What tendencies in the gaming market do you abhore (if any)?

[Lynch]

If I missed anything as this is a rather subjective poll, please specify.

[Brian Seiler]

What's with the superfluous e? Do I have to hate it in a British accent for it to count?

[Lynch]

Fixed!

[MSUSteve]

Focus on multiplayer is something I hate as someone that dislikes playing adversarial MP. I doubly hate that I have to subsidize MP for all the people that do like playing it by paying $60 for the SP/co-op experience of a game. I'd love to be able to $40 for a version that has no adversarial MP to it at all.

[Guido Jones]

retailer exclusive content

[Dan_Theman]

My "other": vendor specific DLC. Absolutely, positively, can't stand that practice.

edit - Guido beat me to it.

[MSUSteve]

Definitely agree on retailer specific content. I double hate that, especially when Gamestop gets the good stuff. I refuse to buy anything at Gamestop.

[Matt Bowyer]

Guido and Dan have it -- I hate retailer-exclusive content. Especially when it's never opened up later on.

[Gordon Cameron]

I can't check the "flash games" box because I love a lot of flash games and spend as much/more time playing them lately as I do "core" games. And there are some fantastic games playable on Facebook too (I'm looking at you, Typing Maniac!). But the Zynga model depresses me. It's the grind without the gameplay, it's anti-social rather than social because it causes you to annoy your friends with pointless requests, and the entire tech industry is buzzing about it with dollar signs in their eyes. It makes me sad.

[Telefrog]

Ubisoft crazy DRM, manuals as pdf only, and other.

Other - Vendor exclusive stuff, preorder only stuff, and ties to Facebook or Twitter in an otherwise regular retail game.

[malkav11]

Retailer-exclusive games.
DRM.
Platform-exclusive DLC: I own pretty much every platform, so if you must make your game exclusive to one particular platform, that's possibly annoying if it's not PC (where I prefer to play) but ultimately not a barrier to me playing (unless the platform is completely unsuited to the game, i.e. the Wii and pretty much any game whatsoever). But if I buy a game for a particular platform and then you just don't bother to support it with all the same content, I either have to rebuy the game on a platform I don't like, or miss the content, both of which are pretty huge "fuck you" moves.
PS: Microsoft, stop fucking buying timed exclusives for 360 and leaving the PC out in the cold. You own Windows too, fuckers.

[RickH]

Definitely agree on retailer specific content. I double hate that, especially when Gamestop gets the good stuff. I refuse to buy anything at Gamestop.

Me too, me too, and me too.

[madkevin]

Zsa-Zsa always got on my nerves.

........ oh, abhor. Sorry.

[Matt Bowyer]

Focus on multiplayer is something I hate as someone that dislikes playing adversarial MP. I doubly hate that I have to subsidize MP for all the people that do like playing it by paying $60 for the SP/co-op experience of a game. I'd love to be able to $40 for a version that has no adversarial MP to it at all.

I also agree with this. I don't like multiplayer games; I've never played an online game against someone I don't know, and as soon as I get involved in a regular online MP game, even something with QT3 people, I start getting frustrated with either the time commitment or the fact that I suck at it or who knows what. So I just don't play MP except with a few friends of mine, and always co-op. Whenever a game starts adding a bunch of MP (Assassin's Creed, Uncharted), I worry that the base game (the "real" game in my self-important opinion!) is going to suffer. Fortunately, those two are still great and my fears have been baseless, but still.

[Relayer71]

What happened to turn based isometric view RPGs? I hate that the genre has become more action-oriented. Not everyone is an FPS fan.

From the options on the poll, retailer-exclusive content and gadget based games annoy me too.

[instant0]

I hate the lack of COOP and the fact that many online games use GameSpy browser "technology"
In fact, with a online COOP + Key, that'd be all the "DRM" they would need in most cases.

I also hate the lack of Dedicated Servers / Stand-alone for MP Games on the PC. This isn't Xbox Live.
(And that doesn't mean "renting a server", I mean a .exe I can run on my own computer to act as a server).

[Otagan]

MMORPGs, which once threatened to consume my very soul before I swore them off wholesale.
Massive DRM, mainly since it really does only trouble legitimate customers. If you really must DRM your games, remove it as soon as your game is publicly available in cracked form. That would be an improvement, if still not perfect.
Microtransactions, because I really like owning the full game in one fell swoop and don't want to be nickel-and-dimed for bits of content every time I play.
Flash games. Facebook games are the devil. While this forces me to lump in some good Flash games, their sacrifice for the greater cause will not be forgotten. If it's all or nothing, burn them all.
Manuals as PDF only. I have a giant cardboard box filled with all my manuals from old PC games, which I still go back and read through on occasion. Nothing beat the sense of elation I felt when opening a full-size PC game box back in the day and pulling out a manual as thick as my forearm.
Focus on graphics. I don't need beauty. If half the time put into coding shadow generation on custom faces was redirected to extending or expanding the game, I'd be perfectly fine with that. My wallet would also be heavier since I wouldn't need to upgrade my hardware every few years to keep up with the new standard.

