What would you uninvent about modern games?

orubiru

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There's reading animation frames visual cues and then there's big dumb flashing visual cues that have massive input windows and are colour coded to what button to press. There's also positioning to take into account, Arkham combat games just teleport you to the next enemy. It's basically combat devolved into a QTE.

Yeah, it feels like a much more passive experience requiring a lot less skill or thought.

I suppose when you look at the graphics on older games though they had to figure out a way of making pixelated blobs on your TV into something engaging and entertaining. There was also an expectation that the player will use some of their own imagination.

In old Sensible Soccer you had to imagine the atmosphere of a big match and that "unbelievable" goal you just scored was more spectacular in your mind than it ever was on screen. Nowadays you need the commentator going nuts and fully animated, photo realistic, player animations or it's just boring.

I feel like some old guy saying "back in my day all we had to play with was sticks and rocks" but I think it's true that with modern gaming the imagination of the developers is at the mercy of a baying crowd of gamers demanding flawless entertainment. In the past it felt like a bit more of a two way street. Gamers couldn't just demand perfection and expect to get it.

To really enjoy games like this you really needed to make some effort to buy into the kind of thing they were trying to create.

Now it's like, press X repeatedly to counter then press A, B, B again and Y while the animation plays.

_CreeD_

orubiru wrote: »

To really enjoy games like this you really needed to make some effort to buy into the kind of thing they were trying to create.

Respect Obi-Wan-GeriObi (fellow). I vip level backed the LN2 music Kickstarter, awesome series.

_CreeD_

Casual play as an option doesn't bother me, it opened up gaming to My wife and doubtless many others. It's where it has become the standard that is the problem, when encouraging such players to select Easy is not the norm, instead they make that 'Normal' since they might be insulted that it was called Easy. And then the evolution of that to where normally competitive multi-player becomes designed around Easy-mode, lower the FOVs, increase hit-box size, reduce overall accuracy so player with aim don't have as much of an advantage, slow movement and tactical options to the point where they do no matter. Then everyone can get twitch kills.

I'd like to see an option to opt-out of multiplayer cosmetics. In CSGO for example, the game started booming with addition of skins. I don't care for them at all. I just find them to be a pointless nuisance. I'd like see a client side setting that turns them off on my end. Then I wouldn't see them at all. They'd still be there for everyone else. They do slightly affect game play where I don't instantly recognise a gun when it's on the ground. Especially when it comes to pistols.

CiDeRmAn

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Batman Arkham combat system. In a world where Platinum games exist there should be no excuse for such atrocious combat systems. The Batman games get a pass because it doesn't just rely on the melee combat and the other systems are great. Games that rely totally on Arkham combat such as Mad Max and Shadow of Mordor I just don't get. The combat is just awful. You are just mashing buttons in time with visual cues.

I've been saying this since the first Arkham game.
The fights feel more like a series of QTE and you are never in real control.
Still great to have Conroy and Hamill on-screen for the duration, and the games are pretty generous before you get to the DLC, in terms of length and quality of the content.

CiDeRmAn

Collecting in games has been a pain for years.
Jet Set Willy, the horrors of Donkey Kong 64 and the Riddler trophies.
Not sure about the last one, they are more about returning to previously explored levels and trying then with your more advanced late game toolset, it does inform you to use the appropriate command to record the location of found trophies.

If I had to get rid of something it would be the internal day one updates and installs.
First time this popped up for me was with Gran Turismo 5, a couple of gig before I could play coupled with the dreadful PSN server performance, meant it was an overnight job, on a console :rolleyes:

Captain Chaos

Dardania wrote: »

My suggestion is roll back processing power (specifically graphics) - too many games focus on visual quality, whilst forgetting playability. Look at quake 3 arena - crude graphics but the games play is fast paced and fun

Last of us gets a pass on this

But Quake 3 Area was a very, very good looking game for it's time. It was a tech demo game engine for years because it pushed the limits at the time and many games were built on that engine because of it.

Retr0gamer

And still are, call of duty is a modified Quake 3 engine.

gizmo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

And still are, call of duty is a modified Quake 3 engine.

At this stage, in roughly the same way as a Tesla Model 3 is a modified Ford Model T. :pac:

Retr0gamer

gizmo wrote: »

At this stage, in roughly the same way as a Tesla Model 3 is a modified Ford Model T. :pac:

In terms of rendering maybe but the underlying physics and framework still have a bang of quake 3 off them.

Maybe it's just me but I can tell just by playing a game what engine it is based off. Even Source games feel a bit like Quake to me!

It's probably why CoD doesn't change engine, if they went to something like unreal it would change completely how the game feels and annoy the loyal fans.

