Games that ruined gaming

I just remember Halo 2 releasing map packs @ around $10.00. I remember seeing it and friends talking about it. I also remember thinking "this is it, this is the beginning of faggotry". Little did I know how stupid this shit would get.
 
Call of Rehash duty. After MW1.....its the same fucking bullshit.....a money making scheme.

And Warcaft...It basically has made every other MMORPG fail. There is Warcraft, then Free to play.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Gears of War and Minecraft. NWN 1
Click to expand...

Ignoring Minecraft (it's painfully stupid), I liked GoW and I LOOOOOVED Neverwinter Nights numero uno. Never played #2.


DASHIT said:
Call of Rehash duty. After MW1.....its the same fucking bullshit.....a money making scheme.

And Warcaft...It basically has made every other MMORPG fail. There is Warcraft, then Free to play.
Click to expand...

Excuse them for trying to make a game AND make a huge profit, possibly cornering the market. You wouldn't have done it? Also a lot of the free to play rpg's are great.
 
ikarinokami said:
1. halo : regenerating health, truly the worse idea for a shooter, talk about just taking all the tension out of game, and becuase if it's sucess ever damn shooter has to have regnerating health, no matter how illogical it is
2. COD. there was a time when you played a game to get to the next level or boss, now instead its like you are on a rail taken to your next cinematic, where you are now reminded constantly that nothing you do matters in the least
Click to expand...

1. Halo as posted by somebody here had regenerating shields.

2. How old are you? I've been gaming since the 80's and not one single game I played offered any meaningful branching/complex outcomes other than to progress to the next boss/level/cinematic. If you leveled up in Final Fantasy 1 and found all the loot then you would kill the next elemental boss then finally Chaos. Rinse and repeat with all other Final Fantasy games. Super Mario Bro's Series? The only thing that mattered was jumping over Bowser and/or chucking him into lava just to save the princess for the nth time. No games that I have played in the past offered the quality and complexity of today's games. Yeah I still get gaming nostalgia but would I want today's games to be like them? No. Don't even get me started with the Ninja Gaiden series. I lost a controller in a rage to that one. :)

If anything today's games do offer great gaming experiences. Regardless of the butt hurt some people feel about ME series ending, I had a blast playing the series. I loved the characters and felt that some of the choices I made shaped the game a little bit but ultimately no game is going to give you complete freedom because the game designers do have limits on what they can and cannot do. Look at Batman AC as an example, sure you can spend the whole day gliding around the city and occasionally drop down on an inmate head but ultimately the game designers want you to do certain things to move the story along. Gliding around for months won't do it. Penguin is not going to kick his own ass.

Anyway, just enjoy gaming for what it is, entertainment.
 
Last edited:
LeninGHOLA said:
NWN 1
Click to expand...

Really? Neverwinter Nights was a pretty soild game from my perspective. It took some getting used to, but there was solid storyline and the interface wasn't too bad once you figured out where things were. Queuing up things for combat became really important past the beginning, too.

What were you referring to specifically?
 
fdiaz78 said:
1. Halo as posted by somebody here had regenerating shields.

2. How old are you? I've been gaming since the 80's and no game I played offered any meaningful branching outcomes other than to progress to the next boss/level. If you leveled up in Final Fantasy 1 and found the loot then you kill the next elemental boss then finally Chaos. Rinse and repeat with all other Final Fantasy games. Super Mario Bro's Series? The only thing that mattered was jumping over Bowser or chucking him into lava to save the princess for the nth time. No games that I have played in the past offered the quality of today's games. Yeah I still get gaming nostalgia but would I want today's games to be like them?

If anything today's games do offer some great experiences. Regardless of the butt hurt some people feel for the ME series ending I had a blast playing the series. I loved the characters and felt that some of the choices I made shaped the game a bit but ultimately no game is going to give you complete freedom because the designers do in fact have limits on what they can do. Look at Batman AC as an example. Sure you can spend the whole day gliding around the city and occasionally drop down on an inmate and bash his brains in. I feel a sense of freedom to explore but ultimately the game designers want you to do certain things to move the story along. Gliding around for months won't do it.

Anybody, just enjoy gaming for what it is, entertainment.
Click to expand...

Well put.
 
I can't think of any really.

I mean, if you want examples of bad games, yes I have many, and one of the many I'll say is Soldier of Fortune Payback. Way to butcher a great franchise. But does SoF Payback ruin the entire gaming scene? Absolutely not as no other games are trying to emulate this pile of crap.

So I think a bad game doesn't mean it could potentially ruin gaming as a whole. The fault is with the developers or publishers who choose to emulate other more generic games.

COD is a generic shooter for example. I don't like it. But its not their fault all the other publishers choose to emulate their formula of making simple generic games.
 