[Guido Jones]

Guido and Dan have it -- I hate retailer-exclusive content. Especially when it's never opened up later on.

Opening it up later on is nearly as bad - they're asking for you to spend even more money on stuff that was included as a pack in for the game.

If the publishers want to discourage the secondary market by including DLC in the package, I'm cool with that (IE the Stone Prisoner DLC for Dragon Age: Origins), but making me pay more for what should have been included in the game at release....no thanks.

[John Many Jars]

It's GAMERS I hate

[Jason McCullough]

I agree that gamer fanboys are far more annoying than anything in this list.

[Nikolaj]

I'm getting fed up with regional pricing.

[Nezz]

Focus testing, i.e. designers deliberately aiming for popularity instead of beauty.

Well, and DRM/region locks, but that's a given.

[thinkingork]

Does it make me a bad person if I love everything listed in the poll? Well, except the obnoxious DRM obviously.

[Midnight Son]

I pretty much picked everything in the poll, since I still have a brain and remember the glory days.

[metta]

It's GAMERS I hate

I don't hate them, and I play a fair amount of Multiplayer and MMOs, but people's tendency to use a particular game (or movie, or operating system, or book, or phone, or console) as a locus for petty tribal behaviour is pretty ugly.

[MattKeil]

retailer exclusive content

Only answer I would have chosen, and the most insidious practice in the industry today. If U.S. Deus Ex players are wondering why they can't have a silenced sniper rifle, this is why.

[Equis]

retailer exclusive content

Only obnoxious gamer fanboys tops this.

[skyride]

Who are the 7 losers that hate co-op gaming?

[Aeon221]

I don't like how every good franchise now ends up an MMO. Why was a Conan MMO made? I mean, fucking Conan? The epitome of the solo hero wandering around and dealing with ridiculous shit by beating the fuck out of it?

No sense at all.

I don't like how important graphics are now. I do not need to see reflections or shadows or the tessellated pecs of my duders, I just want good gameplay and a stellar UI.

Ubi style DRM is a huge no-no.

Otherwise I think microtransactions are great (haha, other people fund my game while I wait for it to end up a cheap bundle), steam is the best thing ever and all these indies are faboo.


I can't check the "flash games" box because I love a lot of flash games and spend as much/more time playing them lately as I do "core" games. And there are some fantastic games playable on Facebook too (I'm looking at you, Typing Maniac!). But the Zynga model depresses me. It's the grind without the gameplay, it's anti-social rather than social because it causes you to annoy your friends with pointless requests, and the entire tech industry is buzzing about it with dollar signs in their eyes. It makes me sad.

I agree, I clicked that one because of Zygna.

I don't think it'll last forever, but I'm already shocked that it was this successful, so who knows. Really odd and very (wallet) abusive relationship with their players.

[DeepT]

retailer exclusive content

Yeah, that is another one I greatly dislike too.

[Sarkus]

I voted for the same two most others have - massive DRM schemes and excessive focus on multiplayer.

That said, it occurred to me that despite all the complaints about the industry only focusing on sequels nowdays, that has resulted in a couple of very good franchises being revisited after long waits, namely Fallout and Deus Ex. So it isn't all bad.

[belgerog]

I think DRM and walled gardens are some of the things I don't really like.

I've used Steam for a long time, because of how well it works. At the same time, I'm not a big fan of having to go through a technically unnecessary although convenient program to play a game.

Ideally everything would work like GoG. You buy your game, and you have an installer you can back up and run whenever you like, regardless of being connected to the Internet or not. Maybe a bit Utopian, but there you go.

There's also the requirement a lot of multiplayer games have to register and log in to a service to be able to play, when you could simply have clients and third-party servers and you just connect to them to play. Some games need this to keep track of player stats, but it would be awesome if there was an option to play a non-persistent version of the game. Take a game like Bad Company 2. It's awesome, but even if you're playing in LAN you have to log in.

I really hope other publishers don't follow what EA is doing with Origin and require their own services for playing their games.

[Paul_cze]

Focus on multiplayer
MMORPGS
Downloadable content
Massive DRM (Ubisoft etc)
Microtransactions

I only like MP rarely with friends in co-op...I never play MP in games like Bioshock/Dead Space or hell, even Battlefield BC2, so for me it is lost value that I would gladly exchange for cheaper game.

