What I hate about modern games

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,914
A bit of background first. My first gaming experience was in the '80s at arcades and my first home gaming system was a Laser 128 (an Apple II clone), followed by my personal favorite - Amiga 500. From then on I went to PC (a 386) and stayed there. I haven't played much in the past ten years or so and when I did, it was mostly older titles (UT99 and adventure games). I kept following the gaming scene, though, and constantly increase my Steam/GOG backlog, hoping to catch up to some of the more popular titles now that I'll have some more time.

I have noticed a disturbing trend and a change in what is considered the norm these days. I do not recall having the following things before, which seem as something that came from the console world, but that may be my nostalgia memory failing me. I find these highly annoying:

1) achievements - I wouldn't mind if they simply existed in the background, even if I don't understand the appeal, but the constant popups on the screen feel like something aimed at a child playing on consoles (not that I would want them then, either) and make me cringe. The amount of popups during/after kills in e.g. new Battlefield and CoD games look like some arcade shooter/platformer, not a PC FPS.

2) unlocks - I hate these with a passion in multiplayer FPS games! WTF?! That would never fly in the old days. Skill separated newbs from good players (ultimately still does, I know) and all started with a level playing field.

3) QTEs - a can't think of a more anti-gaming mechanic. Pulls you away from the game and its immersive gameplay and starts something that feels like a retard button hitting minigame.

4) "press X to do Y" and similar popups - again, something I feel belongs on the consoles. Give me a manual and/or a tutorial at the beginning and let me play the game myself. This kind of hand-holding makes me feel as if the game considers me too stupid to figure things out by myself. If there is a lever, I know I should try to pull it. I've seen this in e.g. latest Tomb Raider videos. I don't remember it being in the original, but even if it was, I don't think it should be there.

5) "interactive movies" - pretty much anything Quantic Dream puts out. Not so prevalent, but some new ultra popular titles are getting dangerously close, like The Last of Us. Basically all games that rely too much on the story and cutscenes, are mostly linear and provide little actual (meaningful) gameplay.


Is it just me?
 
A bit of background first. My first gaming experience was in the '80s at arcades and my first home gaming system was a Laser 128 (an Apple II clone), followed by my personal favorite - Amiga 500. From then on I went to PC (a 386) and stayed there. I haven't played much in the past ten years or so and when I did, it was mostly older titles (UT99 and adventure games). I kept following the gaming scene, though, and constantly increase my Steam/GOG backlog, hoping to catch up to some of the more popular titles now that I'll have some more time.

I have noticed a disturbing trend and a change in what is considered the norm these days. I do not recall having the following things before, which seem as something that came from the console world, but that may be my nostalgia memory failing me. I find these highly annoying:

1) achievements - I wouldn't mind if they simply existed in the background, even if I don't understand the appeal, but the constant popups on the screen feel like something aimed at a child playing on consoles (not that I would want them then, either) and make me cringe. The amount of popups during/after kills in e.g. new Battlefield and CoD games look like some arcade shooter/platformer, not a PC FPS.

2) unlocks - I hate these with a passion in multiplayer FPS games! WTF?! That would never fly in the old days. Skill separated newbs from good players (ultimately still does, I know) and all started with a level playing field.

3) QTEs - a can't think of a more anti-gaming mechanic. Pulls you away from the game and its immersive gameplay and starts something that feels like a retard button hitting minigame.

4) "press X to do Y" and similar popups - again, something I feel belongs on the consoles. Give me a manual and/or a tutorial at the beginning and let me play the game myself. This kind of hand-holding makes me feel as if the game considers me too stupid to figure things out by myself. If there is a lever, I know I should try to pull it. I've seen this in e.g. latest Tomb Raider videos. I don't remember it being in the original, but even if it was, I don't think it should be there.

5) "interactive movies" - pretty much anything Quantic Dream puts out. Not so prevalent, but some new ultra popular titles are getting dangerously close, like The Last of Us. Basically all games that rely too much on the story and cutscenes, are mostly linear and provide little actual (meaningful) gameplay.


Is it just me?

It's not just you. I mimic your thoughts almost exactly. I have no experience with #2 since I refuse to play MP games like that (no offense to those that do, just not my thing). I'm ok with single player unlocks in games like binding of isaac. I also refuse to play anything quantic dream or naughty dog for reason #5.
 
A bit of background first. My first gaming experience was in the '80s at arcades and my first home gaming system was a Laser 128 (an Apple II clone), followed by my personal favorite - Amiga 500. From then on I went to PC (a 386) and stayed there. I haven't played much in the past ten years or so and when I did, it was mostly older titles (UT99 and adventure games). I kept following the gaming scene, though, and constantly increase my Steam/GOG backlog, hoping to catch up to some of the more popular titles now that I'll have some more time.

I have noticed a disturbing trend and a change in what is considered the norm these days. I do not recall having the following things before, which seem as something that came from the console world, but that may be my nostalgia memory failing me. I find these highly annoying:

1) achievements - I wouldn't mind if they simply existed in the background, even if I don't understand the appeal, but the constant popups on the screen feel like something aimed at a child playing on consoles (not that I would want them then, either) and make me cringe. The amount of popups during/after kills in e.g. new Battlefield and CoD games look like some arcade shooter/platformer, not a PC FPS.

