Gaming: Have gamers truly forgotten?

[CandyStar]

Nobody questions peoples sanity over how much they like the graphics or not

Pardon me, I didn't mean it that way. Most gamers I meet are jerks, they only care about something if it has do with their own game. One example being that of a boy I once spoke to: Every time I said something negative about a game he liked, it would turn into a argument. I only named the flaws and good things about the game, sometimes other will not accept criticism of their favorite genres. There is more to it than just only wanting to see the good things in the game, you must also be open minded about the flaws in them too.

 

I'm not sure how many gamers will actually appreciate things that helped shape the games we have now, that is important to keep in mind. Without the past, you don't have a future.

[Blueblood]

Pardon me, I didn't mean it that way. Most gamers I meet are jerks, they only care about something if it has do with their own game. One example being that of a boy I once spoke to: Every time I said something negative about a game he liked, it would turn into a argument. I only named the flaws and good things about the game, sometimes other will not accept criticism of their favorite genres. There is more to it than just only wanting to see the good things in the game, you must also be open minded about the flaws in them too.

 

I'm not sure how many gamers will actually appreciate things that helped shape the games we have now, that is important to keep in mind. Without the past, you don't have a future.

 

If I'm reading this right, that sounds more like a problem in communication and context, rather than any sort of indication of the state of the gaming industry or community of gamers.

 

See, the first thing you have to remember is that most people who play games do so to find fun and joy; that is, to escape negativity.  Therefore, anybody who brings negativity risks being perceived as a spoilsport.  It can also sound as if you are passing judgment upon the gamer for liking flawed games, which again, is resented.

 

And, if I may be permitted a small criticism of my own, I've noticed that in several cases during this thread you've had to clarify remarks of yours which would have otherwise come off as insulting.  I know as much as anybody how difficult it can be to communicate, especially with only words, but I might offer the possibility that many of the issues you've had in dealing with other gamers might have more to do with that than their lack of taste?

 

I was actually reading an article and discussion of this issue today, dealing with the board game hobby which, if anything, is even more infiltrated with the Cult of the New.  It goes over how to best write a negative review, and I found it both fascinating and enlightening.  You can find it here.

[CandyStar]

I'm not passing judgment on anyone, but just suggesting people try and look at the positives/negatives of past games, and also look at the merits, that's all.

 

For example: FFX had a great story behind it, and well developed characters, the graphics were groundbreaking, and the first to receive voice acting. The turn based system which wasn't timed was a good change from the normal type turn systems, this allowed for more time to pace yourself and think(a good thing for those who couldn't think on their feet). The ending felt properly rushed and satisfying to get. And the sequel, FFX-2 gave us a chance to see several endings that depended on the way you played, or what secrets you found. The game proved quite emotional when seeing another character which resembled Tidus, we wanted to know more about him, who he was. And the truth touched us deeply.

 

It really just depends on the type of game your playing, and that's all that needs to be said. So please understand that I had no ill intentions, just good ones. I do appreciate the modern ones, but while some were great, and just saying a game sucked because the graphics weren't to your liking doesn't sound like a good reason to hate it. You need more insight before judging a game itself. Think I just lost what I was going to say... but anyway, but in short, you can't expect everything to go your way just because you want it to.

[QuickLime]

I can expect a game to be good if I payed 40+$ for it

[starswirlthebearded]

*Takes out cane and starts to shake it* Back in my day we didn't have this fancy interweb thing! If you weren't getting information from friends or commercials you were reading reviews from Nintendo Power and Sega Power. And we liked it! You whippersnappers don't know how good y'all got it with this internet or "web" as you young hip kids like to call it. 

But seriously... I see great games come out all the time. There are such a wide array from AAA games to well... Duke Nukem... to various degrees of indie games. What you'll like and dislike is entirely based upon what you prefer. We have always had sports games and shooters. Was Contra really all that different from FPS shooters? What about R-Type and Galaga, Ikaruga and Giga Wing? Are we so far removed that we can clearly see the past in rose tinted glasses? Gamers haven't forgotten. We are just remembering through the tint of wonderful nostalgia, for a simpler time when you could run over your game with a car and it would still work like new.