MMORPGS. Tried WoW 7 years ago when it was in beta for 14 days. Played 10 hours a day. After beta ended, so did my MMORPG stint. I hate MMORPGs with passion because they take a lot of time, money and talent (like Tim Cain's) that could be spent on SP RPGs instead!

DLC - I hate preorder DLC bullshit and all that,as for DLC itself, I only like DLC in the rare cases when it is good (Fallout NV, Fallout 3, GTA4) or free (Witcher 2).

DRM - DRM is needless pain in the ass and Ubisoft should just go bankrup already so that their talent could be employed by nonidiots.

Microtransactions - I dislike nickle-and-diming in games, strongly.

[Royal Fool]

retailer exclusive content

12345

[Marcin]

Focus on multiplayer is something I hate as someone that dislikes playing adversarial MP. I doubly hate that I have to subsidize MP for all the people that do like playing it by paying $60 for the SP/co-op experience of a game. I'd love to be able to $40 for a version that has no adversarial MP to it at all.

Same, so I checked it.

However, it's fine in games that are intended as MP only like Brink, TF2 or even the Bad Companies games (yes they have campaigns and boy howdy, are they shit). So really it's the split focus on both that seems like a missed chance to make a truly kickass single-mode game.

[Marcin]

retailer exclusive content

Oh man, this. With the rage of a thousand suns.

[Tyjenks]

Focus on MP - Adds nothing to the experience for me as I never get good enough at anything to need stiffer competition. I have few friends who are interested in the games I would like to play and coordinating times to play is always an issue, too.
Focus on Graphics - I am always behind the curve with my PC and, now, each generation of console. I was first day with the PS2, but since the last generation hit the streets, a lack of funds has effected buying habits and the upgrade cycle.
Gadgets - I like the Wii, but I want my controller. I know you can use the Wii as a regular controller, but it is not as comfortable and having a gadget forces too much development time into developing for the gadget. I have no desire to use a Kinect or Move either.
Other - This one will never go away, but genre bandwagon jumping. There is always a genre that gets beaten to death. RTSes, FPSes, Match 3 games and now friggin'' tower defense game. Rarely does the core gameplay mold get broken when the industry takes a genre and runs with it and it gets so that once I see a game is in that genre, I write it off at the outset.


Some of the others I wish were not going on, but I have accepted as "the way things are/are going". Microtransactions, DLC, some form of DRM. Yeah, annoying, but whatever. In most cases, in the games I play, the existence of those things has minimal effect on my enjoyment.

[Matt Bowyer]

I might be part of the problem, but I like (reasonably-priced) DLC. In a game like Oblivion, once we got past Horse Armor, it gave me an excuse to make a new character and go exploring. "Some kind of pirate lair? Well, I was wanting to try out a swashbuckling-style character, I can drop $5 on that and kill the next 40 hours of my life performing feats of derring-do." I gladly picked up the giant air cannon for Just Cause 2 and whatever it cost, I've gotten my money's worth of watching jeeps go flying off cliffs.

$2 for EA cheat codes? Of course not.
$2 for three new stages in Dynasty Warriors 7? Sure!

[Jupiter Jones]

I abhor the rush of small and large companies onto the social game hayride. I just finished working for a very large social games company, and I gained a lot of insight into how the money is really made on these games. I've been talking to other game companies, but every time they mention that they want to "replicate" what others have done, my stomach churns. Companies should be thinking about what the "next" iteration will be, and stop trying to feed from a pig trough that will be empty within a year.

[FieryBalrog]

i generally don't like DRM involving physical media & install limits & securom, I don't like how manuals are PDFs, and

I don't generally like single-player focused games, particularly the "Linear Cinematic Action-y Experience" that AAA console games are converging on.

[Tyjenks]

Damn, I missed the .pdf manual only thingie, but since I have not bought a game off a store shelf in 2+ years, I guess I can no longer bitch about that one. I used to bitch about the declining thickness of the boxed ones, but then I stopped having time to sit back and enjoy a big, phat manual.

EDIT: How 'bought the ineptitude of developers in trying to recreate the magic of X-Com, Jagged Alliance II and Master of Magic?

[Harkonis]

I wish more games would focus on multiplayer and not the other way around ;)

There are very few AAA titles that are 100% multiplayer.

[malkav11]

That reminds me: fuck motion control. In fact, generally speaking, I don't understand this drive towards new controller designs. If you have some brilliant, entirely new gameplay that can only possibly be rendered by motion controls or a robot or whatever, then fine, I guess. Nobody's exactly rushing that stuff into production, though. Meanwhile, we have a whole lotta traditional games that can easily be done on the standard gamepad as shipped with generations of console now... yet are instead hamstrung by motion controls.

