Taking controls away from me when i am playing - especially when its something that i could deal with... but some guy wanted me to see some "epic moment" and stripped me of my ability to deal with said threat/thing, instead i have to watch some script do it and lose whatever sense of power i might have had in that moment.
Cinematics that could just be me playing that scene, and often i feel would be more epic if i was still playing.(same thing as above i guess)
Quick time events.... go away!
saves before cinematics, saves before long un interactive sections.
I also really...really hate one of these newerish things (prey and bioshock, i am looking at you) where... dying means fuck all. I dont care about a few gold coins going when i die. I like the challenge, not the slog, put me back a bit, make me think of a way through rather than just going "aww, ok, you just keep going there" (also quicksave plox)
It felt like it was a lazy way to guarantee players could get through a section, and seems to have massive negatives on enemies, since the player is going to get through eventually they can be un-dodgeable, or boring bullet sponges. meh, dulls a game for me.
Maybe I'm just in the minority but I'm not sure why Early Access titles always get hate. It's not like you have to pay for the game a second time when it comes out so what is the big deal? You pay money to basically join the alpha/beta program of a game, from here, you can directly influence the direction a game takes in the development phase.
For example with Sir, You Are Being Hunted! which was a Day 1 purchase for me, I was able to play the game and after playing for a few hours, there were a few things I really hated about the initial build so I made a thread about it on the steam discussion forums. Since the devs look at every thread, they noticed the amount of feedback about several specific problems and decided to change the game a bit to fix those issues.
I'd consider something like that worth it. Sure, a few weeks after I bought it, Sir was 50% off, but that doesn't change the fact that my feedback changed some of the core gameplay mechanics and as a result I'll have a better game to play when it is finally completed.
Additionally, about the price of games...don't we buy games to support the developers? If that wasn't our main goal, then why even bother buying games at all? Personally I think the price of games should go up. At the moment from looking at sales figures, there were many great (in my opinion) games that did not turn up a profit (at least at launch). Games like Tomb Raider or Sleeping Dogs which I thought were amazing, might not potentially get sequels/continuations simply because the publishers don't want to drop millions of dollars and risk losing their money again.
If games cost even $5 more though, the profits would increase by a huge deal and those games probably would have been profitable. It isn't easy making games and I think game devs should be properly compensated for their work. I'm not made of money but the only time I get pissed off at a $60 game purchase is if it's a game like CoD:Ghosts or Battlefield 4 where the game is so broken to the point where it's just unplayable.
NegevPro: I think Sir is maybe the best example of early-access actually working as it should. I think the problem is that you're essentially being paid up front before the work is done, under the pretense of community involvement. There's all sorts of things that could go wrong in that scenario, and it seems a little dubious to me at times where the motivation/momentum comes from to make the best game possible.
Not sure how I feel about it yet, but I think Valve could sell the idea better. Right now it feels too weighted in favor of the developer; for one I think projects should probably be out of alpha before they're allowed to sell it at full price.
NegevPro: I think Sir is maybe the best example of early-access actually working as it should. I think the problem is that you're essentially being paid up front before the work is done, under the pretense of community involvement. There's all sorts of things that could go wrong in that scenario, and it seems a little dubious to me at times where the motivation/momentum comes from to make the best game possible.
Not sure how I feel about it yet, but I think Valve could sell the idea better. Right now it feels too weighted in favor of the developer; for one I think projects should probably be out of alpha before they're allowed to sell it at full price.
Problem there though is that people do like this, even when looking at dean hall telling people to not buy dayz in its alpha stage unless they really know what they're getting into it still became one of the top sellers this christmas.
I know I don't jump into these games just to get a game in the future, I buy early-access games because I want to play what's already there, such as with kerbal space program.
The world would look very different if people hadn't been purchasing games in their early stages, but as for now it's here to stay with its downsides and many upsides.
Early access is horrible. it's kinda nice to see and play the alphas of games but you're paying almost full price for a game that's possibly not going to be released for 2-3 years or probably never.
Example being Overgrowth.
Though there's more trustworthy developers and games like Starbound (which at least is actually a game on its early access)
Also prepurchasing and "rewards" for doing so. that has to stop.
One last thing, the superiority complex that gamers have towards other platforms they don't use.
Bridget,
That's exactly the problem, many times, it's not almost full price, but in fact double the money that it's suppose to cost later on (again, planetary anhilation being perfect example). So in case of that particular game, you payed for like alpha version of game 90$. Because game is in so early stage, you have no garantie that game will ever be good, so you might actually end up wasting 90$ on crappy game.
