What's Wrong With Modern Games

[UnscathedFlyingObject]

-The colors grey and brown (totally defeating the purpose of having systems that can display a gazillion colors)
-Bloom (ZoMG arrgghhh)
-DLC that is not free (let's charge for that part of the game we intentionally left off)
-Charging to unlock stuff (ridiculous)
-Games full of bugs (release now patch later lol)
-$60 dollar games (no)
-Online releases (PSN, XBLA games)
-Lack of bosses (where did they go?)
-Casual gaming (Cooking Mama selling like a million? lolz)
-Licensed games (srsly stop buying that shit)

Post and discuss.

[t0yrobo]

My main problem is most of them just plain take to long for me. It takes me over a month usually to finish a 40 hour game, that's if I don't get bored halfway through because the lame ass story and repetitive gameplay gets to be to much for me. Of course that's why I play shooters

[iatneH]

I don't see what there is to complain about. If I put some Saturn game into rotation that I haven't played for 8 months or more, it's like a new game to me.

Modern games don't somehow make the games we have suddenly disappear.

And face it, a lot of our old games still cost $60+ :p

[Etrian]

-Online releases (PSN, XBLA games)

There's nothing wrong with this. You can buy stuff at home. Some of the games are actually really good, too. And it's not like you're obligated to buy them either. Same with DLC.

[honorless]

-Casual gaming (Cooking Mama selling like a million? lolz)

I hate this "casual games" versus "hardcore games" bull. What defines a casual game anyway? What defines a casual gamer? If you start giving me examples, I can probably start rattling off exceptions.

The so-called demarcating line doesn't really exist; the term was made up by some fucking tool who felt like his "turf" was being invaded when his mom started playing Mario Kart on and off.

Now if you want to say "games that are too easy" or "games that lack substance" or "shitty games", those are phrases that might actually mean something.



...I'm mostly in agreement with the rest of your list (I hear Astro Boy for GBA was a pretty decent licensed title) but...I'm actually a little happy about all the "problems".

There are so many past-gen games that I'd like to investigate. MAME, older consoles, ports and collections...completely new games are coming out for PS2 even now, and I've got JP games that I haven't been able to play since graduating (former roommate had a JP PS2) And there are some good modern games on current handhelds, which are cheap in comparison.

The fact that I'm not interested in going current-gen any time soon is saving me money and helping me work through a very long and interesting backlog.

[JoshF]

What defines a casual game anyway?

A game casual gamers play. Maybe a game that has no depth or gives the player a pillow instead of a challenge.

What defines a casual gamer?

A gamer who plays casual games. Has the type of mind that causes someone listen to Tone Loc and think it's cool if other people do. Hates challenges and loves unlockables.

[Daedalus]

-DLC that is not free (let's charge for that part of the game we intentionally left off)

Yeah, that's pretty weak. Particularly when DLC is released simultaneously with the game. And for addons and stuff... I don't want to waste 2 gigs of hard disk space on something that should have been included in the original DVD

-Charging to unlock stuff (ridiculous)
-$60 dollar games (no)

Agreed.

-Games full of bugs (release now patch later lol)

This I actually have to disagree with. I think bugs started to increase more around Playstation era due to the more complex coding required. It may suck to see games released now and patched later, but games were still rushed to market before the current generation. A Xbox or PS2 game could be rushed with a game breaking bug and you were just stuck with it.

I don't think consoles will ever have to really worry about developers getting in the habit of releasing broken games, because they have to answer to Microsoft and Sony, both which don't want to hurt their console's name. If a developer keeps putting out broken games, MS or Sony will call them on it, as opposed to the PC where they have no one to answer to (except angry consumers)

-Online releases (PSN, XBLA games)

I definitely disagree with this. I don't like seeing huge retail games get released as an online download (ex: Samurai Warriors 2 XL for 360), but PSN and XBLA provide a distribution channel for a lot of great games that would otherwise never see the light of day. Yeah, I'd rather actually own the game, but if an online release is the only way a game will come out, I'll take it.

-Licensed games (srsly stop buying that shit)

Come on, licensed games have been around forever. Remember "Superman" and "E.T." from the Atari 2600?

[Udderdude]

-Lack of bosses (where did they go?)

Disneyland. Alternate answer: You defeated them all, now go outside for once.

-Casual gaming (Cooking Mama selling like a million? lolz)

Dear God, they're catering to an untapped customer base! SOMEONE STOP THEM BEFORE THEY MAKE EVEN MORE MONEY!

[DEL]

-The colors grey and brown (totally defeating the purpose of having systems that can display a gazillion colors)

^This is the biggest turnoff for me, with western programmed games.
Kinda depressing.

