersion and I have no desire to meet a jedi night that says "lolz you suxors".

smk89

A very large pro would be the ability to make very advanced games essentially in a bedroom. Hopefully in the future some great games will be released just made by individuals instead of companies.

With no risk of monetary loss these games could try untried modes of gameplay.

Hercule

A very large pro would be the ability to make very advanced games essentially in a bedroom. Hopefully in the future some great games will be released just made by individuals instead of companies.

With no risk of monetary loss these games could try untried modes of gameplay.

I find that in the current climate this is the opposite - its a con imo, I mean Minecraft is pretty much the only "bedroom" game to have accomplished such commercial success in the past decade (save for the big-budget adaptions of games that began as mods) - and its not like Minecraft was/is particularly robust or advanced technically - just a brilliant idea for a game.

Games are becoming increasingly costly and difficult to make - and this is a scale which is getting worse as hardware improves. Mods for games have become very marginalised too - in the past a mod for quake/unreal was very easy to make - I havent seen a mod in years that didnt require a huge team of contributors or which was not either in beta forever or launched in a below acceptable state.

The best we get nowadays is skins/ui mods for games and games with some form of inbuilt modding functionality (like Starcraft 2/LBP)

Fnz

Hercule wrote: »

I dislike how most MP games made over the last few years are designed to give a more rewardable/enjoyable experience to less skillful/dedicated players. With generous auto-aim/hitboxes - simplified gameplay and such

This interview (below link) made me a bit sick in my mouth with the cheesiness -But it highlights a couple of the things that imo are wrong with the MP FPS for me these days. This kind of "everyone should be having fun independent of commitment" mentality punishes people who want to be rewarded for the time they put in, in the past you would get chewed up and spit out if you started playing an FPS for the first time, but the reward for sticking to it provided more enjoyment then this "press 5 to get kills" kind of game everyone gets bored of after a month.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/something-for-brink/711462

When he says "systematically hunting down all the stuff which makes multiplayer ****" he then goes on to talk about how ironsights and sniper rifles are not that useful in the game

Developers seem to have substituted the skill gap previously associated with games for persistant stats, but having a fancy logo beside your name in the scoreboard is a poor substitution for that rush of outplaying people of being better.

Why are you against more rewardable/enjoyable experience to less skillful/dedicated players?

Why shouldn't "everyone ... be having fun independent of commitment"?

How do these things "mentality punish" people who want to be rewarded for the time they put in?

Why would having a good experience for less skilled players mean that the experience for skilled players must suffer?

Retr0gamer

Fnz wrote: »

Why are you against more rewardable/enjoyable experience to less skillful/dedicated players?

Why shouldn't "everyone ... be having fun independent of commitment"?

How do these things "mentality punish" people who want to be rewarded for the time they put in?

Why would having a good experience for less skilled players mean that the experience for skilled players must suffer?

It's the old mario kart blue shell syndrome. What's the point in being really good throughout the whole game and race the perfect 3 laps only to get blasted back to last place in the last few seconds but something that requires absolutely no skill to use. There's absolutely no incentive to get better when there's no level playing field and all a player has to do is grind levels for perks to get an unfair advantage and there's no level playing field.

I think CoD is even worse and goes in the opposite direction where somebody doing well is granted even more power.

Overheal

On the achievements I've been into big long Op-Eds about this on the TF2 forums. When they first introduced achievements, for example per each class, they were pretty straightforward, like Medic and Pyro ones. They were the kind of achievements you would get naturally in a few hours of play. Obviously it didnt stop people from farming them but valve was onto them pretty quickly and branded them for cheating.

Later though it just got to the point where people were trying to farm achievements for getting 30 kills on the back of a walrus by deflecting a bullet into a cloaked spy's face.

Nevermind the achievement-based unlocks, the random drops, and the paid DLC/weapons. Those in themselves are whole other breed of wrong.

5uspect

Ugh, I miss TF2 before all the item ****e.

Now there was a game that balanced newbies and rewarding long term play well.

Fouloleron

Biggest con that I have noticed lately is how all multi-player games have leveled game play and classes.