[Khoram]

What happened to turn based isometric view RPGs? I hate that the genre has become more action-oriented. Not everyone is an FPS fan.

Ditto. My youth was spent playing turn-based, create your whole party CRPGs. Despite having purchased every Bioware game except DA2, and despite currently playing and enjoying ME 1 + 2 (for what they are...), I totally despise the Biowarification of the Western CRPG genre. I don't want cut-scenes, I don't care about dialog, I don't want the "realism" of real-time combat*. What I want is to min-max/handcraft my group of characters, and watch them get stronger through many rounds of delicious, turn-based, tactical combat. RPGs started out as wargames, damn it, not novels/movies!

Uber-heresy alert: I played through BG and BG2 with my own party of 6 using the multiplayer party copied over to SP trick, and I am not ashamed! Besides, Jaheria and her loser husband sucked, and Minsc was a one-note joke that got stale quickly.

* special exception granted for Darklands, which was otherwise so very awesome.

[Aeon221]

That reminds me: fuck motion control. In fact, generally speaking, I don't understand this drive towards new controller designs. If you have some brilliant, entirely new gameplay that can only possibly be rendered by motion controls or a robot or whatever, then fine, I guess. Nobody's exactly rushing that stuff into production, though. Meanwhile, we have a whole lotta traditional games that can easily be done on the standard gamepad as shipped with generations of console now... yet are instead hamstrung by motion controls.

Now that you mention fucking and motion control... has anyone made a Wii game yet where you tape a Wiimote to your dong and, uh, aim for a high score? I thought it was inevitable and yet I haven't read a thread about it yet.

[Tyjenks]

Uber-heresy alert: I played through BG and BG2 with my own party of 6 using the multiplayer party copied over to SP trick, and I am not ashamed! Besides, Jaheria and her loser husband sucked, and Minsc was a one-note joke that got stale quickly. I think you needed an extra "Uber".

I tried so hard to read all the Codex stuff In DA:O when I first started playing. I just do not have the patience to fully commit. I don't mind some brief cut scenes (unless they are JRPG-ish) and interactive dialog choices as long it is not a choice of 4 where the 4th has you leave and the other three you have to select anyhow eventually. I want more choices eliminated when I chose a different one. That is what I can tolerate. I would prefer just the killin' and levelin'.

[Jason Townsend]

I'm sick of DLC. I've gotten plenty of satisfactory products in that format but my hierarchy of preferred content delivery runs full games > large expansions >>> DLC. Microtransactions I have basically the same issue with. I don't want to have to have some sort of budgetary strategy for getting the game I want without being a sucker.

PDF manuals and digital distribution are good for the environment and profit margins, and there's less of the feeble weight/cost excuses one sometimes used to get for the incredible shrinking physical manual. Different game types - flash, casual, motion control, MMO, multiplayer/singleplayer only - strike me as "stop liking things I don't like!" categories. I dislike the most egregious kinds of DRM but am fine with server-side authentication and understand its appeal to developers and publishers.

[Major Malphunktion]

Other is: Gamers support publishers not developers. see: Call of Duty debacle.
"But i like Call of duty..." In any other industry when this happens people walk away from a franchise. Jaws II,III,IV anyone?

[malkav11]

If motion control were a genre of gaming, fine. But it's not. It's a subpar control scheme foisted on games I would otherwise possibly enjoy.

[CaseyRobinson]

I picked DLC and microtransactions, but upon some reflection I don't hate DLC if it's implemented correctly. If I get a nice meaty level pack for $5-20 bucks and it's a fair value for money, I'm happy with that. If it's something like the DLC for Dawn Of War 2: Retribution, well, that just looks like 20 different flavours of horse armour to me. It was enough to make me pass on the Steam weekend deal. Maybe they'll have it all wrapped up in a complete edition for the end-of-year sale.

Crazy over the top DRM too, but I'm hoping that will show no benefit and die off. Please?

[kaosfere]

Excessive focus on multiplayer. People just blow, and I play games to get away from them, most of the time. Although, to be fair, the times I have bothered to find a good MP community it's been enjoyable -- but the effort involved in avoiding OMG NIGGER FAG U SUCK LOL NOOB morons most of the time makes it not worth it.

That and excessive DRM. I still have not bought a single game with Ubi's name on it in ages, and I plan on keeping it that way.

[Nesrie]

Massive DRM, Microtrans and DLC.
I'll use Steam and a couple of others, but I don't necessarily like the DRM connected to them. I really hated having some DLC guy in my party camp in DA:O and infrequent inabilities to load saved games becase my free DLC couldn't be verified on down servers.

You could add buggy as hell releases to the list.