To be honest, I've avoided them like the plague. So I don't know - do they have scores? Or has that concept been removed?

[worstplayer]

-Bloom (ZoMG arrgghhh)

I actually like bloom. It can make bright objects look really bright and give everything more contrast (just look at Serious Sam 2).
Of course, when your scene consists of black, dark brown and greyish brown it doesn't do much besides blurring everything.

What i really hate:
-Ads - "Best played on nVidia/ATI/Intel/whatever" makes my blood boil. The fact that i play this game means i already have machine that can handle it. What's the point?

[P_HAT]

-The colors grey and brown (totally defeating the purpose of having systems that can display a gazillion colors)
> Say "Hello!" to UE3

-Bloom (ZoMG arrgghhh)
> more bloom = you can't see crappy textures and models

-DLC that is not free (let's charge for that part of the game we intentionally left off)
> Money making is a wonderful thing (c)

-Charging to unlock stuff (ridiculous)
What? O_o

-Games full of bugs (release now patch later lol)
> Money making is a wonderful thing (c) (no betatesting +$; fast release +$)

-$60 dollar games (no)
> 100$+ for GTA4 is some countries.

-Online releases (PSN, XBLA games)
> i think it ok, for small games.

-Lack of bosses (where did they go?)
> And most of new bosses are lame. D:

-Casual gaming (Cooking Mama selling like a million? lolz)
Money making is a wonderful thing (c)

-Licensed games (srsly stop buying that shit)
> Money making is a wonderful thing (c)

[Lordstar]

so im the only person who has not bought in to this gens (ps3 360) consoles?

[Davey]

-$60 dollar games (no)

Maybe you're too young to remember the SNES era? IIRC, first party games were generally $50, third party games ranged from $60-$70. If you factor in 15 years worth of inflation, games are actually cheaper now.

I had some other objections to the list but other people have already covered them (XBLA is fine, licensed games have been around forever and have always sucked 99% of the time).

[CMoon]

Man, I remember Intellivision games being expensive!

[Lordstar]

try living in the EU where new games are 50GBP for 360 ps3. they were trying to tell us that it was going to be 130GBP for the Rockband drum mic and guitar game combo. they back tracked to 100GBP.

nothing has changed at all

i remember seeing Streets of rage 3 for 60GBP when it first came out. Thats one of the last games for the MD too so you get the idea. also the bargin games were about 30GBP. Now with the internet it is dramaticaly cheaper for new games.

just dont buy in to the hype and try to get GTA IV any time for the next two weeks lol

[Ed Oscuro]

-The colors grey and brown (totally defeating the purpose of having systems that can display a gazillion colors)

lol k

Davey: Some games were considerably more. I've heard that Phantasy Star IV was something like $100 here in the States on release. Ditto for other "obscure" RPGs.

[Fenrir]

-Online releases (PSN, XBLA games)

There's nothing wrong with this. You can buy stuff at home. Some of the games are actually really good, too. And it's not like you're obligated to buy them either. Same with DLC.

Yeah. Too bad you buy them and don't have any phisical support to store them and maybe play them in 10 years (or resell them), long after your actual console - together with your nice downloaded NOT TRANSFERRABLE games - broke or failed or was stolen in a burglary or was sold or whatever.
This online thing really makes me cringe.

[Ed Oscuro]

This online thing really makes me cringe.

steam steam lol

Man, when steam goes down I'm gonna be inconvenienced (and also probably pissed, depending on how they manage it).

[honorless]

A game casual gamers play. Maybe a game that has no depth or gives the player a pillow instead of a challenge.

Aside from "a game casual gamers play" being a circular definition...
My future mother-in-law only plays Mario Kart Wii (badly), a number of crappy freeware computer games whose names aren't worth remembering, and Tetris. So does that make Tetris a casual game even though higher difficulties play like this?

As for the rest, why not just say exactly what the problem is instead of being lazy and saying "casual". "This game has no depth." Or "This game is so easy a babbling infant can do well."

A gamer who plays casual games. Has the type of mind that causes someone listen to Tone Loc and think it's cool if other people do. Hates challenges and loves unlockables.

Outside of the circular part, that definition is okay with me. Thanks for the clarification
Though as someone who is known for her complete lack of musical taste, I'm surprised that I had no idea who Tone Loc is.

[Ed Oscuro]

So does that make Tetris a casual game even though higher difficulties play like this?

That player really sucks

[Dave_K.]

What defines a casual game anyway?

A game casual gamers play. Maybe a game that has no depth or gives the player a pillow instead of a challenge.

No, I think honorless was closer to the point. Its a term made up by some journalist tool who rediscovered "arcade" style games, which can be fully enjoyed in 2-5 minutes of play, and felt threatened by this with his love for 40-80 hour story fests.