While CoDMW2 started this, games like Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, Dead space 2 and Red Dead Redemption are just as much to blame in implementing this in their multi-player.

I have been playing online multi-player games since Doom2 and the idea that I have to unlock basic gear to play with is just repugnant.

I have less time to invest in gaming as I would wish and if I wanted to level up in a game, I would go buy an RPG.

By forcing me into this type of game mechanic when I just want to pick up a game and play, is wrong.

TLDR: Modern multi-player mechanics force players to spend time on unlocking instead of having fun.

Fnz

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It's the old mario kart blue shell syndrome. What's the point in being really good throughout the whole game and race the perfect 3 laps only to get blasted back to last place in the last few seconds but something that requires absolutely no skill to use. There's absolutely no incentive to get better when there's no level playing field and all a player has to do is grind levels for perks to get an unfair advantage and there's no level playing field.

I think CoD is even worse and goes in the opposite direction where somebody doing well is granted even more power.

I think you may have mis-interpreted my post, as I'm only asking Hercule to clarify his post. It reads as though there is something inherently wrong with improving the experience for new, and less skilled, players. Whereas I feel it all comes down to the implementation of such systems.

The way Mario Kart works would be a terrible implementation of efforts to make a game 'fun for all'. While it may make things more enjoyable for some, random bullsh1t must sour many 'skilled racing game aficionados' on the experience - therefore it's not a case of "everyone" having fun.

Hank Scorpio

Think quakelive is the only fps game thats really active nowadays that I would would say has "skill"

Hercule

Fnz wrote: »

I think you may have mis-interpreted my post, as I'm only asking Hercule to clarify his post. It reads as though there is something inherently wrong with improving the experience for new, and less skilled, players. Whereas I feel it all comes down to the implementation of such systems.

The way Mario Kart works would be a terrible implementation of efforts to make a game 'fun for all'. While it may make things more enjoyable for some, random bullsh1t must sour many 'skilled racing game aficionados' on the experience - therefore it's not a case of "everyone" having fun.

Well the "blue-shell" elements are not all I am referring to (the grenade launcher in Call of Duty 4 is another example) They are certainly true in a lot of cases - I would go further to specify that the elements in games which require more skill/practice to do have been taken out of games systematically - to the point where nowadays you get told exactly where to go and are given a tool that requires minimal control to use correctly and effectively. In previous FPS games you did not have a map/radar - you were not told if you had hit or missed and you had to rely on your wits, the games' sound and smaller visual cues to understand what needed to be done.

(Insert dork analogy here)
The best way I can describe it is to say that for someone who wants to play a game for longer then 15 minute spells its the equivalent of "painting by numbers" instead of just "painting".

Sure your painting might be **** when your first start but if you put the time in u can create something better. Whereas if you paint by numbers you are restricted to producing only the one image - which would be better then your early "just painting" work but could never match the final products of someone who put in the time to do painting.

^its a bit flowery I know, and I am by no means claiming I am a "master painter" when it comes to FPS - but in a lot of ways the mp games that are made nowadays are designed to be "played by direction"

As I had said "being better" or "getting better" has become redundant in most games as there seems to almost always be an out of the box "leveller" of some sort if not an overpowered/easy to use weapon it will be some sort of gameplay element allowing newer players to "catch up".

I would not specify that games these days are designed with only the casual/lower skilled player in mind , but it would be understandable as that is the market where the vast majority of gamers are - developers want for the optimum amount of players to get maximum enjoyment out of the game with minimal effort. Accordingly the games become less fun for people who want to differentiate themselves from the herd and actually feel like they are accomplishing something (not just earning a silly badge of some sort)

This means that once you get through the early initial thrill of using the best guns/specials/vehicles there is little incentive to take the game any further other then some different coloured logos around your name.

In many ways its designed/deliberate redundancy on the part of the developer who do not want people playing MP for more then a few months as it may hurt the sales figures of sequels when they inevitably arrive.

Magill

Hercule wrote: »

Well the "blue-shell" elements are not all I am referring to (the grenade launcher in Call of Duty 4 is another example) They are certainly true in a lot of cases - I would go further to specify that the elements in games which require more skill/practice to do have been taken out of games systematically - to the point where nowadays you get told exactly where to go and are given a tool that requires minimal control to use correctly and effectively. In previous FPS games you did not have a map/radar - you were not told if you had hit or missed and you had to rely on your wits, the games' sound and smaller visual cues to understand what needed to be done.