[HumanTon]

You guys forgot the "Damn kids! Get off my lawn!" option.

There are already too many games I'm interested in and not nearly enough time to play them all. I'm not sure why I need to kvetch about the fact that somewhere somebody else is enjoying FarmVille.

[Armando Penblade]

I'm pretty sure that I checked everything, and then had an aneurism while typing this post.

Online distribution with DRM (steam etc) - I really, really miss the overloaded boxes of yore--the Janes and Baldur's Gate manuals, the free cloth maps and soundtracks and suchforth. Now, boxes are tiny, manuals are smaller, and freebies are nonexistent, so I may as well just buy it on the internet, but the collector in me really pines for the old ways of doing things. Furthermore, I loathe DRM on moral and legal grounds.

Focus on multiplayer - League of Legends' multiplayer focus? Totally fine, it's a multiplayer game. Making Diablo 3 online only because they don't want to give some people the option of playing without their retarded-ass real money market trading scheme? Fuck Blizzard with a rusty spoon, man. Splicing multiplayer onto games and genres needlessly syphons money away from useful development: imagine if the time and money wasted on the (awful) multiplayer in Civilization V or Elemental had been used for actually finishing the games to a useful degree!

MMORPGS - Get off my lawn time here. I hate MMORPGs with a burning passion. I'm a "Buy it once, play it alone, and then finish the damned thing" sort of gamer, and MMOs ruin that. Now, normally, I'd just say, "well, okay, then don't play 'em," except for the fact that two of my favorite franchises have moved to MMOs (Warcraft and Knights of the Old Republic), making it impossible for me to see how their plots conclude or continue for $50 straight-up, and furthermore, drastically reducing the chances we'll ever see a real entry in those phenomenal series again.

Downloadable content - Sell me the game, then let me play it to completion. If it does well and you want to add 20 hours of new quests, a dozen new units to each side, or new maps and guns by the boatload, then do it in a serious, heavily developed expansion pack. DLC leads to the nickle-and-diming of gamers for content that used to be produced and included with the game, and the ability to easily split it up encourages devs to just have 5 $5 DLC packs instead of one $20 expansion. It brings out the worst in hyper-capitalist publishers like EA, Activision, and their ilk.

Massive DRM (Ubisoft etc) - Once again, FUCK DRM. It's my game, I bought it, and now I am going to play it however the hell I please, whenever the hell I please. Anything companies do to get in the way of this makes my blood boil to an extent that I feel somewhat uncomfortable with, considering that I'm generally a pretty laid-back dude in person. Don't restrict me to a platform, don't force me to authenticate with you, and sure as HELL don't put anything on my computer to gunk it up. Always-on DRM is absolute pure evil, and I literally hope the bastard who thought it up dies in a one-person car wreck on the way home tonight. Jesus, I really do get worked up about that one =/

Microtransactions - Once again, I want to buy my game and have it all. I don't want to pay $1 for a skin, $5 for a map, and $10 for a new race. I want to buy the game and have it. As before, if you've got something to add, create a bunch of shit and sell an expansion pack. F2P games feed off of ignorance and poor impulse control, moreover, and most tend to employ incredibly scuzzy business practices. Again, this stuff seems to bring out the absolute worst in businesses.

PC as a platform transforming (indies etc) - The PC is ludicrously powerful with features and abilities no console will ever have. Why on earth can't it still be the center for high-end, ultra-powerful game design? What happened to AAA PC-exclusives like Baldur's Gate and its ilk? Consolification ensures poor game design, awful controls, and concessions to demographics I want very little to do with. Indies are cute and good and all, but I want more blockbusters on my platform of choice (I say as an owner of a DS, 360, Wii, Gamecube, PS2, N64, and Genesis).

Flash games (facebook etc) - More Facebook than flash. This is pure get-of-my-lawn territory. I really, really hate the neverending stream of obnoxious invites to real-money ponzi schemes dressed up as "vidja games" that every 40-something office drone in America is drooling over these days. Not my thing, man.

Manuals as PDF only - I read the Age of Empires and Baldur's Gates manuals in bed at night as though they were freaking NOVELS. As in, multiple times. Give me great big, hunky, chunky, awesome, stuff-filled, useful manuals that I don't have to alt-tab over to Adobe crapware to read. If you want to digitize the damn thing, go ahead, but I want something I can pore over on the john, man.

Focus on cooperative gaming - I don't jive with multiplayer and due to some recent moves, I have basically no one to play co-op games with in person, and few of my friends play PC games (I don't subscribe to Live, so co-op there is out, as well). When there is content locked behind co-op, I get pissy. When it's just a tack-on, it's alright, so long as its useful (Halo seems fun co-op, while AoE Online's implementation just seems like an excuse to include harder levels to make you want to buy a civ-pack to get elite gear).