[elfhentaifan]

I dont own any next generation console, and am pretty proud of it.
I'm putting all my love into my supergun

[it290]

Leave Tone Loc out of this.

[benstylus]

A gamer who plays casual games. Has the type of mind that causes someone listen to Tone Loc and think it's cool if other people do. Hates challenges and loves unlockables.

In that case, I don't think it's the games that are casual but the gamer. Nearly any game be played in a non-casual manner, whether it's Smash Bros., Bejeweled, Castlevania: Bloodlines, or even Minesweeper (if you can't clear easy in well under 10 seconds, you're still a wet behind the ears greenhorn). So while most games are "casual-friendly" I would argue that there are very few actually "casual" games.

Two examples of true "casual" games would be Animal Crossing and Nintendogs. Neither of them have much point, nor any particular way of winning or losing. Just various goals to complete at your own pace, if you decide you want to complete them.

There are games that will almost immediately destroy a casual gamer, such as Virtua Fighter or Ikaruga, and I would label those types of games as "hardcore" games.

Personally, I feel like "casual friendly" is probably the best way to go - it allows anyone to get in and play the game, but there's enough room for continual improvement should you choose to play in a less casual manner.

And getting unlockables is not a bad thing unless the sole purpose of playing is attaining said unlockables.

[Udderdude]

Stuff

Agreed.

[doctorx0079]

-The colors grey and brown (totally defeating the purpose of having systems that can display a gazillion colors)

AGREED

-Bloom (ZoMG arrgghhh)

don't know what this is!?!

-DLC that is not free (let's charge for that part of the game we intentionally left off)

yes, they should just put it in the next game, like Capcom does

-Charging to unlock stuff (ridiculous)

see above

-Games full of bugs (release now patch later lol)

mostly applies to PC games

-$60 dollar games (no)

this is nothing new, The Legend of Zelda 1 used to be $50 in 80's dollars

-Online releases (PSN, XBLA games)

But online releases let us play games that otherwise wouldn't get made at all! It's just economic reality that these games could never make it on disc. They would get canned before they even got started. Making games is expensive; getting your game on discs and into EB is a lot more expensive.

-Lack of bosses (where did they go?)

Yes, we need bosses, although there are still lots of games that have them. If you want you can play fighting games - you basically go up against a boss every round.

-Casual gaming (Cooking Mama selling like a million? lolz)

You seem to think that games like Cooking Mama are turning potential DDP fans into mindless zombies. Actually it's the other way around. Lots of people play games like CM who otherwise WOULD NEVER PLAY VIDEO GAMES EVEN IF YOU TRIED TO MAKE THEM. e.g. your grandma, your dentist. Just think of how many people watch TV and don't play video games. Now think that some of those people will actually play a game like Cooking Mama. They are more likely to play Tetris DS with you than when they were just watching TV. It's a different market. I think some gamers overestimate how popular video games were back in the day. Just because Nintendo advertised all over hell doesn't mean everyone in the world was playing Nintendo. The amount of people (mostly boys) playing video games then was tiny compared to how it is now. You can't assume the world would play Gradius if that's all that was available. Most people wouldn't play at all. And back in the day most people didn't.

-Licensed games (srsly stop buying that shit)

Okay, but this is nothing new. If anything, licensed games are better than ever, because these days some of them don't suck. I'm glad that Batman Begins is actually halfway decent instead of the crock of shit it would have probably been twenty years ago, i.e if Laughin' Jokin' Numbnuts (LJN) made it. Here, watch this and see the licensed garbage we got back in the day. Most of the games he complains about are old licensed garbage. Really, most of the stuff we get now do not compare in terms of shittiness.

[Tempest]

I don't know if it has been mentioned since I am too lazy to read everything (Sorry ) but I think one huge culprit is the Hybridization of genres. I mean, something like Kingdom Hearts is interesting at first, but now every RPG developer is trying to cash in on the Action RPG market.

Another big culprit is GTA, because with it's success, it seems to be telling developers and gamers that you don't want to do one thing well (Like driving, shooting, combat, etc.) you need to do as many mediocre things as possible.

[Twiddle]

Another big culprit is GTA, because with it's success, it seems to be telling developers and gamers that you don't want to do one thing well (Like driving, shooting, combat, etc.) you need to do as many mediocre things as possible.

3d platformers have been doing this long before GTA3.

[moozooh]

Also relevant: http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=224

[Zebra Airforce]

Two examples of true "casual" games would be Animal Crossing and Nintendogs. Neither of them have much point, nor any particular way of winning or losing. Just various goals to complete at your own pace, if you decide you want to complete them.

So would you say that Sim City is a casual game, then?