2) unlocks - I hate these with a passion in multiplayer FPS games! WTF?! That would never fly in the old days. Skill separated newbs from good players (ultimately still does, I know) and all started with a level playing field.

3) QTEs - a can't think of a more anti-gaming mechanic. Pulls you away from the game and its immersive gameplay and starts something that feels like a retard button hitting minigame.

4) "press X to do Y" and similar popups - again, something I feel belongs on the consoles. Give me a manual and/or a tutorial at the beginning and let me play the game myself. This kind of hand-holding makes me feel as if the game considers me too stupid to figure things out by myself. If there is a lever, I know I should try to pull it. I've seen this in e.g. latest Tomb Raider videos. I don't remember it being in the original, but even if it was, I don't think it should be there.

5) "interactive movies" - pretty much anything Quantic Dream puts out. Not so prevalent, but some new ultra popular titles are getting dangerously close, like The Last of Us. Basically all games that rely too much on the story and cutscenes, are mostly linear and provide little actual (meaningful) gameplay.




Is it just me?
It's not just you, but I don't think any of these things beside 1 and 4 could be considered trends that are prevalent in the industry. I'm going to be that guy that counters each of your points :eek:.
  1. The notifications for achievements can be disabled on every system that uses them AFAIK. It's just an added feature that gives a sense of progression and accomplishment. I admit to being an achievement whore when Microsoft first introduced them on the Xbox 360, but nowadays I couldn't care less what my total achievement completion rate or score is. However, I like the popup that appears when completing one, as the picture and sound lifts my mood. It does not add or detract from my enjoyment of the game in any way, though.
  2. A gameplay mechanic that gives the same sense of reward and progression as above. I actually like this kind of system because I come for the RPG camp and I'm a completionist. Having unlocks gives me something to strive for that isn't affected by either my gameplay ability or the hackers/exploiters I might be playing with. In my wisdom I have grown to realize how frustrating of an experience it was to constantly play games like Counter-strike just to get good enough that I was enjoying myself. With unlocks I don't have to construct my own goals and I have something tangible to show for it. Unlocks is actually the reason I sunk so much time into Modern Warfare 2.
  3. I can agree with you on this one to a point. Why force a failure scenario when they could just let the cutscene play out? The knife fight in Resident Evil 4 is one of the worst offenders of the QTE where the forced to possibility of a failure on the player for no good reason. They're not about skill and therefore are a detriment to gameplay. However, there can be reasonable scenarios for a QTE if it is streamlined into the gameplay. People complain about Tomb Raider all the time, but I think in that instance the QTEs were actually done well.
  4. You're making the assumption that everyone is looking at the control options before playing a game. It is the same behavior people exhibit when we still used to get instruction manuals. I would make the same assumption that most people do not even go into the options of any game they play. Unfortunately a bigger issue is at play here that forced this behavior on us, and that is the tutorial that every developer now includes in all games of all genres. With that, there is no longer any reason to develop a learned process like there used to be.
  5. I don't think that this is a widespread trend. The thought process can permeate in upper management, though, because these people are in fact equating the video game business and development model to that of the movie industry. However I do think that games like Heavy Rain and Last Light fit into their own genre and have a place in the industry. To me these games are a natural evolution of the adventure genre into a more interactive 3D world.
 
Last edited:
Definitely agree with point 2 - unlocks. It should be personal skill that separates players, not who has what unlocked. I believe it's just a way to 'lengthen' the time players will play a specific game, especially if said game isn't much unchanged from last year's iteration.
 
Definitely agree with point 2 - unlocks. It should be personal skill that separates players, not who has what unlocked. I believe it's just a way to 'lengthen' the time players will play a specific game, especially if said game isn't much unchanged from last year's iteration.

i don't have a huge problem with unlocks IF they don't give an advantage to those who can unlock them. If the unlocks just change the way you do somethnig then that is fine with me.

I kind of look at BF2142 for this. It had unlocks, but they didn't give you an advantage over some one who didnt. They gave a choice that had trade offs over the base item.

Like engineers could take a guided missile OR a direct fire AT rifle. same damage potential. missile locked on and alerted the driver while the rifle didn't plus other things.

once the unlock makes you better over the others, then yea, they need to go.
 
[5]I don't think that this is a widespread trend. The thought process can permeate in upper management, though, because these people are in fact equating the video game business and development model to that of the movie industry. However I do think that games like Heavy Rain and Last Light fit into their own genre and have a place in the industry. To me these games are a natural evolution of the adventure genre into a more interactive 3D world.

No, as an avid adventure player, I must correct you on the bolded part. It is a big step away from the adventure genre, from gaming in general. I would say it is an evolution of a movie into a more interactive experience, or of a game into a more movie like experience if you like. Those two mediums are complete opposites, one being a completely passive one and the other by definition an (inter)active one. More of the former is something I do not like when I game.



Definitely agree with point 2 - unlocks. It should be personal skill that separates players, not who has what unlocked. I believe it's just a way to 'lengthen' the time players will play a specific game, especially if said game isn't much unchanged from last year's iteration.

But is it lengthening it really? Everyone will grind through it sooner or later, but it is off-putting to new players as it is a) forcing you to do something in the game you would normally maybe not want to do or don't find fun, b) generating another artificial barrier to entry in addition to the skill level.
 