You are also basically being a tester for them, so if anything, they should pay you, not you paying them even extra.
On top of all that, that game was kickstarted by players.
So, when you add all of that, it makes perfect sense that some people are strongly opposed such ideas. IF you have such risks, you are suppose to pay less, not more. When i buy finished product, i can read some reviews and stuff to know in what state the game is, but in alpha, paying two times final cost, you simply have no freakin clue in what direction the development will go.
Hack, developer may simply stop development, and you just ended paying 90$ for alpha version of game.
Of course, you will say nobody is forcing you to buy it, but it still imo, doesn't make it right.
I agree with most of you about the early acces thing. Oftentimes I see a promising game released on steam only to go to the page and being disappointed when it is "only" and early access. But I don't dislike the idea in general. Kerbal Space Program is a very good example. back in early 2012 you could get the game for around 7$ (which I did). Later on with every new version and it's content they increased the price by 1$ or 2$. This seems to me like a very very fair buisiness model for both sides. The earlier you got the game the cheaper it is. And at any given point, the price was fair compared to the amount of content delivered.
So I entirely don't get the the idea behind the picing model of Planetary Annihilation. Is this game supposed to be so good that I should pay double the price to play it a bit earlier in an unfinished state? Sorry but there are enough other games out there I can play until this one gets in a reasonable price range.
Q: "What trends would I like stopped?..."
A: "All of them"
For Early Access, I agree. Though I believe NO game should be put on early access if the duration of early access is longer than tops 6 months? if not 3.
"Choose the following ending..." If you're going to have multiple endings, they should result from plot decisions made by the player along the way, not presented as a menu just before the credits roll.
free to play and micro transactions has to go. It ruins the game.
free2play is totally fine, microtransactions are totally fine, what needs to go is pay2win systems. Games that are so ridiculusly slow, you want to buy speedups.
free2play is totally fine, microtransactions are totally fine, what needs to go is pay2win systems. Games that are so ridiculusly slow, you want to buy speedups.
So I entirely don't get the the idea behind the picing model of Planetary Annihilation. Is this game supposed to be so good that I should pay double the price to play it a bit earlier in an unfinished state? Sorry but there are enough other games out there I can play until this one gets in a reasonable price range.
Bridget,
That's exactly the problem, many times, it's not almost full price, but in fact double the money that it's suppose to cost later on (again, planetary anhilation being perfect example). So in case of that particular game, you payed for like alpha version of game 90$. Because game is in so early stage, you have no garantie that game will ever be good, so you might actually end up wasting 90$ on crappy game.
You are also basically being a tester for them, so if anything, they should pay you, not you paying them even extra.
On top of all that, that game was kickstarted by players.
Because the price kickstarter backers had to pay to get the alpha was at that level, the only way to be fair towards them is to price the alpha at that same price, this has been said over and over again, it was the ONLY reason behind the price.
Yeah, but kickstarter donation != buying game. When i donate money, it's just that, donation. If i get something in return, great, if not, i'll live with it. But if i buy game on steam, i'm actually buying game, not donating money for good cause. But yeah, it has been debated in past, so let's leave it at that.
Also, i hope there will be less military shooters and more oldschool scifi-ish or so fPS Games. I'm not really fan of military shooters (just personal taste), but i'd love good old FPS like Shadow warrior. That was really for me the best FPS game of the year. It had action, it had story, hack, it even had cool characters, and it wasn't set in some sort of military scene or something, but was rather chinese/fantasy mix setting. Loved that.
So yeah, that' just personal preference, not saying there's something wrong with military shooters.
Designing for the lowest-common-denominator assuming it will bring in more sales. Not so much with new franchises but I'm soooooo sick of seeing sequel x now has snazy integrated facebook features and vastly simplified controls because that way all the casual players who weren't interested in it before will magically want to play it now! Aside from maybe Mass Effect 3 I can't think of a single franchise that successfully abandoned what made it unique in the first place (r.i.p Dead Space and Prince of Persia). I understand the reasoning behind it, but surely the way to get more sales is to actually just make a better game by refining what worked about it in the first place?
Q: "What trends would I like stopped?..."
A: "All of them"
For Early Access, I agree. Though I believe NO game should be put on early access if the duration of early access is longer than tops 6 months? if not 3.
Kind of a self correcting problem, isn't it? If people pay into these early access things and get burned a few times, they'll stop and it'll go away ... right? Not really worth raging on, IMO.