I don't want to blame CoD outright. CoD 1,2, and 4 are still in our normal LAN rotation. CoD 4 modern warfare is still the most solid shooter I have ever played.

I am confident that if Infinity Ward was put back together and they were given a CoD project it would be great again.
 
silent-circuit said:
Really? Neverwinter Nights was a pretty soild game from my perspective. It took some getting used to, but there was solid storyline and the interface wasn't too bad once you figured out where things were. Queuing up things for combat became really important past the beginning, too.

What were you referring to specifically?
Click to expand...

The story got really weak as the game progressed, especially in chapter 3, but I wouldn't say it ruined anything. From what I hear, NWN had some excellent DM tools and online play was popular.

My #1 goes to TES: Oblivion for the DLC, particularly the horse armor.
 
Half-Life. Influenced FPSs to go from running around in fantasy locations with sci-fi weapons killing crazy monsters to crawling around warehouses and shooting people in the face with mp5 with scheduled breaks for listening to some douche NPCs yap. Gave rise to counter strike, the granddaddy of "realistic", "tactical" shooters. Bleh.
 
fdiaz78 said:
1. Halo as posted by somebody here had regenerating shields.

2. How old are you? I've been gaming since the 80's and no game I played offered any meaningful branching outcomes other than to progress to the next boss/level. If you leveled up in Final Fantasy 1 and found the loot then you kill the next elemental boss then finally Chaos. Rinse and repeat with all other Final Fantasy games. Super Mario Bro's Series? The only thing that mattered was jumping over Bowser or chucking him into lava to save the princess for the nth time. No games that I have played in the past offered the quality of today's games. Yeah I still get gaming nostalgia but would I want today's games to be like them?

If anything today's games do offer some great experiences. Regardless of the butt hurt some people feel for the ME series ending I had a blast playing the series. I loved the characters and felt that some of the choices I made shaped the game a bit but ultimately no game is going to give you complete freedom because the designers do in fact have limits on what they can do. Look at Batman AC as an example. Sure you can spend the whole day gliding around the city and occasionally drop down on an inmate and bash his brains in. I feel a sense of freedom to explore but ultimately the game designers want you to do certain things to move the story along. Gliding around for months won't do it.

Anybody, just enjoy gaming for what it is, entertainment.
Click to expand...

I'm 38, i remeber playing quake and going the wrong way. there is no more "wrong way". since COD there is only one way, there is no thought as to whether i should go right or left. it is the worse gaming experience. you have zero decisions to make, there is not even the illusion of a decsion. you arent even playing so much as you are along for the ride.

regenerating shield/health its the same thing. and its not about foraging for health kits, its the fact there is no tension, every mistake i make, any descison i make can be rectified by ducking for cover. terrible.
 
ikarinokami said:
regenerating shield/health its the same thing. and its not about foraging for health kits, its the fact there is no tension, every mistake i make, any descison i make can be rectified by ducking for cover. terrible.
Click to expand...

So... Halo on legendary has no tension, gotcha.
 
I would like to blame CoD, but the real fault is everyone buying it like lemmings. Why?

1) Everyone else is.
2) I like the new shiney.
3) Everyone else is.
4) I don't like games with dead servers and because of 1, 2, & 3 I need to switch to the latest thing.
5) Everyone else is.
6) There's safety in numbers. I can be a douche, newb, or whatever and move along to where few recognize me and there's a bunch of others out there just like me too.
7) Everyone else is.

People want to be where the other people will be for whatever reason. CoD is the unofficial meeting place. Its crowded because its crowded. Same goes for WoW.
 
Last edited:
Tudz said:
Games don't ruin gaming, gamers ruin gaming.

Call of Duty are actually pretty good games IMO, it was people buying it in such huge numbers despite them releasing a new version each year that ruined it.

Halo was a great game as well, you could argue that Goldeneye ruined FPS games because it was one of first (if not the first) FPS game that was good on consoles.
Click to expand...

Goldeneye was a piece of trash. I had already been playing FPS games on the computer before Goldeneye came out. The graphics are so horrible in Goldeneye that I tried playing it once or twice, got completely fed up with it being such a pice of trash that I never tried it again.
 
I'm not too sure where to point my hate stick, but something has drastically damaged console RPG's, so much so I haven't purchased a console since PS2 (I don't count my wife's wii).

I know 1 area that was damaged by FFX which was the Open world exploration. Now RPG's feel its ok to make traveling from one place to the next a click of a dot.

Atlus seems to be the last company that makes quality RPG's and they can only do so much.

Is it really too much to ask for games comparable to Xenogears, Chrono Trigger, suikoden 2, FF6 and FF7?
 