Last edited:
Agree for the most part. Pretty much sums up why I don't play Battlefield anymore. All the bells and whistles distract me. I still haven't achieved level 90 or whatever in BF2, but I enjoyed the game enough that the unlocks weren't a grind, totally different now - it's outa control.

I would say # 4 and # 5 are very dependent on the game. I play 'the walking dead' by Telltales and really enjoy it. It's entirely #4 and 5.
 
Disagree with everything you said and I've been gaming since snoopy vs the red baron on the C64. Not sure why you had to give your background it doesn't make your argument any more or less as an opinion.

None of those things matter if the game is fun. Now if a game uses those things to cover up shortcomings then it is a different story. Take for example the newest Tomb Raider apparently had a ton of QTE. I don't remember any of them except for the river one because the rest of the game was so much fun. Was the only game I've spent the time on getting all of the achievements. 99% of the time if a game has achievements and it isn't all that fun I just skip them to finish the game.

Games like fallout 3 & nv, tomb raider, had such an impact on me I played them multiple times just like I did on early rpgs. Gameplay is the greatest indicator of what makes a game fun. Companies are looking to add fluff to help keep players engaged and active in their games so some of the things you mentioned were proverbial carrots to keep people coming back to their game.

All the things you listed are so minor it borders on asinine to complain about them because 4 of your 5 complaints are optional to complete the game. Hence my disagreement.
 
Disagree with everything you said and I've been gaming since snoopy vs the red baron on the C64. Not sure why you had to give your background it doesn't make your argument any more or less as an opinion.

Of course it is just my opinion. The background wasn't to make it more valid, it was just to put it in perspective.
 
#1 100% agreed. This has gotten beyond dumb. Now on consoles (PS4 at least)... You have launched Netflix 10 times! Who gives a damn, seriously.

#2 Experience / Unlocks in FPS are stupid. The extent of this should be the cash system in CS!

#3-5 Don't bother me too much as long as they are well designed into the game...
 
Of course it is just my opinion. The background wasn't to make it more valid, it was just to put it in perspective.

We're old and things change. I hate modern rock if it can even be called as such; however, on occasion there are some good albums released that I enjoy. Games are the same way. I still go back through and play some older games on occasion but I still find enjoyment in a lot of the newer games as well. Storyline and character development are real important and if a game throws in achievements that isn't going to keep me from playing it.
 
Most of those things don't bug me, but I do *hate* QTE, especially if they're in a boss battle or a critical point of a game. Even more if they're in a cutscene I'm relaxing in the middle of.

I think the instructional pop-ups are a little needless once you're done with a tutorial, but then again...sometimes I'll bail on a game (like GTA for example) and the controls totally throw me off longer than they should.

I don't really play most FPS games, or at least not the Battlefield/CoD types, so I haven't really experienced that one.
 
1) achievements - I wouldn't mind if they simply existed in the background, even if I don't understand the appeal, but the constant popups on the screen feel like something aimed at a child playing on consoles (not that I would want them then, either) and make me cringe. The amount of popups during/after kills in e.g. new Battlefield and CoD games look like some arcade shooter/platformer, not a PC FPS.

I don't see a problem with achievements in general, but I will agree with you that the way consoles default to them just popping up in the middle of gameplay can be really annoying, especially when it's just for completing some part of a linear story. For example, killing the first boss character in an action game and having an achievement pop up - like, I HAVE to kill this guy to progress through the game, so how is this an achievement? I do like the other kinds of achievements that are actually for doing challenging/difficult/rare things, like flipping a car end over end 10 times in GTA or whatever.

2) unlocks - I hate these with a passion in multiplayer FPS games! WTF?! That would never fly in the old days. Skill separated newbs from good players (ultimately still does, I know) and all started with a level playing field.

I completely disagree with you. You already said that skill is still what separates players, so I don't see what your beef is with unlockables. In games like BF4, they offer a depth to the basic FPS gameplay that gives players something to work towards, besides just killing people over and over. I can have fun killing 20 people and unlock a cool looking camo skin for my gun, or I can have fun killing 20 people "just because." I don't see why getting a neat bonus detracts in any way from the game.

3) QTEs - a can't think of a more anti-gaming mechanic. Pulls you away from the game and its immersive gameplay and starts something that feels like a retard button hitting minigame.

I also have to disagree here, at least where QTEs are not central to the gameplay. Since everyone is bringing up Tomb Raider, I'll add my two cents to that topic: if you have create two identical Tomb Raider games, one with standard non-playable cutscenes where you just put the controller down and watch the action unfold, and the other Tomb Raider game where you have cutscenes that involve the player through timed button prompts, I fail to see how the button prompt addition hurts the experience so badly. I enjoy them because I feel a little more involved with the action unfolding in front of me, and at the same time, all the core gameplay of Tomb Raider is still there and unaffected by the QTEs (shooting and stabbing or otherwise murdering people and exploring neat areas.)

I know there have been a few rare games that rely a LOT on QTEs as a replacement for what we consider traditional gameplay (not just an addition to it as in Tomb Raider's case,) and I think those games were a misstep.