The biggest thing i want gone, is being required to log into an account when I want to play a game. i get you want me to activate it or whatever, but that should be the end of it. I hate having to log in to starcraft 2 for example and it not letting me play a quick game because i have no internet for over a month because I'm deployed or training and haven't had time to log in so I can play a game I paid for. so BS anti piracy schemes that make playing a fun game freaking miserable... I stopped playing a lot of steam games because I don't want to deal with the hassle of microsoft live... blah, blah, blah...
I really wish they'd get rid of having your keyboard shock you when you do something wrong. It's so poorly implemented that often times I cant figure out what it was that I did. Also why can't they put an option in the gameplay menu that lets you turn that feature off.
A couple of years ago when they came out with this technology, I thought it was kinda cool, especially since it worked with my old beat-up keyboard. It's in practically every game now, and I'm just sick of it. Sometimes it goes off even when I'm not playing anything. I guess they're punishing me for not playing? I don't know.
I really wish they'd get rid of having your keyboard shock you when you do something wrong. It's so poorly implemented that often times I cant figure out what it was that I did. Also why can't they put an option in the gameplay menu that lets you turn that feature off.
A couple of years ago when they came out with this technology, I thought it was kinda cool, especially since it worked with my old beat-up keyboard. It's in practically every game now, and I'm just sick of it. Sometimes it goes off even when I'm not playing anything. I guess they're punishing me for not playing? I don't know.
My friend, I think you need to go more in depth into "Having your keyboard shock you" because you have piqued my interested highly. Dark Souls would be absolutely horrifying. PTSD, for everyone! :C
im tired of games hand holding you with a constantly nagging "GO HERE" icon. i suppose it makes sense in a game like skyrim or assassins creed but for smaller (in terms of scale of the levels) and more linear games like halo, call of duty, dishonored, etc, i dont think its necessary for a blip on the screen to tell us where to go.
also id like to see stealth games actually be stealth games (splinter cell, dishonored, assassins creed).
Option to not show Early Access games in Steam. I hate wasting my time to check out a game and then it turns out it's not even finished. If I want to learn about games in development or demos, there is game sites dedicated for that, Steam should be for buying FINISHED games.
Other DRM when buying games on Steam. And DRM in general should get the fuck out.
And I'm with others about all the handholding games and linear gameplay. Hell, just take the CoD series now, you can actually just sprint through it without paying attention to the enemies, doesn't really matter if you leave them behind. A lot of games are like that, there is no punishment for being shit, the whole "everyone should have a piece of cake, no matter if they deserve it" in games is getting on my nerves.
im tired of games hand holding you with a constantly nagging "GO HERE" icon. i suppose it makes sense in a game like skyrim or assassins creed but for smaller (in terms of scale of the levels) and more linear games like halo, call of duty, dishonored, etc, i dont think its necessary for a blip on the screen to tell us where to go.
At least in games like Dishonored and DX:HR you can turn those icons off.
I can get behind the hand holding going away, for sure. Sometimes the game is so concerned with getting you to follow the golden path you can't actually get on with PLAYING the damned thing.
And then I started up a new session of Fallout:New Vegas over the break and it was awesome. Total freedom, do whatever you want ... Hey, the main story is here when you're ready. No rush!
I've been replaying the old Final Fantasy games on iPad lately and the difference is staggering. They just throw you into the world. There's not even a damned map. Just figure it out, find the castle/town/whatever, and get on with it!
I really wish they'd get rid of having your keyboard shock you when you do something wrong. It's so poorly implemented that often times I cant figure out what it was that I did. Also why can't they put an option in the gameplay menu that lets you turn that feature off.
A couple of years ago when they came out with this technology, I thought it was kinda cool, especially since it worked with my old beat-up keyboard. It's in practically every game now, and I'm just sick of it. Sometimes it goes off even when I'm not playing anything. I guess they're punishing me for not playing? I don't know.
yeah hand holding gets my goat as does quicktime stuff. I have sometimes spent 20 mins playing a game before they actually allow you to touch the controls:)
Most have already been said, but I will reiterate:
-Zombie games (zombie / vampire movies and TV shows are even worse)
-Intrusive dialogue / cutscenes that yank you out of gameplay experience. 99% of AAA games these days do this
-Tutorials... if your game is too complex to give a controller to someone and let them figure out the controls, you're doing it wrong (PC RTS games are the only exception)
-Sports & shooters. Remember how diverse the games were on SNES and Sega Genesis? Now look at the market. This is a personal preference, lots of people love sports & shooters.