Dan_D said:
So foraging for health packs which magically fix all gun shot wounds and other trauma makes a lot more sense right? Got it. I don't mind the mechanic. I don't have fond memories have having 12 health and running all over parts of the map I already visited in the futile hope that I missed something so that I don't have to be boned heading into the next section. Now I'd agree there was more challenge in that system, but I've still experienced some challenging games with regenerating health.
Click to expand...
I don't think regenerating health by itself is necessarily better or worse than health packs. But it has helped to ruin level design. Now every game has to be designed with eight layers of cover at every encounter. It makes the levels less believable and also seems to hamper map creativity. Of course, the move towards more cinematic gaming has probably hurt level design more than the need for cover, but neither has been a positive force in that area IMO.

Oh and a game can be really good and still be a negative influence on the industry. The first half of Halo was indeed pretty enjoyable (until they had you play through the same levels a second time)... but I've definitely noticed a gradual decline in FPS quality since at least Halo 2, and a lot of the concepts that are ubiquitous now that I'm not a huge fan of got their start as industry trends in Halo.
 
ikarinokami said:
I'm 38, i remeber playing quake and going the wrong way. there is no more "wrong way". since COD there is only one way, there is no thought as to whether i should go right or left. it is the worse gaming experience. you have zero decisions to make, there is not even the illusion of a decsion. you arent even playing so much as you are along for the ride.

regenerating shield/health its the same thing. and its not about foraging for health kits, its the fact there is no tension, every mistake i make, any descison i make can be rectified by ducking for cover. terrible.
Click to expand...

Wrong way? You sure you just didn't just fall off the map? :D
 
Say what you want about console games but Resistance 3 impressed me. Weapon wheel and medpacks was such a flashback to the glory days of FPS.. Level design was fairly linear still but many areas at least opened up so you can decide where to run or move to. Sadly the campaign was only 6 hours
 
Aix said:
Gave rise to counter strike, the granddaddy of "realistic", "tactical" shooters. Bleh.
Click to expand...

did you really just use the word realistic and tactical to describe counter strike?? it is anything but those. Always has.
 
I guess what is really missing is innovated and memorable games. They just rarely exist anymore because no one wants to try it.

Look at Monolith. They used to make awesome games that were memorable and fun. I put them on the top of my list of best developers until Fear, then went down the shitter pretty damn fast. No one wants to try.
 
I agree with the regenerating health....you never have to think about the next step or next enemy.....just duck behind something, wait.....rinse and repeat. I like the health pack concept.

The checkpoint system......another piece of shit. Quick save is really a thing of the past and too bad......work your way through a legion of shit, barely survive.....and then stub your toe and have to start all over from the last checkpoint, and do the same exact thing over again......if I really wanted to do something over again, I got to choose via saves, what and where I did it.

Console stuff......that's what screwed up the FPS......and maybe games as a a whole.
 
Dan_D said:
So foraging for health packs which magically fix all gun shot wounds and other trauma makes a lot more sense right? Got it. I don't mind the mechanic. I don't have fond memories have having 12 health and running all over parts of the map I already visited in the futile hope that I missed something so that I don't have to be boned heading into the next section. Now I'd agree there was more challenge in that system, but I've still experienced some challenging games with regenerating health.
Click to expand...

I actually LIKE the idea of regenerating health far more than health packs which I think are equally moronic in concept. The problem is the implementation of regenerating health. You're in a massive firefight, get shot dead on in the chest, so you hide behind a wall for 10 seconds and you're good to go again, erm, no thanks.

A slowly regenerating and deteriorating health system would be a great idea. Something along the lines of you get shot, lose X amount of health and then start losing Y health per second as you bleed out, then you throw a bandage on and slowly regain Z health per second as your character recovers. Or something even simpler, where you only regain health when not under fire, then regain health when things die down ready for the next battle.

As for nothing mattering, a boss fight doesn't change that. Games which attempt to have a plot drive them forward have to be scripted. Even games like Mass Effect only provide an illusion of choice. You may have some branching paths but they always lead back to the same endings. Programing constraints either due to technological limitations or development time are still an issue. A game with multiple paths still need to converge or the developers would never finishthem. While it's more interactive, boss fights aren't necessarily a good thing. They usually feature the most ridiculous "find the pattern and exploit it" weaksauce mechanics possible. This is done to cover for the fact that AI in games is still pretty bad and the only way for the game's enemies to challenge you is either to have scores of them sent to kill you at once, or use a single boss type enemy which can kill you in about 4 seconds flat.

Most boss fights are some of the weakest and least fun aspects of a given game.
Click to expand...
I've always been a fan of the bossfight, when done well and not overused.
 
magoo said:
The checkpoint system......another piece of shit. Quick save is really a thing of the past and too bad......work your way through a legion of shit, barely survive.....and then stub your toe and have to start all over from the last checkpoint, and do the same exact thing over again......if I really wanted to do something over again, I got to choose via saves, what and where I did it.
Click to expand...