4) "press X to do Y" and similar popups - again, something I feel belongs on the consoles. Give me a manual and/or a tutorial at the beginning and let me play the game myself. This kind of hand-holding makes me feel as if the game considers me too stupid to figure things out by myself. If there is a lever, I know I should try to pull it. I've seen this in e.g. latest Tomb Raider videos. I don't remember it being in the original, but even if it was, I don't think it should be there.

Personally I feel like if a game can tell a player how to play the game without using a separate instruction manual, that's an improvement. I still LOVE when a game has supplementary material to read (like backstory, character development, etc,) but having to read through "Press X to do Y" is pointless if it can be done in the game itself. As long as there's an option to disable the prompts once you've learned everything, I feel it's only a good evolution in game design.

5) "interactive movies" - pretty much anything Quantic Dream puts out. Not so prevalent, but some new ultra popular titles are getting dangerously close, like The Last of Us. Basically all games that rely too much on the story and cutscenes, are mostly linear and provide little actual (meaningful) gameplay.

Again, I completely disagree with you here. It's not as though this new type of game has taken the place of more classic gameplay styles like Shmups or RPGs or whatever, but it's a newer form of interactive entertainment/gaming. To put down The Last of Us because it falls into the category is totally unfair, IMHO. That game, to me, showed us how a game can have the good qualities of well-done filmmaking (like characters going beyond "yay I killed the big bad guy" and instead focusing on quasi-moral ethical dilemmas) but still have the interactive fun bits that previous games have been known for. For all its "movie"-like qualities, TLoU was still LOTS of fun to go around murdering bad guys and explore the vivid landscapes for crafting supplies, backstory elements, or collectibles. Nay, I say - I want to see more of this, and in fact one day I hope to see games about touchier subjects only explored (for the most part) in film up till now, like family break-ups or experiencing a war without actually fighting in it.
 
I completely disagree with you. You already said that skill is still what separates players, so I don't see what your beef is with unlockables. In games like BF4, they offer a depth to the basic FPS gameplay that gives players something to work towards, besides just killing people over and over. I can have fun killing 20 people and unlock a cool looking camo skin for my gun, or I can have fun killing 20 people "just because." I don't see why getting a neat bonus detracts in any way from the game.

<OldManYellingAtCloud>Back in my day, skill was determined by your kill ratio. You had access to the same thing that everyone else did, and you liked it.</OldManYellingAtCloud>
 
A whole lot of "get off my lawn!" going on.

Disagree with you entirely on #1 and #2. A good achievement and unlock system that doesn't massively benefit the people who have unlocked stuff is a great supplement to a game that is good and is irrelevant to a game that is bad because who gives a crap if the game is already bad.

I agree with you on #3 and #4. These sorts of things just pain me, especially on PC where they feel much more forced than on console with a controller.

#5, I dislike interactive cut scenes in games that have separate cut scenes, though I don't mind interactive movie games where the entire game is just an interactive cut scene. The Walking Dead was awesome IMO, the main problem with it was that it was pretty clear early on that what you did had feth all impact on anything, but it was still cool to see the story unfold and if it just had of been a regular game they wouldn't have been able to control the pacing as well as they did.
 
3) QTEs - a can't think of a more anti-gaming mechanic. Pulls you away from the game and its immersive gameplay and starts something that feels like a retard button hitting minigame.
I know a lot of people don't like them, but they rarely bothered me either way. To me they are just memory games and I don't mind my reflexes being tested. I loved Dragon's Lair and that's just a giant QTE game. I also liked Simon (the physical game if you remembered that) :D

5) "interactive movies" - pretty much anything Quantic Dream puts out. Not so prevalent, but some new ultra popular titles are getting dangerously close, like The Last of Us. Basically all games that rely too much on the story and cutscenes, are mostly linear and provide little actual (meaningful) gameplay.

I don't see the connection at all with The Last of Us. I thought it was pretty action packed...in a stealthy kind of way.
 
I also have to disagree here, at least where QTEs are not central to the gameplay. Since everyone is bringing up Tomb Raider, I'll add my two cents to that topic: if you have create two identical Tomb Raider games, one with standard non-playable cutscenes where you just put the controller down and watch the action unfold, and the other Tomb Raider game where you have cutscenes that involve the player through timed button prompts, I fail to see how the button prompt addition hurts the experience so badly. I enjoy them because I feel a little more involved with the action unfolding in front of me, and at the same time, all the core gameplay of Tomb Raider is still there and unaffected by the QTEs (shooting and stabbing or otherwise murdering people and exploring neat areas.)

How about we imagine a third Tomb Raider wherin, instead of either QTEs or Straight cutscenes; we have interactive gameplay where you use the controls already established to accomplish a goal. Imagine if the camera was not ripped from the player, and you had established controls for things like 'attack' and 'jump', and the game was designed where enemies could attack you from the shadows, and you could press the 'attack' key to ward them off, or use your own perception to avoid these encounters... Instead of an unavoidable cutscene of some man grabbing Lara and either watching it unfold or waggling the controls dictated by the on-screen prompt. It's lazy game design.
 
I accept Meeho as my personal lord and savor

lead us forward master
 
Focus should be on gameplay. People can't feel a sense of achievement just from accomplishing something in-game? They need a 'good effort' sticker like in kindergarten? Imaginary internet points to brag about to their friends who couldn't care less? It's pathetic.