Gadgets (wii, 3ds etc) - You guys have already covered it. Good games are ruined when they're adapted to gimmicky gadgets for no reason. Even with a dozen-strong library of highly rated games on the Wii and DS each, I struggle to think of anything aside from Wii Sports that wouldn't have been monumentally better with a traditional control scheme.

Focus on graphics - FPSes will always, on some level, be about showing off the latest and greatest, and I actually think that's pretty cool. I bought a Voodoo2 for my first real PC when I was *eleven,* for God's sake. My real issue here is that in the era of HD gaming, producing photorealistic graphics is so incredibly expensive (in times of time, talent, and money) that the end result is fewer AAA titles that are almost inevitably shorter, make heavy use of recycled content, or are part of "guaranteed" franchises that almost never introduce meaningful changes to the formula. Its forced the industry into a very small pathway, leaving it to indie outfits to innovate, but unfortuantely, these guys don't have the money or marketing to produce the sorts of titles I want to play sometime.

Other (specify etc) - Retailer-specific DLC for all the reasons listed here, other gamers the vast majority of the time, and the absurd cost. How much does it cost to assemble a fully functional, "includes" everything Wiimote these days? $80 plus tax? Times four for multiplayer? Sweet Jesus! I can see AAA titles jumping to $60 to adjust for inflation, but between DLC, pre-ordering schemes, non-collectors editions stripping out previously free content, microtransactions, gimmicky control schemes, shortened game lengths, regional pricing BS, and the most ludicrously sticky pricing I've ever seen for major titles (How much does it cost to buy the 13-year-old Starcraft to this very day?), this is a monumentally expensive hobby for a guy struggling to get into entry-level positions. I just want to have fun man :(

[Thoro]

I'm getting fed up with regional pricing.

This.

Also regional pricing that isn't. What do you mean? US $49.99 is the exact same price as EUR €49.99, isn't it?

[Canuck]

For me it's regional restrictions. Fuck you D2D for not letting me buy Civ 5 for $16.80. I'm a damn Canadian and I want to use my Canadian credit card-I don't give a fuck that I live in Japan. Let those Japanese suckers pay $90 for the boxed translated version.

[copeknight]

1) Absence of documentation (even pdf manuals are shrinking)

2) Short life cycle of games. (Back in the '80s or very early '90s, CGW described British games as having the lifecycle of a butterfly--this was when American publishers' back catalogs included a plethora of old titles, some dating back a decade. That's the lifecycle I've seen here for the past decade. Luckily, digital distribution is starting to erode that, but it still bugs me.)

3) Action-ization of games. Arcade sequences ruin everything. Sure, Sierra's early adventures had obnoxious mini-games, too, but I'm tired of RPGs being action fests, of non-turn-based strategy, of always frantically trying to hone reflexes, and hand-eye coordination that weren't good 20 years ago when I was 19 and certainly aren't good now.

4) Consolidation and shrinkage. I know we all have horrible backlogs, but it seems like I used to be more excited about what was coming out than I am now. Maybe I'm just old and jaded, but I liked when publishers didn't put all their resources into a few AAA or AA titles. I like variety, and I feel like I have less choice now than I did then.

5) And when is someone going to do a TV game like First Row's Prime Time, but good? Damn it, I've waited my whole life for that. I abhor the tendency to ignore my utmost desires! ;)

[Disconnected]

Only 15% checked option one? You lot genuinely don't care that you don't actually buy the games you buy, but instead enter into a contract that basically says: "You're free to use the stuff you bought, if you use it our way. And we reserve the right to take back the stuff you've bought at any time, without explanation and without compensating you"?

I wish I was shocked. And I wish I wasn't appalled.

[Rock8man]

Only 15% checked option one? You lot genuinely don't care that you don't actually buy the games you buy, but instead enter into a contract that basically says: "You're free to use the stuff you bought, if you use it our way. And we reserve the right to take back the stuff you've bought at any time, without explanation and without compensating you"?

I wish I was shocked. And I wish I wasn't appalled.

Well, hate is a strong word. I'm somewhat disquieted by it, sure. But do I hate it? Not really. Probably not until it has some major negative consequences down the line. It's hard to hate a theoretical downside that could come bite us in the ass one day.

[Alien Gurgey]

For me it's big 3d characters.

Actually I don't mind the 3d part, but why must they be so big? I don't want to play with dolls/action figures.

[Hanacker]

Only 15% checked option one? You lot genuinely don't care that you don't actually buy the games you buy, but instead enter into a contract that basically says: "You're free to use the stuff you bought, if you use it our way. And we reserve the right to take back the stuff you've bought at any time, without explanation and without compensating you"?