Icyseanfitz

the industry these days just downright pisses me off tbh, seems like every developer/publisher is trying to nickle and dime the consumer, recent example s FF vii remake being split into multiple games at full retail just because they know it will sell, most dlc is horse**** that should have been part of the release title, season passes, very little in the way of innovation or new ip's anymore (bar indie titles), EA, and EA

Rorok

Mine is preorder bonuses, when you preorder a game you get it day one but usally its a buggy mess
Also DLC that is released on the realse day of a game, or in the 2 weeks, they have it made for the game and its ready to go, but they decide to charge another €20 for it

In light of the new doom: loadouts

kunst nugget

I see a lot of people complaining about DLC but some of them I've thoroughly enjoyed over the last couple of years. I'm playing through Burial at Sea from Bioshock Infinite at the moment and it's fantastic. Left Behind, Awakened for Dead Space 3 and the extra levels for The Evil Within were all highlights as well and all were picked up in sales.

Ri_Nollaig

kunst nugget wrote: »

I see a lot of people complaining about DLC but some of them I've thoroughly enjoyed over the last couple of years. I'm playing through Burial at Sea from Bioshock Infinite at the moment and it's fantastic. Left Behind, Awakened for Dead Space 3 and the extra levels for The Evil Within were all highlights as well and all were picked up in sales.

This was what I was saying too, but I guess the problem is "DLC" is now the term for all extra content, so whether its horse armor or a full expansion pack that rivals the game its all DLC.

Some games, made with DLC cash-ins in mind, like evolve, are just shameless, day one dlc and the like but then some others are brilliant and would easily have been full expansion packs back in the day.
I loved Burial at Sea as well, another good example of great DLC. It easily took me 10+ hours to complete 'heart of stone' DLC for witcher 3, that would be considered long for a lot of full games!

Retr0gamer

I hated Bioshock Infinite but enjoyed Burial at Sea for some reason, even despite that god awful retcon.

Retr0gamer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I hated Bioshock Infinite but enjoyed Burial at Sea for some reason, even despite that god awful retcon.

Was it really??

I agree with you Burial at Sea was much more enjoyable. Game-play was much more expansive.

The_Captain

Never got into Infinite. Story was dumb, gameplay was just a poor rehash of the first one

mezzanine08

Pre-orders, early access, and all that craic.

kunst nugget

The_Captain wrote: »

Never got into Infinite. Story was dumb, gameplay was just a poor rehash of the first one

Played Infinite when I got it with PS Plus. I wasn't hugely enamoured with it but I've since played the two other games and I picked up the season pass for Infinite cheaply recently just to play the two Burial at Sea episodes and I'm really enjoying them.

Retr0gamer

The one big problem with the original story was the motivations of one of the characters changing and being totally out of character. There's a bit in Burial at sea when you are in a ventilation duct and they give you the character's motivation but it's really awful and ham fisted. It was a big complaint about the original game so it's very obvious that they shoehorned it in.

K.O.Kiki

The_Captain wrote: »

Never got into Infinite. Story was dumb, gameplay was just a poor rehash of the first one

I gave up when they made me fight a fúcking ghost boss.

Turtyturd

HD/Anniversary rereleases. Enjoyed the novelty of Halo CE, and there are some that I would buy on release if they happened (Mass Effect trilogy) but the Batman announcement shows that they are just going to be the latest money grabbing trend.

K.O.Kiki

Turtyturd wrote: »

HD/Anniversary rereleases. Enjoyed the novelty of Halo CE, and there are some that I buy on release if they happened (Mass Effect trilogy) but the Batman announcement shows that they are just going to be the latest money grabbing trend.

Batman one is more like a "Game of the Year Edition" tbh.

I don't mind HD/Anniversary releases as long as they're good.

Mal-Adjusted

I like remasters/upgrades as long as they're really warranted and not just re-releases of current gen games like with Borderlands/uncharted. Something akin to the Homeworld remastered Collection. Imagine a graphically updated collection of the Jedi Knight games or the Crimson Skies games...that's what HD rereleases should be for.

Infernum

People being able to jump into multiplayer without even playing the campaign first.

Online multiplayer should be locked until the single mode campaign is played through at least once.

Darkglasses

Infernum wrote: »

People being able to jump into multiplayer without even playing the campaign first.

Online multiplayer should be locked until the single mode campaign is played through at least once.

Why? Plenty of people never bother completing StarCraft 2's campaign, and it's got an immense multiplayer community.

Digital Solitude

Infernum wrote: »

People being able to jump into multiplayer without even playing the campaign first.

Online multiplayer should be locked until the single mode campaign is played through at least once.

Depends entirely on the game, the likes of Dark Souls would be pointless to have to beat the whole game before allowing online, most people would never even get that far

johnny_ultimate

Given how tedious many campaigns are in predominantly multiplayer efforts (Battlefield, Call of Duty etc), it would be mental to force players through them to get to the good stuff.

Mickeroo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Given how tedious many campaigns are in predominantly multiplayer efforts (Battlefield, Call of Duty etc), it would be mental to force players through them to get to the good stuff.

Particularly since a large number of players never play the campaigns in those games.