The UT announcer is about as close to achievements as it should go. It's seamlessly integrated into the game, and in no way an immersion wrecker.

Progression systems are just cheap mechanisms to hook people into poor quality games, making up for a lack of compelling gameplay. It's a symptom of the 'achievements age', where no one is happy unless they get a "well done" stamp on their hand for every tiny accomplishment.
What astounds me is how people who manage to find joy playing the same game over and over (often for hundreds or thousands of hours) don't understand that some people find that boring and repetitive even if the game is good. It takes some hardcore closed mindedness to not realise that there are other people in the world who get bored of things if they don't have a target or goal to shoot for instead of just doing the same thing over and over with no progression.

Achievements and unlocks provide some sort of progression which keeps people interested. No one is naive enough to think it's a substitute for poor gameplay, rather it is something that compliments good gameplay. I understand the old school nerds who have sunk thousands of hours in to games for no reason find it hard to understand, but things like achievements give wider audience a reason to keep playing a game.

Honestly, before games with unlocks and achievements, I'd rarely play a single player game through more than once and would rarely play a multiplayer game for more than a few hours, even if I enjoyed them I'd just get bored after a short time. I still rarely play a single player game more than once, but occasionally seeing the un fulfilled achievements gives me a reason to do so and multiplayer games when I start getting bored I look at what sort of things I can unlock if I keep playing.

To me it's like a mate telling me "well that's good, but I bet you can't do X".

And it's hardly a bad thing, many (most?) people are naturally driven to strive for things. I enjoy my job, but if it weren't for the paycheck and the qualification it's giving me, I'd probably not be doing it. It's not a bad thing that people actually want something to shoot for instead of just mindlessly doing something even if that something might be fun in some limited way.
 
How about we imagine a third Tomb Raider wherin, instead of either QTEs or Straight cutscenes; we have interactive gameplay where you use the controls already established to accomplish a goal. Imagine if the camera was not ripped from the player, and you had established controls for things like 'attack' and 'jump', and the game was designed where enemies could attack you from the shadows, and you could press the 'attack' key to ward them off, or use your own perception to avoid these encounters... Instead of an unavoidable cutscene of some man grabbing Lara and either watching it unfold or waggling the controls dictated by the on-screen prompt. It's lazy game design.

....... not sure if serious???

That's exactly what the 2013 Tomb Raider game IS, combined with additional cutscenes (like most story-driven 3D games) which have QTE. As I said, they haven't REPLACED the gameplay we know and love, they just added an element of interactive CUTSCENES.
 
I would add:

6) "Checkpoint Saving. Checkpoint only saving = so many awesome moments forever lost, stunted replayability, and tedious repetition/frustration pretty much guaranteed. Aside from having a vastly positive impact on the general enjoyment derived from - and playability of - most games, manual/quicksaving is also a sort of safeguard in technically defective/unstable games, with the potential to prevent yet more frustration and repetition post crash.

Checkpoint saving and cut scenes often combine with appalling results. My advice to any dev is this:

1) Don't be a moron and implement checkpoint only saving (yeah right).
2) If you're a moron and implement checkpoint only saving, then put the bloody checkpoint after your tedious, poorly voice-acted cut scene, not before.
3) If you're a complete and utter tosser, implementing checkpoint only saving and then choosing to put your bloody stupid checkpoint before your horrid little cut scene, then for the love of God, you better make that cut scene skippable.

For if that cut scene is not skippable, that is the point where I abandon the game.

I've heard a lot of absurd arguments against proper saving schemes. It usually seems to boil down to: "If quicksave is present I end up overusing it and the game becomes too easy. Therefore, everyone else should suffer the consequences of checkpoint only saving just because I'm a moron with no self control".
Now I can completely agree with this. I think that this is also a product of the achievement culture. For some reason now people care if you're cheating or exploiting in a SINGLE PLAYER game. I think this is the primary reason for the loss of manual saving in a lot of games nowadays. I don't hate achievements, but I do hate the e-peen war that it spawned over a meaningless statistic.

I think unskippable cutscenes can be separated out to another point:

7.) Unskippable cutscenes -
Yes, we get it. You spent a lot of time and money producing and developing your beautifully rendered cutscenes, or directing your in-game cutscenes with painstaking love in the written story and camera angles. But remember that it is still a video game, first and foremost. The story gives us context, but it has to mesh well with the gameplay. If someone doesn't want to sit through the cutscenes, then let them skip it. You already have our money, so I don't understand why you would care how people play the game once it's in their hands.

The least you could do is let people skip your cutscenes once the player has seen them once. Nothing frustrates me more than doing subsequent playthroughs and having to sit through a 20-minute introduction movie, or having several uninterruptible cutscenes impede gameplay progression in the first hour because you want to establish the characters and settings. I've already seen all of it, I don't need to sit through it again.
 
Interactive movies have their place. There was no point back then when active participation had to make up for crappy visuals.

The problem with games nowadays is that they are played out. Same crappy go here and kill these things then go over there and kill those things stuff. Maybe I'm getting old.
 
I like the interactive movie games as long as they aren't trying to be something they aren't. Games like Heavy Rain are the closest things we have to old school adventure games.
 