The only real difference is now there are microtransactions and patches. Yes, patches are actually a good thing. That means if something is broken in the game, the developer can actually fix it and make the game better without adding costs or rereleasing the game. Microtransactions could theoretically be good, if a company releases a complete game then adds to that game. Naturally this happens sometimes, and othertimes it feels like we are getting an incomplete game and we are expected to pay for the stuff to get the full experience. This however is about a 50/50 split. Gamers have taken the whole "omg microtransactions are ruining games" too far.Well that and companies like Konami and Capcom have jumped off the deep end. But that's another matter entirely. 

[CandyStar]

*Takes out cane and starts to shake it* Back in my day we didn't have this fancy interweb thing! If you weren't getting information from friends or commercials you were reading reviews from Nintendo Power and Sega Power. And we liked it! You whippersnappers don't know how good y'all got it with this internet or "web" as you young hip kids like to call it. 

But seriously... I see great games come out all the time. There are such a wide array from AAA games to well... Duke Nukem... to various degrees of indie games. What you'll like and dislike is entirely based upon what you prefer. We have always had sports games and shooters. Was Contra really all that different from FPS shooters? What about R-Type and Galaga, Ikaruga and Giga Wing? Are we so far removed that we can clearly see the past in rose tinted glasses? Gamers haven't forgotten. We are just remembering through the tint of wonderful nostalgia, for a simpler time when you could run over your game with a car and it would still work like new.

The only real difference is now there are microtransactions and patches. Yes, patches are actually a good thing. That means if something is broken in the game, the developer can actually fix it and make the game better without adding costs or rereleasing the game. Microtransactions could theoretically be good, if a company releases a complete game then adds to that game. Naturally this happens sometimes, and othertimes it feels like we are getting an incomplete game and we are expected to pay for the stuff to get the full experience. This however is about a 50/50 split. Gamers have taken the whole "omg microtransactions are ruining games" too far.Well that and companies like Konami and Capcom have jumped off the deep end. But that's another matter entirely. 

And I respect that, but i'd like to point out one of the worst offenders, Destiny. That game has brought shame to the gaming industry, and here's why: http://egmr.net/2014/06/life-universe-gaming-want-destiny-fail/

[Smartbrony]

I really don't get all the hate towards Destiny. I absolutely love the game! I'm disappointed they removed all of Peter Dinklage's Ghost lines and replaced them with Nolan North though. I miss my Dinklebot.

 

Seriously though, Destiny is such a broad universe, people are just lazy and don't care enough about the story to look it up, but care enough to complain about it. The DLC adds new missions, cutscenes, locations, all kinds of stuff, and is well worth the $20. Even the Taken King pack, which is $40, is almost like a sequel. Heck, it may as well be a sequel. And now they've got the silver shop which is purely for cosmetic taunts and will help keep the cost of new DLC low.

 

But really, if the big argument is that they spent a lot of money to make the game, then I don't see the issue. If you're going to talk about cash grabbing, why aren't you using an example that's been doing it for ages like The Sims? Some of the most basic things that you would think you'd have in the base game are $20 DLC, each, and there's, like, 18 packs!

 

Bottom line though is that Destiny's a fun game to play. Isn't that what we all strive for in the end?

[SunsetSombra]

Blind hate towards a game that's been noted as actually improving as of late doesn't really prove anything other than having an axe to grind...and whilst I may not play the game, I AM hearing that the situation with Destiny is somewhat improving and growing with the addition of the latest DLC's and content...so there may not be necessarily as much need to rail on it as there was prior to this.

[CandyStar]

I really don't get all the hate towards Destiny. I absolutely love the game! I'm disappointed they removed all of Peter Dinklage's Ghost lines and replaced them with Nolan North though. I miss my Dinklebot.