What bothers me most is the difficulty in games. Games today are waaay too easy. I have no problems with several difficulty options, but please, developers, give us a hard mode!
I loved the challenge the first part of Crysis 1 gave me. My last title was Killzone Shadow Fall and I died like ~1 or 2 times on the hard. Come on -.-
-Sports & shooters. Remember how diverse the games were on SNES and Sega Genesis? Now look at the market. This is a personal preference, lots of people love sports & shooters.
Have I just not noticed that there's a flood of sports games on the market? Seems like every major sport gets 1 or 2 games devoted if it's lucky.
I'm not sure if I would consider it a "trend" but I wish there were fewer console exclusives out there. As a PC gamer I would love to play the JRPGs that are usually found on playstation consoles but I'd rather not spend a few hundred dollars just to play 3 or 4 games. It'd be great if every game could be multiplatform so everybody could play what they like.
What bothers me most is the difficulty in games. Games today are waaay too easy. I have no problems with several difficulty options, but please, developers, give us a hard mode!
I loved the challenge the first part of Crysis 1 gave me. My last title was Killzone Shadow Fall and I died like ~1 or 2 times on the hard. Come on -.-
edit: Zombies. I hate Zombies.
And only if Hard isn't just more hitpoints to enemies and the like. Its the gameplay that needs to be reworked.
Replies
Cinematics that could just be me playing that scene, and often i feel would be more epic if i was still playing.(same thing as above i guess)
Quick time events.... go away!
saves before cinematics, saves before long un interactive sections.
I also really...really hate one of these newerish things (prey and bioshock, i am looking at you) where... dying means fuck all. I dont care about a few gold coins going when i die. I like the challenge, not the slog, put me back a bit, make me think of a way through rather than just going "aww, ok, you just keep going there" (also quicksave plox)
It felt like it was a lazy way to guarantee players could get through a section, and seems to have massive negatives on enemies, since the player is going to get through eventually they can be un-dodgeable, or boring bullet sponges. meh, dulls a game for me.
Also, add cars to that, every game has cars these days, no more games with cars!
For example with Sir, You Are Being Hunted! which was a Day 1 purchase for me, I was able to play the game and after playing for a few hours, there were a few things I really hated about the initial build so I made a thread about it on the steam discussion forums. Since the devs look at every thread, they noticed the amount of feedback about several specific problems and decided to change the game a bit to fix those issues.
I'd consider something like that worth it. Sure, a few weeks after I bought it, Sir was 50% off, but that doesn't change the fact that my feedback changed some of the core gameplay mechanics and as a result I'll have a better game to play when it is finally completed.
Additionally, about the price of games...don't we buy games to support the developers? If that wasn't our main goal, then why even bother buying games at all? Personally I think the price of games should go up. At the moment from looking at sales figures, there were many great (in my opinion) games that did not turn up a profit (at least at launch). Games like Tomb Raider or Sleeping Dogs which I thought were amazing, might not potentially get sequels/continuations simply because the publishers don't want to drop millions of dollars and risk losing their money again.
If games cost even $5 more though, the profits would increase by a huge deal and those games probably would have been profitable. It isn't easy making games and I think game devs should be properly compensated for their work. I'm not made of money but the only time I get pissed off at a $60 game purchase is if it's a game like CoD:Ghosts or Battlefield 4 where the game is so broken to the point where it's just unplayable.
Having previously worked on a F2P game, I have to agree with this.
Not sure how I feel about it yet, but I think Valve could sell the idea better. Right now it feels too weighted in favor of the developer; for one I think projects should probably be out of alpha before they're allowed to sell it at full price.
Problem there though is that people do like this, even when looking at dean hall telling people to not buy dayz in its alpha stage unless they really know what they're getting into it still became one of the top sellers this christmas.
I know I don't jump into these games just to get a game in the future, I buy early-access games because I want to play what's already there, such as with kerbal space program.
The world would look very different if people hadn't been purchasing games in their early stages, but as for now it's here to stay with its downsides and many upsides.
Example being Overgrowth.
Though there's more trustworthy developers and games like Starbound (which at least is actually a game on its early access)
Also prepurchasing and "rewards" for doing so. that has to stop.
One last thing, the superiority complex that gamers have towards other platforms they don't use.
That's exactly the problem, many times, it's not almost full price, but in fact double the money that it's suppose to cost later on (again, planetary anhilation being perfect example). So in case of that particular game, you payed for like alpha version of game 90$. Because game is in so early stage, you have no garantie that game will ever be good, so you might actually end up wasting 90$ on crappy game.