Number 2 is the worst. Mainly because it doesn't add any depth or fun to the game at all. At best it's just a frustrating grind in a competitive atmosphere and ruins the reason I would play such a game in the first place. It's almost like playing with drones in games like cod and bf as there is very little intrest in teamwork or winning the match at hand anymore .
 
I would add:

6) "Checkpoint Saving. Checkpoint only saving = so many awesome moments forever lost, stunted replayability, and tedious repetition/frustration pretty much guaranteed. Aside from having a vastly positive impact on the general enjoyment derived from - and playability of - most games, manual/quicksaving is also a sort of safeguard in technically defective/unstable games, with the potential to prevent yet more frustration and repetition post crash.

Checkpoint saving and cut scenes often combine with appalling results. My advice to any dev is this:

1) Don't be a moron and implement checkpoint only saving (yeah right).
2) If you're a moron and implement checkpoint only saving, then put the bloody checkpoint after your tedious, poorly voice-acted cut scene, not before.
3) If you're a complete and utter tosser, implementing checkpoint only saving and then choosing to put your bloody stupid checkpoint before your horrid little cut scene, then for the love of God, you better make that cut scene skippable.

For if that cut scene is not skippable, that is the point where I abandon the game.

I've heard a lot of absurd arguments against proper saving schemes. It usually seems to boil down to: "If quicksave is present I end up overusing it and the game becomes too easy. Therefore, everyone else should suffer the consequences of checkpoint only saving just because I'm a moron with no self control".

It's almost like your reading my mind with regards to max payne 3. After watching the island transition cutscene three times, I abandoned the game.
 
With the release of BF4 I've noticed more players playing solely to unlock items, completely ignoring the team objective, than any game I've played previously. Unlocks add nothing to the game that isn't already there, and detracts much.
 
With the release of BF4 I've noticed more players playing solely to unlock items, completely ignoring the team objective, than any game I've played previously. Unlocks add nothing to the game that isn't already there, and detracts much.
They add motivation. It can be a bit annoying if everyone on your team is playing for unlocks instead of playing for the win... but hasn't it always been the case than on public servers half your team are basically just bullet bags anyway? It doesn't really change much in my eyes. Whether you win or lose in a team game on a public server is typically just a function of how many people on your team don't suck balls, regardless of unlocks or no unlocks.
 
....... not sure if serious???

That's exactly what the 2013 Tomb Raider game IS, combined with additional cutscenes (like most story-driven 3D games) which have QTE. As I said, they haven't REPLACED the gameplay we know and love, they just added an element of interactive CUTSCENES.

Well, they have replaced gameplay. Instead of either A: a cutscene or B: a QTE, I'm offering C: get rid of both and stop rippin the established controls away from players.

One of the QTE's in TR involved pressing the move-foreword and move-backward keys in rapid succession in order to make Lara climb through a cave. Why not have us... Oh, I don't know...

Do it our damn selves! What is wrong with the established controls? Why not let us navigate ourselves through the cave? Why rip the control away?

The answer: lazy game design.

In short: there is NO situation wherein following along a QTE is a better experience than using the established gameplay and controls to accomplish the same goal.

Edit:

Imagine if TR didn't have jumping puzzles where precise jumping was required, and instead had QTEs where you simply had to press the correct prompt and Lara would just jump herself. In that situation YOU would say that they did not 'remove gameplay'. But we all know that this would be a worse experience than performing the actions ourselves using the established gameplay and controls.

Now apply that situation in reverse and take a look at ANY QTE in the game, and try to justify it.
 
Last edited:
Ahh "lazy game design", love when that phrase is thrown around, especially about one of the best games of the last few years.

We'll have to agree to disagree ;)
 
Ahh "lazy game design", love when that phrase is thrown around, especially about one of the best games of the last few years.

We'll have to agree to disagree ;)

I'm not saying the game was rubbish, it was fantastic once it gets going (ie when you actually start playing it instead of following on-screen button prompts)

It's QTE's I'm talking about. TR is just an example.

Edit: And while I'm not the ONLY game designer out there, it doesn't take a leap to understand that what I said about QTE's is true. I'll repeat myself: there is no situation wherein replacing established gameplay with cutscenes or one-time-use on-screen prompts leads to a better gaming experience. It's much less work to add prompts in the UI than to think of a way to introduce a way the same fictional goal can be accomplished controlling the game normally. I could go on to introduce you to the idea of suspension of disbelief and tool-based self-extension: but you seem like a smart enough person to already know those terms and how they relate to the idea of suddenly telling the player to press the 'move forward' button and then press the 'move backward' button to accomplish something that has noting to do with moving forward or moving backward (IE, starting a fire or warding off a would-be rapist)

Edit 2: I forgot to state that the above is true in situations where the established gameplay CAN in some way accomplish the goal. Fighting off an attacker already has well-established combat controls to be used, lighting a fire is different, though the designer then must ask: is this something the player will be doing often? If so, then establish context-sensitive controls or use a brief cutscene.

Final fantasy uses cutscenes to show the player things that could not be accomplished using the traditional exploratory or combat controls. These cutscenes are a treat to watch, and I couldn't imagine them being made better by following prompts to ensure that they continue.
 