I'm actually conflicted on this. I sometime feel like Quicksave systems trivialize everything and make it so that the player only has to get through each room or each enemy wave rather than considering a level or mission as a contiguous goal that must be executed properly to succeed. The original Super Mario Brothers, for example, would have been incredibly easy and stupid if you could just save after every difficult jump. Figuring out how to chain together the proper movements and execute the sequence properly is part of what made it fun and challenging. When you can save after every kill, there's no real penalty for failure or any motivation to improve your technique or stats. I think older RPGs had a good balance: being able to save anywhere on the world map, but only at save points while in missions or dungeons.
 
Any game that made regenerative health, QTEs, cover based shooting popular are deemed cancerous to this industry in my eyes.
 
I really do not think that it is game X or Y that ruined gaming, but Company X or Y. Whether that is EA or whoever could be a thread of its own.

I'd also have to place a lot of the blame on the gamers themselves.

Like mentioned above, the "I'm buying game X to play with my friend" is also a blatant cause of "ruined gaming". With gaming being much more main stream then it was 10-15 years ago, buying a shitty game just to play with your friends just generates sales and the companies will just make more yearly rehashes of the same shitty game. 15 years ago a shitty game would generally not sell so the devs would either improve or move onto something different.

Now shitty games are selling millions of copies because it is more of a social purchase, your friends/guildies/clan/whatever bought it so you will to. Of course 2 weeks later you and your friends will be on every forum screaming about how bad the game is, or how broken it is. But it doesn't really matter because company X already has your money and they can rebuttal you complaints with "but we sold 15 million copies you must just be the vocal minority!" lines of shit.

How games are rated has something to do with it as well. When was the last time you saw a AAA title rated below 90% by a "big name" reviewer? Maybe Duke Nukem Forever? Rage even got several reviews in the 90’s/ B+/ 4 stars etc. If reviewers would stop following the money and actually say “hey this game is broken pile of crap, at least in its current state” gamers and developers may take notice.
 
I thought Borderlands did the regen health concept really well. Of course, it wasn't cover based and still had health drops too.
 
My last post and read of this thread do to people mentioning BF1942, MineCraft, Half-Life and Goldeneye as games that ruined gaming.
 
Only looked through the first page of posts, but I think the majority of people are incorrect in saying that Halo ruined gaming. IMO the culprit is Halo 2 which removed health altogether and just made a regenerating shield. That is the reasoning behind regenerating health, not Halo 1.

I believe WoW helped and hurt MMOs at the same time. It was the first true MMO that had mass appeal. Yes, games like EQ had 400,000 subscribers at their high, but WoW was made easy enough and could be run on most systems that anybody could play and have an enjoyable time doing so. I believe that that may be one of the most beneficial things to come along in MMO history. The ability to attract new players that for so long had no idea the games even existed or were so against paying a monthly fee ($15 a month really is cheap compared to what people spend on new games each year) is staggering.

Now, WoW has also dumbed down the MMO genre. Because of WoW now we have static UIs that are usually crap, garbage content that often lacks depth, no connection to even the people on your server with raid/group queue feature, and older graphics which help people play on crappy computers(WoW isn't that bad looking on high, but does still look dated). PLUS, I absolutely hate instances. I don't want to play in a dungeon with 6 people non-stop especially if not even from my server.
 
Don't know about you guys, but I have fun playing current games. I also, don't get butthurt very easily.

I don't understand, if you don't like something then don't participate and move on.

Maybe I'm not really understanding what this thread is supposed to deliver?
 
Microsoft ruined gaming the day they decided to get into the console business. Now what we get are boring,repetitive sequels designed to run on antiquated hardware.
 
silent-circuit said:
Really? Neverwinter Nights was a pretty soild game from my perspective. It took some getting used to, but there was solid storyline and the interface wasn't too bad once you figured out where things were. Queuing up things for combat became really important past the beginning, too.

What were you referring to specifically?
Click to expand...

It was maybe 1/10th the quality of BG2. Art direction was ass, didn't need 3D models, and the story was pretty poor. It was sort of a turning point where RPGs started getting progressivley worse.

Basically, it was just a multiplayer game with great mod tools that had a botched single player campaign tacked on.

Now, as a multiplayer game, it is quite fun. So was HotU.
 
Gaming became too popular which ruined gaming. When it became big business and the only goal was MORE MONEY.
 
Tudz said:
you could argue that Goldeneye ruined FPS games because it was one of first (if not the first) FPS game that was good on consoles.
Click to expand...

Goldeneye and good do not belong in the same sentence.

I don't understand how people thought it was ever good, but I had already been spoiled by GLQuake(world) by that time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top