It's a fair price to pay for being able to download it any time anywhere, imo.

[Disconnected]

It's hard to hate a theoretical downside that could come bite us in the ass one day.

Honestly, it's not the potential ass-biting I have a problem with. We probably have something like 100 games in the interweb clouds.
It's the principle of it. I think it's an asshole thing to do to customers, bordering on selling stuff you know is defective.


For me it's big 3d characters.

Actually I don't mind the 3d part, but why must they be so big? I don't want to play with dolls/action figures.

Possibly related pet hates: fiddly camera controls & OTS cameras.

I never expected to experience what it is like to literally be besides myself. And it turns out I never wanted to either. It is counter-intuitive, ugly and thoroughly annoying. Even developers can't seem to make sense of it: half the time you interact through the centre of the screen, and half the time you interact through your character.
Really, if you absolutely must disfigure your game with OTS, at least be consistent about interactivity. And while you're at it, move it far enough back that the protagonist's right cheek doesn't take up half the screen. It's not just impractical to have half the view obscured by an ass, it's creepy.

And fiddly camera controls... I have yet to come across any kind of top-down game where the game wouldn't have been much, much more playable if the environment was designed for fixed X & Y camera angles. That whole genre went from mostly great interfaces, to consistently having some of the worst in gaming history, when they switched to 3D environments. And a decade later the problem is still near-universal. Basically the only ones not making one solid clusterfuck of the camera after another, is the SupCom guys. Who incidentally also were the first ones to do something useful with the possibilities 3D environments offer, namely infinite zoom. Way to go, SupCom guys. Now you just need to stop using Steam and start explaining to everyone else why you're great & they're useless.

[cliffski]

And fiddly camera controls... I have yet to come across any kind of top-down game where the game wouldn't have been much, much more playable if the environment was designed for fixed X & Y camera angles. That whole genre went from mostly great interfaces, to consistently having some of the worst in gaming history, when they switched to 3D environments.

Agreed 100%. Company of heroes is a great game, with a pretty much fixed camera. Why more '3D' games of this ilk don't adopt the same policy is beyond me. it's incredibly rare to actualyl need to move the camera, and units that are obscured could do with some see-through effect anyway.
True 3D has given top down games better physics, but not much else, IMHO.

[ShivaX]

Guido and Dan have it -- I hate retailer-exclusive content. Especially when it's never opened up later on.

This is really the #1 by a long shot for me.

Next would probably be dumbing down games for people who wont buy it anyway and then limiting games/screwing them up on the PC because of consoles.

[Teiman]

Seems this forum is biased against multiplayer. Is not bad or good, but will be a good idea to remember it wen we talk about games with a multiplayer component.

[Nikolaj]

Only 15% checked option one? You lot genuinely don't care that you don't actually buy the games you buy, but instead enter into a contract that basically says: "You're free to use the stuff you bought, if you use it our way. And we reserve the right to take back the stuff you've bought at any time, without explanation and without compensating you"?

I wish I was shocked. And I wish I wasn't appalled.

I can only speak for myself, but I screwed up when voting, and only checked the DLC option. I would've checked more, including the first one.

[Midnight Son]

Too long, read anyway.

I salute you, brother from another mother!

[Chris Nahr]

I suppose this is the right place for the PC Gamer interview (http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/08/22/diablo-3-lead-designer-on-lack-of-offline-mode-the-game%E2%80%99s-not-really-being-played-right-if-it%E2%80%99s-not-online/) with Diablo 3 game director Jay Wilson, regarding the game's requirement for a permanent Internet connection:


Some players might not have access to a stable internet connection. What should a player do if, say, the internet wiring in his house is flawed?

“Erm… upgrade the wiring in his house?” suggests Wilson. “I mean, in this day and age the notion that there’s this a whole vast majority of players out there that don’t have online connectivity – this doesn’t really fly any more.

“I mean, at our hotel, there’s nine wi-fi networks that I can access. Just from the hotel! And they’re all public – they’re all paid – but they’re pretty cheap, and they’re all publicly available. So the notion that there’s just tons and tons of people out there that aren’t connected – isn’t… I don’t think is really accurate.”

Wilson also told us some of the philosophical and practical reasons behind the decision not to include any sort of offline mode.

“There’s two basic problems with us doing that,” said Wilson. “One is players default immediately to that. So, they basically unintentionally opt out of all the cooperative experience, all the trading experience, and the core of Diablo is a circle-trading game. So for us we’ve always viewed it as an online game – the game’s not really being played right if it’s not online, so when we have that specific question of why are we allowing it? Because that’s the best experience, why would you want it any other way?”