 

Seriously though, Destiny is such a broad universe, people are just lazy and don't care enough about the story to look it up, but care enough to complain about it. The DLC adds new missions, cutscenes, locations, all kinds of stuff, and is well worth the $20. Even the Taken King pack, which is $40, is almost like a sequel. Heck, it may as well be a sequel. And now they've got the silver shop which is purely for cosmetic taunts and will help keep the cost of new DLC low.

 

But really, if the big argument is that they spent a lot of money to make the game, then I don't see the issue. If you're going to talk about cash grabbing, why aren't you using an example that's been doing it for ages like The Sims? Some of the most basic things that you would think you'd have in the base game are $20 DLC, each, and there's, like, 18 packs!

 

Bottom line though is that Destiny's a fun game to play. Isn't that what we all strive for in the end?

When it's become nothing more than a troll fest? I've been blindsided by most for my play style. The more dlc is released, the more trouble is caused for the game; I have yet to see balance issues fixed for all weapons. They've forgotten and abandoned the year ones, and left us with only PR, SCR, SR, and HC which are the only thing useful now, AR's have become trash.

[Smartbrony]

Not true. As with all guns, a great deal of it's usefulness comes from the wielder's skill. Some people can use a sniper rifle point blank, others cannot even get a headshot on a still target. Likewise, if someone can control the kick of an autorifle, and someone else isn't accurate enough with a pulse rifle to get headshots, the autorifle will win. If you take skill into account, the only weapons that can become unbalance are the exotic weapons, hence why you can only have one exotic weapon and one exotic armor equipped at once.

 

But what the heck do you mean by troll fest? As far as I can tell, there are many people who are serious about the game, and the raids are no laughing matter. It takes a lot of teamwork and skill to complete those. They won't even let you attempt them if you aren't strong enough.

[Noedig]

Not true. As with all guns, a great deal of it's usefulness comes from the wielder's skill. Some people can use a sniper rifle point blank, others cannot even get a headshot on a still target. Likewise, if someone can control the kick of an autorifle, and someone else isn't accurate enough with a pulse rifle to get headshots, the autorifle will win. If you take skill into account, the only weapons that can become unbalance are the exotic weapons, hence why you can only have one exotic weapon and one exotic armor equipped at once.

 

But what the heck do you mean by troll fest? As far as I can tell, there are many people who are serious about the game, and the raids are no laughing matter. It takes a lot of teamwork and skill to complete those. They won't even let you attempt them if you aren't strong enough.

 

Smartbrony... you're still forgetting about DLC.

DLC are killjoys. It has fix patches and extra contents(Take Battlefield 4 for example, if you don't own all the DLC you'll have the most buggy version of the game.).

These extra contents matter little, as the original games matter incompletely. It's like asking for some extra cheese(DLC) on your burger(Game).

It's one item added into your incomplete meal while the rest of the other items still need to be paid for to have the full, best tasting burger. They make you pay for everything that's not worth your money and time to pay for.

That's what's wrong with some games these days.

Even for games that don't come with DLC... look at Sonic Boom.

What an disastrous piece of garbage! You know that game is not finished. I had my hopes into what they were changing a bit on Sonic and his pals, but it turns out that my hopes were shot to hell. Many thanks to Game Grumps, they played the game for us and had fun and irritant moments with the game's bugs. It disappointed me...

An incomplete game published before it's even fully finished. Some cases it's the developers' faults, some cases it's the companies' faults. Regardless of who is to blame, they don't make time and patience for this sort of stuff as much as they should be.

Because if they did, they'd have a hell of a lot more consumers.

Selling parts of a full/incomplete game is shameful. Period.