You are also basically being a tester for them, so if anything, they should pay you, not you paying them even extra.
On top of all that, that game was kickstarted by players.
So, when you add all of that, it makes perfect sense that some people are strongly opposed such ideas. IF you have such risks, you are suppose to pay less, not more. When i buy finished product, i can read some reviews and stuff to know in what state the game is, but in alpha, paying two times final cost, you simply have no freakin clue in what direction the development will go.
Hack, developer may simply stop development, and you just ended paying 90$ for alpha version of game.
Of course, you will say nobody is forcing you to buy it, but it still imo, doesn't make it right.
Sick of the steam store being:
Some game
Zombie game
Some game
Zombie game
Some game
Zombie game
Some game
Zombie game
Some game
Zombie game
So I entirely don't get the the idea behind the picing model of Planetary Annihilation. Is this game supposed to be so good that I should pay double the price to play it a bit earlier in an unfinished state? Sorry but there are enough other games out there I can play until this one gets in a reasonable price range.
A: "All of them"
For Early Access, I agree. Though I believe NO game should be put on early access if the duration of early access is longer than tops 6 months? if not 3.
free2play is totally fine, microtransactions are totally fine, what needs to go is pay2win systems. Games that are so ridiculusly slow, you want to buy speedups.
Nailed it right here.
Because the price kickstarter backers had to pay to get the alpha was at that level, the only way to be fair towards them is to price the alpha at that same price, this has been said over and over again, it was the ONLY reason behind the price.
Also, i hope there will be less military shooters and more oldschool scifi-ish or so fPS Games. I'm not really fan of military shooters (just personal taste), but i'd love good old FPS like Shadow warrior. That was really for me the best FPS game of the year. It had action, it had story, hack, it even had cool characters, and it wasn't set in some sort of military scene or something, but was rather chinese/fantasy mix setting. Loved that.
So yeah, that' just personal preference, not saying there's something wrong with military shooters.
I actually agree with this. Some next-gen gothic corridors with lava pits please
Yes, I would really like to see a change from that.
If your going to pull that, go freemium. Don't double dip me.
I don't know if this is a hard rule. Just look at JustCause 2. I got it just for the MP mod.. (which is fun as hell!).
A couple of years ago when they came out with this technology, I thought it was kinda cool, especially since it worked with my old beat-up keyboard. It's in practically every game now, and I'm just sick of it. Sometimes it goes off even when I'm not playing anything. I guess they're punishing me for not playing? I don't know.
My friend, I think you need to go more in depth into "Having your keyboard shock you" because you have piqued my interested highly. Dark Souls would be absolutely horrifying. PTSD, for everyone! :C
also id like to see stealth games actually be stealth games (splinter cell, dishonored, assassins creed).
Other DRM when buying games on Steam. And DRM in general should get the fuck out.
And I'm with others about all the handholding games and linear gameplay. Hell, just take the CoD series now, you can actually just sprint through it without paying attention to the enemies, doesn't really matter if you leave them behind. A lot of games are like that, there is no punishment for being shit, the whole "everyone should have a piece of cake, no matter if they deserve it" in games is getting on my nerves.
At least in games like Dishonored and DX:HR you can turn those icons off.
And then I started up a new session of Fallout:New Vegas over the break and it was awesome. Total freedom, do whatever you want ... Hey, the main story is here when you're ready. No rush!
what?
What? You don't like Call of Modern Battlefield: Medal of Duty 10?
-Zombie games (zombie / vampire movies and TV shows are even worse)
-Intrusive dialogue / cutscenes that yank you out of gameplay experience. 99% of AAA games these days do this
-Tutorials... if your game is too complex to give a controller to someone and let them figure out the controls, you're doing it wrong (PC RTS games are the only exception)
-Sports & shooters. Remember how diverse the games were on SNES and Sega Genesis? Now look at the market. This is a personal preference, lots of people love sports & shooters.
I loved the challenge the first part of Crysis 1 gave me. My last title was Killzone Shadow Fall and I died like ~1 or 2 times on the hard. Come on -.-
edit: Zombies. I hate Zombies.
Have I just not noticed that there's a flood of sports games on the market? Seems like every major sport gets 1 or 2 games devoted if it's lucky.
- i want the classy old shooter back!
And only if Hard isn't just more hitpoints to enemies and the like. Its the gameplay that needs to be reworked.
just had to say,
did you play
State of Decay?
nope but I appreciate the poetry! My game playing tapered off in 2013 and I'm not playing any this year. I'll have to give it a shot in 2015