10 Things You Hate About Gaming

NTMK

Helix wrote: »

07) annual updates for sports games - don't get me wrong, each update usually makes the games quite a bit better, BUT there's really no need to be doing it annually. here's what SHOULD be done. release a game, say fifa 13 in 2012. it's got lots of new features and bells and whistles attached to it. begin work on the next game, with a 2 year development cycle. put a small team on regular free updates and patches for fifa 13. when fifa 14 would normally be released, offer fifa 13 owners a paid for update to bring them up to date with teams, transfers and any minor updates that have been built for the next game, but are compatible with this one. do not release a fifa 14. the next year, release fifa 15. repeat

Just wondering how this would work it would kind of screw new customers that say if they wanted a fifa game around the time fifa 14 releases wouldn't this end up forcing them to buy twice (Fifa 13 and update). 2nd hand prices wouldn't drop so quickly if the game was on a two year dev cycle.

TBH though even though they offer only small adjustments from year to year i still like the yearly update to refresh the game a bit because after 100+ hours of playing the game it starts to annoys me and the new release usually fixes my issues with the game.

manicmonoliths

A pet hate of mine are unskippable cutscenes in games, it can often ruin replayability of certain games. I may just want to re-do gameplay elements without having to sit through hours of story and text!

A related point would be the inability to pause during cutscenes. While this is fairly uncommon, there are a few notable exceptions like the Metal Gear Solid series. I get that Kojima's going for the cinematic experience with the cutscenes, but perhaps he hasn't realised that DVD players actually have pause buttons in case nature calls or you get a phone call or a visitor. It's very frustrating that there's no way to walk away from a 30 minute-plus cutscene until it's over. This really hit me when playing through the MGS HD collection recently.

Not really something I hate about gaming per say, but I hate that since getting a HD TV, all my Wii, PS2, Gamecube etc. games look awful. Hopefully someday I’ll be in a position to have a dedicated gaming room with multiple TVs.....someday *sigh*.

Kinski

manicmonoliths wrote: »

Not really something I hate about gaming per say, but I hate that since getting a HD TV, all my Wii, PS2, Gamecube etc. games look awful. Hopefully someday I’ll be in a position to have a dedicated gaming room with multiple TVs.....someday *sigh*.

I wish those thin HD CRTs had taken off, or at least sold in sufficient quantities for the manufacturers to keep making them, then we wouldn't have this problem. But no, we had to abandon a technology that had been developed and refined over decades to embrace LCD and plasma...they're newer and therefore TOTALLY BETTER, LIKE!

Overheal

James Howlett wrote: »

OMG, is this you?:)

thats a megaman poster in the corner, he can be as angry as he wants

Star Lord

Reekwind wrote: »

So you would deny that there exists a distinct 'gamer' subculture? Because that is the implication of the argument that the mere mechanical act of playing games makes one a 'gamer'

No I'm not, what I'm saying is that I can play games and call myself a gamer without feeling that using this term somehow pigeon-holes me into being associated with particular types of behaviour.

Reekwind

Helix wrote: »

its hardly semantics to claim that the majority of people who play games aren't the people you're talking about

It's semantics. I say that there's a gamer subculture that doesn't automatically apply to everyone who plays games. You say 'No, no, everyone who plays games is a gamer... but there's a distinct 'hardcore gamer' subculture that doesn't automatically include everyone who plays games'

If you want then just assume that I'm talking about 'hardcore gaming' culture. Personally I think the division between hardcore/casual is pretty artificial, and that it's absurd to claim that a mother of two who only plays Angry Birds on the bus commute is a 'gamer', but I'm not interested in arguing over semantics

DamoElDiablo wrote:

No I'm not, what I'm saying is that I can play games and call myself a gamer without feeling that using this term somehow pigeon-holes me into being associated with particular types of behaviour

So the issue is not that I don't feel the need to pigeon-hole myself as belonging to a subculture because I play games? Instead it's that I don't associate myself with this culture while simultaneously rejecting the term 'gamer', which you believe should be forced upon me?