(Insert dork analogy here)
The best way I can describe it is to say that for someone who wants to play a game for longer then 15 minute spells its the equivalent of "painting by numbers" instead of just "painting".

Sure your painting might be **** when your first start but if you put the time in u can create something better. Whereas if you paint by numbers you are restricted to producing only the one image - which would be better then your early "just painting" work but could never match the final products of someone who put in the time to do painting.

^its a bit flowery I know, and I am by no means claiming I am a "master painter" when it comes to FPS - but in a lot of ways the mp games that are made nowadays are designed to be "played by direction"

As I had said "being better" or "getting better" has become redundant in most games as there seems to almost always be an out of the box "leveller" of some sort if not an overpowered/easy to use weapon it will be some sort of gameplay element allowing newer players to "catch up".

I would not specify that games these days are designed with only the casual/lower skilled player in mind , but it would be understandable as that is the market where the vast majority of gamers are - developers want for the optimum amount of players to get maximum enjoyment out of the game with minimal effort. Accordingly the games become less fun for people who want to differentiate themselves from the herd and actually feel like they are accomplishing something (not just earning a silly badge of some sort)

This means that once you get through the early initial thrill of using the best guns/specials/vehicles there is little incentive to take the game any further other then some different coloured logos around your name.

In many ways its designed/deliberate redundancy on the part of the developer who do not want people playing MP for more then a few months as it may hurt the sales figures of sequels when they inevitably arrive.

What in ze hell are you talking about !!!

I agree that the skill cap is lower on games like black ops for the consoles but there is diffinately a huge difference between the weak players and the best players.

If you play cs for the first time against good players ofc you'll get pooped on, but its the same with cod/halo. My first time playing MW2 on the PS3 i was pretty ****e.. it took me alot longer to get to a decent level in cs but you have to remember that alot of the popular PC games have been around for a long time.. consoles have only really started to get popular 3 or 4 years ago.

Im not too sure how Black ops handles on PC but i'd imagine its the same as all the other CoDs in terms of skill ?

Magill

nuxxx wrote: »

Think quakelive is the only fps game thats really active nowadays that I would would say has "skill"

Dont be stupid.

Hercule

Im not too sure how Black ops handles on PC but i'd imagine its the same as all the other CoDs in terms of skill ?

I can't think of any other series then CoD where the point I am trying to make is displayed so much - the skill gaps in Cod1/2/4/W@W/MW2/BO differ greatly and have been on an ever decreasing decline. Its far too easy to be good at the newer CoDs.

In the competitive cod scene we often find that the "mid skilled" portion of the scene will always jump to the newest CoD (and quickly go to the top of the scene). The kind of teams that win cups/ladders in W@W PC/MW2 PC get absolutely pissed on in the CoD1-4 PC competitive games. I am sure you recall the same kind of situation if you were around when the top 1.6 teams didnt jump to source as it appeared to be less complex. The only difference in CoD is that the game has been bastardized 6-7 times in the past decade to become far too simple


CoD1 mp was one of those "put a few hundred hours in before you can compete" type of games - you did not have hit markers, UAV/red dots when someone shoots, you couldnt wallbang and the weapons themselves had to be aimed (fairly aggressive recoil on all guns) - you had to rely on sound to get an understanding of where your opponent was - a skill which is almost non-existant in modern games.

In CoD2 and onwards mp was similar but has consistently and frequently added a load of noob-friendly features to help facilitate new players and in some cases console gamers into MP - namely regenerating health, hitmarkers, wallbangs, bigger hitboxes, red dots on radar, dramatically reduced recoil, perks, killstreaks and nuclear powered grenades by the dozen - anyone with half a brain can and will kill you in CoD4+ on the PC - there is nothing about the game that is difficult to learn as the hitboxes/recoil from the console version of the game is far too generous for people with keyboards + mouse

These features heavily detract from the game at a high level as they are inherently designed to level the playing field and stop the 10%-20% of "good" players in the server from having more fun then everyone else - heck the helicopters in CoD4+ are designed to blue-shell the guys at the top of the scoreboard only - they make your life a misery if you are good but ignore you if you are crap

Overheal

Suddenly theres a little nudgel in my brain somewhere longing for Steel Batallion again.