Last edited:
Now I can completely agree with this. I think that this is also a product of the achievement culture. For some reason now people care if you're cheating or exploiting in a SINGLE PLAYER game. I think this is the primary reason for the loss of manual saving in a lot of games nowadays. I don't hate achievements, but I do hate the e-peen war that it spawned over a meaningless statistic.

I think unskippable cutscenes can be separated out to another point:

7.) Unskippable cutscenes -
Yes, we get it. You spent a lot of time and money producing and developing your beautifully rendered cutscenes, or directing your in-game cutscenes with painstaking love in the written story and camera angles. But remember that it is still a video game, first and foremost. The story gives us context, but it has to mesh well with the gameplay. If someone doesn't want to sit through the cutscenes, then let them skip it. You already have our money, so I don't understand why you would care how people play the game once it's in their hands.

The least you could do is let people skip your cutscenes once the player has seen them once. Nothing frustrates me more than doing subsequent playthroughs and having to sit through a 20-minute introduction movie, or having several uninterruptible cutscenes impede gameplay progression in the first hour because you want to establish the characters and settings. I've already seen all of it, I don't need to sit through it again.

Agreed. The lack of quick saving sucks. And it does make tedious, repetitive games any more difficult. Quick saving also helped a lot when it came to messing around, especially in semi sandbox style games like Crysis.

One time in Crysis Warhead I was in an APC when an enemy APC came down the road. I accelerated into it, and we both hit head on at full speed. The front of our vehicles lifted off the ground and we got stuck in a V position. I quick saved that moment. :) I went back and messed around with the stuck NPC unit, destroying it in different ways and seeing if I could get it unstuck. Sadly this seems to be lost in many new games that might benefit from it.
 
They add motivation. It can be a bit annoying if everyone on your team is playing for unlocks instead of playing for the win... but hasn't it always been the case than on public servers half your team are basically just bullet bags anyway? It doesn't really change much in my eyes. Whether you win or lose in a team game on a public server is typically just a function of how many people on your team don't suck balls, regardless of unlocks or no unlocks.

The problem with BF4 is it's a repeating cycle.

Game is released. For 3-4 weeks people concentrate on unlocking vehicle perks and infantry weapons. After 3-4 weeks, people get down to the business of playing the obj.

Expack is released. For 3-4 weeks people concentrate on unlocking vehicle perks and infantry weapons. After 3-4 weeks, people get down to the business of playing the obj.

Expack is released. For 3-4 weeks people concentrate on unlocking vehicle perks and infantry weapons. After 3-4 weeks, people get down to the business of playing the obj.

Repeat.

Repeat.

Repeat.

Repeat.

It's a game mechanic which adds virtually NOTHING of value to the actual game play, yet detracts from the game play regularly. Game developers during the "golden age of game development" would have avoided such game mechanics like the plague, because they wanted the gameplay to stand on it's own merits, without reliance on gimmicks.
 
I'm not saying the game was rubbish, it was fantastic once it gets going (ie when you actually start playing it instead of following on-screen button prompts)

It's QTE's I'm talking about. TR is just an example.

Edit: And while I'm not the ONLY game designer out there, it doesn't take a leap to understand that what I said about QTE's is true. I'll repeat myself: there is no situation wherein replacing established gameplay with cutscenes or one-time-use on-screen prompts leads to a better gaming experience. It's much less work to add prompts in the UI than to think of a way to introduce a way the same fictional goal can be accomplished controlling the game normally. I could go on to introduce you to the idea of suspension of disbelief and tool-based self-extension: but you seem like a smart enough person to already know those terms and how they relate to the idea of suddenly telling the player to press the 'move forward' button and then press the 'move backward' button to accomplish something that has noting to do with moving forward or moving backward (IE, starting a fire or warding off a would-be rapist)

Edit 2: I forgot to state that the above is true in situations where the established gameplay CAN in some way accomplish the goal. Fighting off an attacker already has well-established combat controls to be used, lighting a fire is different, though the designer then must ask: is this something the player will be doing often? If so, then establish context-sensitive controls or use a brief cutscene.

Final fantasy uses cutscenes to show the player things that could not be accomplished using the traditional exploratory or combat controls. These cutscenes are a treat to watch, and I couldn't imagine them being made better by following prompts to ensure that they continue.

So you propose an attempted rape scene could/should be done as a part of standard gameplay? Come on, you must admit there are parts of any story driven game that are NOT going to fit into the regular design. Either you have those in cutscenes (which are OK for final fantasy for some reason) or you put simple interaction with them.
 
The problem with BF4 is it's a repeating cycle.

Game is released. For 3-4 weeks people concentrate on unlocking vehicle perks and infantry weapons. After 3-4 weeks, people get down to the business of playing the obj.

Expack is released. For 3-4 weeks people concentrate on unlocking vehicle perks and infantry weapons. After 3-4 weeks, people get down to the business of playing the obj.

Expack is released. For 3-4 weeks people concentrate on unlocking vehicle perks and infantry weapons. After 3-4 weeks, people get down to the business of playing the obj.

Repeat.

Repeat.

Repeat.

Repeat.

It's a game mechanic which adds virtually NOTHING of value to the actual game play, yet detracts from the game play regularly. Game developers during the "golden age of game development" would have avoided such game mechanics like the plague, because they wanted the gameplay to stand on it's own merits, without reliance on gimmicks.
I've not really played BF4 so I can't comment much on that.