Wilson admits that the decision will alienate some players, but also suggests that it’s impossible to please everyone.

“You’ve got to make choices about what you want to do, and sometimes those choices are going to make some people unhappy, but if you feel like it’s what is the right thing to do to making a better product then you have to do it,” he says.

“An online experience is what we want to provide for this game. Every choice you make is going to omit some part of the audience. Some people don’t like fantasy games, so should we have not made Diablo a fantasy game, because some people don’t like that? Some people don’t like barbarians. Should we not have put a barbarian in the game because some people don’t like it?”

Maybe it would have been smarter to just not say anything about the subject, eh?

[Disconnected]

I can only speak for myself, but I screwed up when voting, and only checked the DLC option. I would've checked more, including the first one.

Don't feel too bad. I screwed up on the DLC option. Given the Microtransactions option, I thought the DLC option meant patches-that-add-new-stuff. I guess I should have asked myself why anyone would have a problem with free stuff, hehe.

[Sander 001]

What tendencies in the gaming market do you abhore (if any)?.The large corporate fucks buying up developers then firing everybody or beating franchises into the ground or making exclusive licensing deals or...etc.

[Aeon221]

If you only buy AAA games, I can see why you'd think the gaming industry was full of action stuff and sequels.

The many many many indie devs have been doing a great job combating sequelitis, and they've been massively boosted by the success of DD systems like Steam, Impulse, GoG, etc. So it is awesome.


Only 15% checked option one? You lot genuinely don't care that you don't actually buy the games you buy, but instead enter into a contract that basically says: "You're free to use the stuff you bought, if you use it our way. And we reserve the right to take back the stuff you've bought at any time, without explanation and without compensating you"?

I wish I was shocked. And I wish I wasn't appalled.

Apparently 85% of the people on the forum aren't pants on head retarded. I'm pretty happy with that myself.

[divorced]

Microtransactions. I've always hated it and always will.

[RichVR]

Tons of awesome.

Get out of my head!

[Midnight Son]

I suppose this is the right place for the PC Gamer interview (http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/08/22/diablo-3-lead-designer-on-lack-of-offline-mode-the-game%E2%80%99s-not-really-being-played-right-if-it%E2%80%99s-not-online/) with Diablo 3 game director Jay Wilson, regarding the game's requirement for a permanent Internet connection:

(Cut: Bunch of self serving crap)

Maybe it would have been smarter to just not say anything about the subject, eh?

Yup. "Let them eat cake." Oh well, -1 sale.

[malkav11]

The bit about the wiring is particularly breathtaking. Upgrading wiring is a huge undertaking, and expensive as hell. I mean, when I had shitty internet, even an internal service call from my ISP ran $80, and fixed nothing whatsoever. Meanwhile, not buying Diablo III will save me $60.

[Armando Penblade]

Midnight/Rich: Let the hate flow through you and you can become an aged gaming Sith like me!

[hong]

Ditto. My youth was spent playing turn-based, create your whole party CRPGs. Despite having purchased every Bioware game except DA2, and despite currently playing and enjoying ME 1 + 2 (for what they are...), I totally despise the Biowarification of the Western CRPG genre. I don't want cut-scenes, I don't care about dialog, I don't want the "realism" of real-time combat*. What I want is to min-max/handcraft my group of characters, and watch them get stronger through many rounds of delicious, turn-based, tactical combat. RPGs started out as wargames, damn it, not novels/movies!

Uber-heresy alert: I played through BG and BG2 with my own party of 6 using the multiplayer party copied over to SP trick, and I am not ashamed! Besides, Jaheria and her loser husband sucked, and Minsc was a one-note joke that got stale quickly.


Pah. You're not a grognard unless you complained, when BG came out, about its real-time combat.

[Midnight Son]

Midnight/Rich: Let the hate flow through you and you can become an aged gaming Sith like me!

Probably older than you I am! Ok, that is.

[Mirriam]

I suppose this is the right place for the PC Gamer interview (http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/08/22/diablo-3-lead-designer-on-lack-of-offline-mode-the-game%E2%80%99s-not-really-being-played-right-if-it%E2%80%99s-not-online/) with Diablo 3 game director Jay Wilson, regarding the game's requirement for a permanent Internet connection:

/snip

the core of Diablo is a circle-trading game
/snip

Maybe it would have been smarter to just not say anything about the subject, eh?

That says enough, isn't it?
It's not about playing an RPG, it's not about hack'n'slash, or about dungeon delving, or killing demons, or rolling a badass dude or finding cool loot... the core of Diablo is circle-trading game. It's about your money, in our pockets.

Good thing there's Torchlight 2 to look forward to...