That game pissed me off sooo much. But thats what I loved about it. Shame it wasn't my own setup The deliberately limited maneuverability of your walker, coupled with ace enemies and a persistent career attrition system meant I usually wiped out by the third mission.

It's not that god-like power isn't fun at all but you need to match it appropriately with massive odds against you.

Nerdkiller1991

I think one of the biggest casualties in this day and age is probably SOCOM 4. Back in the day, they were kind of like CounterStrike for consoles. It punished new players, but gave you the determination to carry on and master the multiplayer. But lets see what it has removed and what it's added.

Removed features:

• D-pad lean
• Lobbies, in favor of matchmaking
• Grenade arc
• Pistols
• Majority of classic game modes, like demolition

Added features:

• Dual primaries
• Cover based system
• Regenerating health
• BLOODY SCREEN...so real!
• Matchmaking (as said before)

I was actually considering buying this, but seeing as its becoming more and more like CoD, I have officially passed on getting this.

Just goes to show that the influence of CoD can fell the mighty.

deathrider

krudler wrote: »

gving people extra reasons to play games is bad? Overpriced DLC yeah, but in general extra stuff a few months down the line for a few bucks isnt a bad thing.

Mandatory (and I use that term loosely) DLC is pretty bad in my eyes though. I love the whole achievements fiasco, and if I think that gaining 1000Gs from a game is within my ability as a player, then I'll work my ass off to get it.
But nothing sickens me more that finding out a month or two later that the game has released DLC (with gamerscore in tow) and has increased the games maximum G-count from 1000 to 1250 on my played list. Now, after already beating the game quite a while ago, suddenly I've been relegated to only 80% complete... And whats more, they want me to pay another 8quid to finish it.

That bugs the hell outta me!

richymcdermott

Pros:
Cinematic experience: games like uncharted and mass effect with great script writing you feel like your playing part of a movie in a world.

Graphics improvements : when done well you can have game characters look real like heavy rain and la noire you can see emotion and and feel for the characters


Cons:

Dlc: Companies like Activison Capcom and ea are using this as ransom to get more money IT MUST BE DESTROYED


FPS: Too many titles are fps an majority of them are crap , there are a handful of good ones like bioshock, fallout and half life.


Metacritic: dont know bout you guys but im getting the feeling that companies only care these days for good metacritic score than listen to the consumer. especially in the last few days hearing bout developers trying to get scores up like with bioware and the things that go on with eidos and kane and lynch

Magill

Hercule wrote: »

I can't think of any other series then CoD where the point I am trying to make is displayed so much - the skill gaps in Cod1/2/4/W@W/MW2/BO differ greatly and have been on an ever decreasing decline. Its far too easy to be good at the newer CoDs.

I would say thats more to do with how long people have been playing the game, although i'd imagine all the best players are still playing CoD4 ? At least the competitive ones. But the skill gap isnt really what im talking about.

In the competitive cod scene we often find that the "mid skilled" portion of the scene will always jump to the newest CoD (and quickly go to the top of the scene). The kind of teams that win cups/ladders in W@W PC/MW2 PC get absolutely pissed on in the CoD1-4 PC competitive games. I am sure you recall the same kind of situation if you were around when the top 1.6 teams didnt jump to source as it appeared to be less complex. The only difference in CoD is that the game has been bastardized 6-7 times in the past decade to become far too simple

The 1.6 to css thing is funny, i played both at a decent level and although i know that 1.6 has the best players and that when some of the good teams switched they went straight to the top.. i'd be more inclined to say it was because of how much experience they had playing cs and not that the game was "Easier" to play, the core of the games are the same. one of the best Irish/UK 1.6 clans went to a midlans css tournament a few years ago and although they beat the noob teams we destroyed them when we played(twice).