[Smartbrony]

I understand that, but sometimes you can't help it too, you know? Like, sometimes you think of good ideas when it's too late to implement them into your game and fit your time constraint, and other times you just can't get it all done on time if you try to do everything you want to. However, you can't say that a game is buggy if you don't buy the DLC, because that's what the patches are for. Just because EA ruined that aspect of DLC doesn't mean all DLC is like that. Some DLC, yeah, I can understand getting upset over. Did we know The Dark Below and House of Wolves were going to be DLC before the game launched? Yes. Were they complete by the time the game launched? No. Budget and time constraints can make it hard for some companies, while publishers can also add on the weight of time. Do I think Bungie made a great game, even if you don't have the DLC? Yes. Does the DLC add more to the game all around? Yes. I played it every day for two weeks after it came out, before I had to stop and go to Boot Camp, and I had no complaints. I still don't.

[CandyStar]

I understand that, but sometimes you can't help it too, you know? Like, sometimes you think of good ideas when it's too late to implement them into your game and fit your time constraint, and other times you just can't get it all done on time if you try to do everything you want to. However, you can't say that a game is buggy if you don't buy the DLC, because that's what the patches are for. Just because EA ruined that aspect of DLC doesn't mean all DLC is like that. Some DLC, yeah, I can understand getting upset over. Did we know The Dark Below and House of Wolves were going to be DLC before the game launched? Yes. Were they complete by the time the game launched? No. Budget and time constraints can make it hard for some companies, while publishers can also add on the weight of time. Do I think Bungie made a great game, even if you don't have the DLC? Yes. Does the DLC add more to the game all around? Yes. I played it every day for two weeks after it came out, before I had to stop and go to Boot Camp, and I had no complaints. I still don't.

I don't really approve of the price jacking they're doing for half decent DLC's, they just feel incomplete. More could have been done for a $40 price tag, what they have in them is not even close to justifiable. I didn't have complaints about it when I started playing too, but after about 3 months, the TDB dlc was crappy. House of wolves became less popular over time, because of the ToO having issues.

 

The real issue with the community, toxic and a bunch of idiots. I can't tell you how bad it's gotten, list is too long. This game's rep is like you falling through metal shed's roof, it's hurting. If they continue this price increase, they will not be around much longer. This game has become a P2P game, I shouldn't have to have a internet connection to play this.

[MidnightMask]

I'm of the opinion that day 1 DLC is the equivalent of delivering a pizza, opening the box, and only having half of it there, being told you can get the rest for ten dollars. It's just a cash grab, and when it's day one, you can't even say it was just content they worked on to sell later. It was selling an incomplete game in the hopes of greater profits.

But that's just me.

 

[ToothpasteThy]

Mario Kart Wii had a good storyline.

I'm of the opinion that day 1 DLC is the equivalent of delivering a pizza, opening the box, and only having half of it there, being told you can get the rest for ten dollars. It's just a cash grab, and when it's day one, you can't even say it was just content they worked on to sell later. It was selling an incomplete game in the hopes of greater profits.

But that's just me.

--MINDLESS RANT ALERT--

I will stab everyone who worked on Need for Speed Rivals with a slice of pizza if they pull the same retarted move again on any other games.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Rivals. It is a brilliant installment to the NFS franchise, but... The whole DLC money-grab thing was already a problem, but with Rivals, it became much worse...

The problem was that there was no DLC. Instead of making all the extra content available for ten dollars, they just make a 'full version' of the game which they released a while after the game originally launched-- leaving all the dedicated fans to the franchise to have to pay more than they should have had to just to get something that they were excited for, expected, and deserved in the first place-- the full game.

This also gave the newer fans to the franchise all the better content, making it so tha all the noobs could beat long-time NFS gamers just because they had the better content. Why should they be the ones to get much better gameplay if they aren't the true fans who pre-ordered the game or got it on the day of release?

I dunno what I'm raining on about anymore... It's pointless to argue. The fact is that the franchise gave a punch to all the faces of their long-time fans and welcomed noobs. I have no problem with welcoming noobs and giving them good content, but sucking the money out of your previous fans is just a massive jerk move.

Sony really needs to get out, and go die. Or get bought out by Nintendo and begin selling the full games right from the start. At least Nintendo makes it so their games feel like they were made to make an audience happy instead of just to make money.

[CandyStar]

I'm terrible at saying what I mean, sorry.