I had no idea that people had so much invested in a simple label

Morag

Reekwind wrote: »

I had no idea that people had so much invested in a simple label

It's a form of modern tribalism.

Magill

Reekwind wrote: »

It's semantics. I say that there's a gamer subculture that doesn't automatically apply to everyone who plays games. You say 'No, no, everyone who plays games is a gamer... but there's a distinct 'hardcore gamer' subculture that doesn't automatically include everyone who plays games'

If you want then just assume that I'm talking about 'hardcore gaming' culture. Personally I think the division between hardcore/casual is pretty artificial, and that it's absurd to claim that a mother of two who only plays Angry Birds on the bus commute is a 'gamer', but I'm not interested in arguing over semantics

So the issue is not that I don't feel the need to pigeon-hole myself as belonging to a subculture because I play games? Instead it's that I don't associate myself with this culture while simultaneously rejecting the term 'gamer', which you believe should be forced upon me?

I had no idea that people had so much invested in a simple label

Jesus man... give it up, no-one here really cares what you want to label yourself as. Possibly the most pathetic/pointless debate i've seen on this forum at this stage.

krudler

Helix wrote: »

oh god. you're one of them?

you use down to look up because it makes logical sense. that axis controls the character's head, or simulates it. what way does the top of your head naturally go when you look up? it does down. and when you look down? it goes up

ive had this discussion with loads of developers actually, they rarely see the logic in it either

it's just so alien feeling

depends on the game for me, fps then up is up, 3rd person you're controlling the camera so prefer inverted, or anything involving flying, up=down.

Reekwind

Magill wrote: »

Jesus man... give it up, no-one here really cares what you want to label yourself as. Possibly the most pathetic/pointless debate i've seen on this forum at this stage.

The strange thing is the number of people who are actually quite insistent that I am a gamer. That was unexpected

But then if you've no interest in this discussion, feel free to stop reading. I'd say contributing but you've done well in avoiding that so far

krudler

Reekwind wrote: »

The strange thing is the number of people who are actually quite insistent that I am a gamer. That was unexpected

But then if you've no interest in this discussion, feel free to stop reading. I'd say contributing but you've done well in avoiding that so far

I'd say if you've owned multiple consoles and play games regularly on those or a pc you fall into the gamer status, someone who plays one or two games briefly throughout the year or occasionally on their phone wouldnt. you're the one who seems to think being labelled a gamer is a slur, I have no issue being called that at all, I've been playing games for over 25 years and will be for another 25 hopefully so the despription is apt, its just a simple phrase to descibe a pasttime.

johnny_ultimate

Love/Hate: that feeling in a Gradius or Darius game when you die and lose all your hard-earned power-ups.

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Love/Hate: that feeling in a Gradius or Darius game when you die and lose all your hard-earned power-ups.

ugh, hate that as well, or R-Type when you have loads of speed boosters and all the extra bits and have to start over.

Star Lord

Reekwind wrote: »

So the issue is not that I don't feel the need to pigeon-hole myself as belonging to a subculture because I play games? Instead it's that I don't associate myself with this culture while simultaneously rejecting the term 'gamer', which you believe should be forced upon me?

I had no idea that people had so much invested in a simple label

Pretty much what Krudler says. Gamer to me only means someone that plays games.

You're the only one here that is inferring that using the word suggests more than simply playing games, so it seems that you're the only one trying to pigeonhole people based on what they do.

I play games. I'm a gamer.

Myrddin

It makes a nice change form the usual descent into PC's v Consoles flame war I suppose

danthefan

On topic:

Games that force you to grind. I just will not do that anymore, it's a waste of time.
Save points that are too infrequent. Everyone likes a challenge but having to replay 30mins of a game after dying is not fun.
Massive huge big cut scenes, like in MGS4 or at Kalm in FFVII. Just too long tbh. I enjoy the story but making me take it in an hour long chunk is too much.
Getting one shotted in a single player game. Even if it's my fault (and it normally is I would imagine) it just feels unfair.

krudler

the "you're taking damage" effect in COD, its not so bad in MW3 but in MW2 its like someone smashed a jar of jam into your eyes. also playing it on veteran where you spend the entire game dodging grenades thrown with pinpoint accuracy.