CoD1 mp was one of those "put a few hundred hours in before you can compete" type of games - you did not have hit markers, UAV/red dots when someone shoots, you couldnt wallbang and the weapons themselves had to be aimed (fairly aggressive recoil on all guns) - you had to rely on sound to get an understanding of where your opponent was - a skill which is almost non-existant in modern games.

When you say put a few hundred hours in before you can compete... are we talking about competitive or public gaming ? Surely its the same with the rest of the cods. I doubt some newbie could just stroll into a competitive cod team... Sound is pretty heavily used in MW2, especially in SnD. Wallbanging adds another level to the game, i wouldnt say it makes it less skillful. I've never played cod1 so i cant really judge recoil etc.

In CoD2 and onwards mp was similar but has consistently and frequently added a load of noob-friendly features to help facilitate new players and in some cases console gamers into MP - namely regenerating health, hitmarkers, wallbangs, bigger hitboxes, red dots on radar, dramatically reduced recoil, perks, killstreaks and nuclear powered grenades by the dozen - anyone with half a brain can and will kill you in CoD4+ on the PC - there is nothing about the game that is difficult to learn as the hitboxes/recoil from the console version of the game is far too generous for people with keyboards + mouse

These features heavily detract from the game at a high level as they are inherently designed to level the playing field and stop the 10%-20% of "good" players in the server from having more fun then everyone else - heck the helicopters in CoD4+ are designed to blue-shell the guys at the top of the scoreboard only - they make your life a misery if you are good but ignore you if you are crap

Isnt radar / hitmarkers/ Health Regen / perks / killstreaks etc all turned off in competitive games... so its not really detracting from the game at a high level ? Even on the console version it is turned off.

I do agree tho, that perks/killstreaks etc do make the game more noobfriendly.. but not to the point were a newb can come into a lobby and come even close to a good player on the leaderboards.

Hercule

With regards the differences from 1.6->source they might be just community things or the time spent playing but there is an element that the game has been made less complex too - also as I had mentioned this isnt just a single sequel like 1.6->source imagine if we were now on CS 6/7 - how would the community have split?

I meant cod1 required a couple of hundred hours before you start to not be at the bottom of every scoreboard (even in pub) - being in a comp team and having fun with it would have required even more

Fairplay on the wallbanging point - if you compare to the earlier CoDs it changed the gameplay - making it faster, not necessarily made it easier - it does however assist bad players when u get hitmarkers through walls which has simply never made sense.

also

in competitive cod2 onwards radar / hitmarkers (excluding hitmarkers through walls) / Health Regen are not turned off in competitive games - perks are either completely restricted or usually set to bandolier/stopping power/ and then deep impact/left blank - killstreaks are disabled as they are wtfimba - eg helicopters only chase players at the top of the scoreboard - UAV elimates the need for gamesense etc.

Magill

Hercule wrote: »

I meant cod1 required a couple of hundred hours before you start to not be at the bottom of every scoreboard (even in pub) - being in a comp team and having fun with it would have required even more

Nah, the only thing that suggests is that there were very few people playing the game that were and that everyone else had been playing the game for so long, not that it required more skill to be the best. Even with cs(Which imo has a bigger learning curve than any of the cod games) you could go onto public servers and unless you're a complete noob to FPS games in general then it'll not take you that long before you're getting some kills because there was always new players coming into the game. Newbie UK2 servers were also great for introducing people to the game and allowed them to learn.

Because cod is so popular now, there are always lots of new players coming into the game so you'll find lots of people with as much experience as you.

in competitive cod2 onwards radar / hitmarkers (excluding hitmarkers through walls) / Health Regen are not turned off in competitive games - perks are either completely restricted or usually set to bandolier/stopping power/ and then deep impact/left blank - killstreaks are disabled as they are wtfimba - eg helicopters only chase players at the top of the scoreboard - UAV elimates the need for gamesense etc.

Ahh im not too familar with it, i know radar etc is turned off on for console clan games and i was pretty sure health regen is off on hardcare. Either way, im sure whatever promod does it makes it as competitive and skilled based as possible.

Magill

fooksake, cant even edit my posts from this PC

Nah, the only thing that suggests is that there were very few people playing the game that were new to the game and