But your last paragraph. Maybe to you it adds nothing, but to many people it adds entertainment value, longevity and a reason to come back to a game.

Some people need more than good "gameplay" to find a game interesting. If there's no reason beyond the end of the current match to be playing a game, many people just find it boring and uninteresting.

It doesn't fix bad "gameplay", but it does for many people enhance already good "gameplay".

(I put gameplay in quotes because IMO a good unlock system is part of gameplay anyway).

I don't know what the BF4 system is like, but I found the BF3 unlock system pretty bad, it felt massively grindy and you did feel at a disadvantage for not having certain unlocks. I thought COD4 had a pretty good unlock system (haven't played much of the later CODs), as you didn't really feel terribly disadvantaged and you could unlock stuff pretty fast. A game you might not have played, Space Marine, that had a slightly annoying unlock system, it was well paced but if you didn't have certain unlocks you were most definitely at a disadvantage which made it a bit frustrating in early levels.

So there's definitely good unlock systems and bad unlock systems. I can't speak for BF4 unfortunately.
 
I've not really played BF4 so I can't comment much on that.

But your last paragraph. Maybe to you it adds nothing, but to many people it adds entertainment value, longevity and a reason to come back to a game.

Some people need more than good "gameplay" to find a game interesting. If there's no reason beyond the end of the current match to be playing a game, many people just find it boring and uninteresting.

It doesn't fix bad "gameplay", but it does for many people enhance already good "gameplay".

(I put gameplay in quotes because IMO a good unlock system is part of gameplay anyway).

I don't know what the BF4 system is like, but I found the BF3 unlock system pretty bad, it felt massively grindy and you did feel at a disadvantage for not having certain unlocks. I thought COD4 had a pretty good unlock system (haven't played much of the later CODs), as you didn't really feel terribly disadvantaged and you could unlock stuff pretty fast. A game you might not have played, Space Marine, that had a slightly annoying unlock system, it was well paced but if you didn't have certain unlocks you were most definitely at a disadvantage which made it a bit frustrating in early levels.

So there's definitely good unlock systems and bad unlock systems. I can't speak for BF4 unfortunately.
I'm one of those people who needs the unlock system to get me to keep playing online FPS's nowadays. But I do understand why people would just want to have everything available to them in a game like BF4. My opinion is they should offer the ability to create a separate profile for people to have everything available to them from the get-go, and only allow them to play with other similar profiles. That would probably fracture the online ecosystem too much, though.

But you're right, the unlock system has to be well implemented. BF4 is still really grindy, and I definitely do not play it enough to ever think I'll be able to unlock everything. I think Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2 did it perfectly.
 
Unlocks are when keep me from even trying online FPS games now.
I have 2 guns and am level 1 vs. a ton of people with better stuff and have put in a bunch of time. Yup...not going to bother with this.
Give me a game where people are on even terms (outside of skill) any day.
 
Unlocks are when keep me from even trying online FPS games now.
I have 2 guns and am level 1 vs. a ton of people with better stuff and have put in a bunch of time. Yup...not going to bother with this.
Give me a game where people are on even terms (outside of skill) any day.
Strike Vector gives everyone all weapons/mods from the outset, was generally fantastic... And no one plays it.

I was playing it after work and one of my coworkers asked about unlocks. He was genuinely disappointed to know that there wasn't gameplay changing unlocks.

...these days we live in.
 
To put down The Last of Us because it falls into the category is totally unfair, IMHO. That game, to me, showed us how a game can have the good qualities of well-done filmmaking (like characters going beyond "yay I killed the big bad guy" and instead focusing on quasi-moral ethical dilemmas) but still have the interactive fun bits that previous games have been known for. For all its "movie"-like qualities, TLoU was still LOTS of fun to go around murdering bad guys and explore the vivid landscapes for crafting supplies, backstory elements, or collectibles. Nay, I say - I want to see more of this, and in fact one day I hope to see games about touchier subjects only explored (for the most part) in film up till now, like family break-ups or experiencing a war without actually fighting in it.

I agree. Last of Us has an excellent balance and find it surprising it’s mentioned here. Nothing wrong with some great story telling as long as it is done well. That’s going back to Wing Commander series or Sierra point’n’click adventure games even.
 
Totally agree on the front that QTE's really don't belong in games. I can't think of a game with QTE's where the transition to it felt natural or even necessary. It really is lazy, like it's the easiest way to get the player through a situation short of just playing a cutscene and not letting them play through the situation at all.

As far as achievements, I actually don't mind achievements so long as they are actual achievements and not a reward for something that you were just going to do anyways on a normal playthrough. An example would be getting an achievement for completing the first chapter of a story-based game. Like, I guess technically that is an achievement since you got through it, but it doesn't warrant a notification of congratulations for the player often times. I also realize that games are now basically required to have achievements, so that lends to having the lazy basic ones in because some games just don't really need achievements at all, or the developers don't anticipate what those should be while the game is in development outside of typical content completion.
 
I had more fun on my old school nintendo and sega genesis with the games they had than with any of the new fps games.. Don't get me wrong, they are cool, but take a look at the games out there... Where is the variety? I'd love to see some 2d type games come back with fresh graphics etc.. Everything doesn't have to be 3d and fps style....
 
Back
Top