Optimalprimerib

Incessant hand holding. For example MW3. you are lead everywhere, it's as linear as a lightgun game.

Review scoring. As most people ignore games below 90%, most of the big budget games hit that score by default. IGN should hang their heads for this. The could write 3 pages criticising one of the so called AAA games, then give it 95%???

The first level. Even with sequels, the games spend far too long introducing controls nowadays. It takes an age before a game actually starts. Skyrim seemed to take hours.

The death of retail. It is really sad walking into game now, with the same titles spread across shelves to fill the gaps when there used to be a massive selection.

Sequelitis. It has been around since the dawn of gaming, but some new ideas please.

The fact that gaming still gets such a bad press. It's a multi million pound industry, it's not only kids that play.

Now the most depressing of all. At this very moment, I have about 30 unfinished games in my collection that I will never get around to finishing

CastorTroy

I agree about review scoring. But for me it's about the emphasis on multiplayer. If I'm looking for a summary of reviews for a game, I just look at wiki. I remember looking up about a game. The reviews were in their 70s but the only compaints that were pointed out were poor or no multiplayer. As a single player I wish reviewers would score single and multiplayer separately. On the other side of that coin, I think I remember Call of Duty getting good scores due to the multiplayer and not being penalised much for the supposedly short campaign.

krudler

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

Incessant hand holding. For example MW3. you are lead everywhere, it's as linear as a lightgun game.

Review scoring. As most people ignore games below 90%, most of the big budget games hit that score by default. IGN should hang their heads for this. The could write 3 pages criticising one of the so called AAA games, then give it 95%???

The first level. Even with sequels, the games spend far too long introducing controls nowadays. It takes an age before a game actually starts. Skyrim seemed to take hours.

The death of retail. It is really sad walking into game now, with the same titles spread across shelves to fill the gaps when there used to be a massive selection.

Sequelitis. It has been around since the dawn of gaming, but some new ideas please.

The fact that gaming still gets such a bad press. It's a multi million pound industry, it's not only kids that play.

Now the most depressing of all. At this very moment, I have about 30 unfinished games in my collection that I will never get around to finishing

YES!

"ok generic soldier man, we're going to calibrate your battle armour/penguin suit/robot/panda costume now, try looking over there.....now over there....now up here......now down there....yay! you have opposable thumbs! *achivement unlocked for doing sweet fcuk all* now try throw this grenade over a wall *thud, boom* oh go you mr man! *achievement unlocked: ah this is taking the piss now*

all games should have options to turn that sh1t off. I remember when games had manuals to read that smelt lovely and had nice artwork and if you didnt read them you'd be murdered in seconds.

krudler

CastorTroy wrote: »

I agree about review scoring. But for me it's about the emphasis on multiplayer. If I'm looking for a summary of reviews for a game, I just look at wiki. I remember looking up about a game. The reviews were in their 70s but the only compaints that were pointed out were poor or no multiplayer. As a single player I wish reviewers would score single and multiplayer separately. On the other side of that coin, I think I remember Call of Duty getting good scores due to the multiplayer and not being penalised much for the supposedly short campaign.

games tm does review the online side of some games seperately usually a month later, which is the right way to do it.

multiplayer for the sake of it annoys me, and especially now everything is trying to be COD. like Uncharted 3, the UC2 multiplayer was streamlined, solid and fun, then they started shoving all these rewards and killstreaks and stuff into it and it just got annoying.

CastorTroy

Just when you mention Uncharted 3 reminds me I tried that multiplayer but I think I spent more time waiting for it to find and start a game than I did playing. Then when you join it's near the end of the match.

As for manuals, I don't like that they're doing/have done away with them. I like quick reference when playing. Arkham City was really annoying. They had a booklet of about 4 or 8 pages just to tell you that you can find the manual online. The game case consisted of that, the Catwoman code, a flyer for Imposters and think a couple other flyers, so clearly they weren't saving paper by not including the manual

deathrider

krudler wrote: »

YES!

"ok generic soldier man, we're going to calibrate your battle armour/penguin suit/robot/panda costume now,

I've secretly always wanted a battle-penguin-robot-panda costume.

Reekwind

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

You're the only one here that is inferring that using the word suggests more than simply playing games, so it seems that you're the only one trying to pigeonhole people based on what they do.

Fine, I give up. This is going nowhere. You said that you didn't reject the existence of a gamer subculture and now you're suggesting that I'm pigeon-holing people into imaginary boxes? Me, the person who has been arguing that playing games should not automatically earn you a particular label? I wonder if anyone has been reading my posts at all

1) No more rhetorical questions that people deign to answer: there is a distinct gamer subculture that exists. I don't care whether or not you call it 'gamer' or 'hardcore gamer' culture or whatever your semantic preference is. This exists and has its own norms, rituals, language, fashion, etc, etc. If you want to deny that, no that anyone's been so bold to do so, then you're wrong

2) The simple mechanical act of playing a computer game does not automatically subscribe you to this subculture. This is the same way in which one can listen to, say, My Chemical Romance without embracing the whole emo culture thing. There must be a choice, or at least acceptance, on the part of the individual in order to join/partake in this culture and its associated baggage

3) I have no problem with people calling themselves gamers or whatever they want to. There are elements of the gamer culture that I dislike but by and large I'm indifferent to it. I do not consider myself to be a member of this subculture

4) The assumption is often made that simply playing computer games automatically makes you a member of this whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it subculture. This is true both amongst wider society and, interestingly, this thread. People equate 'playing computer games' with 'belonging to a distinct subculture'

5) It's a 'pet hate' of mine when people make the above assumption. It goes against point 2 and sticks a label on people; pigeonholing them as something they're not. It's saying that they belong to a subculture that they have minimal contact with and no interest in. I dislike that

And that's it. The same thing that I've been saying over the past God knows how many posts in what has turned out to be a waste of time

Helix

nobody, apart from you, said that gamers referred to that subculture

that's what you're failing to grasp time after time. gamers refers to people who play games, anyone who plays games, not just the subculture you're talking about.

ive never once met a single person who makes this assumption that you claim is commonplace

krudler

deathrider wrote: »

I've secretly always wanted a battle-penguin-robot-panda costume.

its probably an on the disc dlc unlock on some capcom game.

Mr.Saturn

The 'Gaming as Art' movement, and the misguided titles it champions. Excuse the seeming niche-gamer bias, but I've seen more coherent, consistent stories told in 16-bitesque browser games than the entire God of War trilogy.

Oh, and Heavy Rain, which fails as a game, fails as a story, fails as a movie, and especially as a marriage of the three. It's an interesting experience, but deeply, deeply flawed. And I'm sorry, but the sex scene and the tits serve no narrative function, let alone the game. It's profoundly cringe-worthy.

J. Marston

Mr.Saturn wrote: »

The 'Gaming as Art' movement, and the misguided titles it champions. Excuse the seeming niche-gamer bias, but I've seen more coherent, consistent stories told in 16-bitesque browser games than the entire God of War trilogy.

Oh, and Heavy Rain, which fails as a game, fails as a story, fails as a movie, and especially as a marriage of the three. It's an interesting experience, but deeply, deeply flawed. And I'm sorry, but the sex scene and the tits serve no narrative function, let alone the game. It's profoundly cringe-worthy.

Yeah, that was strange. Press circle, she moaned! Move the right stick, he grunted!

Weird.

Star Lord

Mr.Saturn wrote: »

The 'Gaming as Art' movement, and the misguided titles it champions. Excuse the seeming niche-gamer bias, but I've seen more coherent, consistent stories told in 16-bitesque browser games than the entire God of War trilogy.

I'd never class the God of War games within the 'games as art' heading, it's simple brutal fun. For 'Games as art' I'd consider the likes of Okami, or even Limbo