• 75 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Edited by Nezza (373 posts) -

That's a fair point. Particularly in towns and cities. To expand on it further, could you imagine if you killed an enemy somewhere in the wilderness and came back a few weeks later (in game time) and there was evidence that the surrounding world had continued in your absence? Say if you researched the body/chest/whatever, loot that you didn't take from them had now been taken by others that have come along. Or the body was missing a limb as though a wild animal had been along.

No impact on gameplay itself, but all little touches that immerse you further into the games universe.

@huser said:

@nezza said:
Persistant worlds and items - e.g. if I drop something in Fallout 6, I want that item to be there when I come back 12 hours later.

I get what you are saying, but at least for Fallout, I'd completely expect anything worthwhile to be scavenged by someone 12 hours later. Which would actually be awesome. I liked the Caravan thing in Fallout 3. Would be nice if all the NPC's just went about their own business in an open world game rather than being dropped in (sometimes literally) once you get near them. It would ideally help deal with economic issues as areas you visit pass your money or gear on through the game world.

#52 Edited by MonetaryDread (2074 posts) -

@zeik said:

@monetarydread said:

I want consoles to update every year like the iPhone does. My 360 died almost two years ago and my PS3 died almost a year ago. I refuse to buy an overpriced console this late in the generation and releasing a new updated console every year will convince me to upgrade more often.

I'm sorry, but that's just a horrible idea. We don't need a new console every year. That's absurd.

Why would that be a horrible idea? Give me some sort of reason why that is a bad idea instead of dismissing it entirely. That approach only makes you look emotional and unreasonable.

  • Remember, just because a new iPhone comes out every year does not mean that you have to purchase the new system.
  • An iPhone does not see an entirely new redesign every year. Technically the phone has been pretty much similar since the iPhone 4 was released.
  • Then there are people, like me, that work for a living and do not have to worry about spending an extra $300 every other year (as I do with my cell phone).
  • With the updated system every year developers do not have to worry too much about hardware that is too old (like how this generation went on three years too long), which results in better games for consumers like us.
  • More chances to update the system means that the customers have more chances to see new features added to the console.
#53 Posted by Ares42 (2729 posts) -

I've been playing a lot of Wii U lately and there's some things that console does that's just brilliant that I wish the others would do. Unfortunately though it's quite dependant on the gamepad. Basically what Nintendo has done is instead of going the XboX way of giving everyone a mic, they have given everyone a functional keyboard. Not only does it bring text chat (which in my opinion is much much better than voice in a matchmaking heavy environment), but they also have a fully integrated community forum for every game on their console.

While the MiiVerse definitely is a very rough version of what I'd like to see, the idea of having access to a vast community on my console and being able to browse centralized forums and FAQs without having to switch over to my PC is really great. As mentioned though, it's something neither of the other consoles can really recreate and improve upon without going the touchscreen route which it seems neither of them will do. If you ask me though, it's the one thing that would actually sell me on the online console experience.

#54 Posted by WickedFather (1733 posts) -

Dramatic reduction in the number of 'realistic' first person shooters.

Dramatic increase in the number of charming, colourful platformers.

Achievements to be made fully optional. Switch them off at a system or per game level and allow their deletion for those who don't want them or want to get them again.

More games that feel Japanese and crazy. Western gaming concentrates too much on realism and competative multiplayer.

#55 Edited by Zeik (2538 posts) -

@monetarydread said:

@zeik said:

@monetarydread said:

I want consoles to update every year like the iPhone does. My 360 died almost two years ago and my PS3 died almost a year ago. I refuse to buy an overpriced console this late in the generation and releasing a new updated console every year will convince me to upgrade more often.

I'm sorry, but that's just a horrible idea. We don't need a new console every year. That's absurd.

Why would that be a horrible idea? Give me some sort of reason why that is a bad idea instead of dismissing it entirely. That approach only makes you look emotional and unreasonable.

  • Remember, just because a new iPhone comes out every year does not mean that you have to purchase the new system.
  • Then there are people, like me, that work for a living and do not have to worry about spending an extra $300 every other year (as I do with my cell phone).
  • With the updated system every year developers do not have to worry too much about hardware that is too old (like how this generation went on three years too long), which results in better games for consumers like us.

If the new console has new hardware that means you do have to buy the console if you want to play any game that utilizes that new hardware. They'd either have to make the revisions incredibly incremental and effectively unnecessary, so that it doesn't instantly make the previous hardware obsolete, or make legitimate hardware changes that screw over everyone that bought a version of the console with weaker hardware. This would mean developers would most likely make all their games for the weakest console, because that's the only way they could actually sell the game to everyone, not just the people with the newest version of the console.

One of the big draws of consoles over the PC is that once you buy a console you can expect to be able to play every game released for that console, regardless of when it's released. Once you start locking people out of being able to play new games based on which version of the console you have there's little advantage to it over a PC, which are fully customizable and don't require you to go out and buy a brand new one every time some better hardware comes out.

Besides, a year is way too quick of a turnaround for this kind of hardware. You'd pretty much have to be working on the next revision as soon as the last one was out.

#56 Edited by SomberOwl (696 posts) -

Less frequent and faster load times is an absolute must. After 200 hours in my Skyrim play through I really started to realize the dreadful load-times near the end. This has really discouraged me from getting the DLC and playing through again. I just can't stand the thought of playing it again for another 150+ hours with those miserable load times.

That and more focus on gameplay and game mechanics rather than story. All I here anymore is talk about a games story and how it means soooo much to the game. Bioshock, Tomb Raider, etc. Who cares? As long as the gameplay is fun; Borderlands 2, Blood Dragon, who cares what the story is. I don't care if it's realistic or blah blah blah, I just want fun gameplay and a story to accompany it. Not the other way around.

#57 Posted by Orbitz (67 posts) -

Off the top of my head I'd like to see games start at a lower price than 60 dollars, I'd like a higher focus on digital storefronts, and while I'm fantasizing.. I'd like developers to always target 60 frames per second, seriously.. the game doesn't have to look so amazing that it runs like ass on these consoles. If you have to scale back the graphics to get that constant 60 fps DO IT.

#58 Edited by Lysergica33 (528 posts) -

A return to more player agency. I don't mind spending 90 minutes watching a cut scene and 10 minutes playing in Metal Gear Solid, because Kojima is a wonderfully self-indulgent magnificent bastard who somehow gets away with it, but he's the only one as far as I'm concerned. I'm looking at you Max Payne 3...
I just finished Demon's Souls a couple of days ago and the only times the game ever takes control away from you are the loading screens, the intro and outro cutscenes and boss introduction cut scenes, the rest of the time it's pure gameplay. This is what gaming needs more of, because all this cinematic masturbation is leaving me pretty jaded.

Aside from that? Better AI, better framerate and resolution, that's pretty much it. I'm more of a PC player, but my PS3 still gets some use for the occasional game here and there, but those games I do use it for are always marred by awful framerates and every single hard edge looking like a staircase, which annoys me to no end.

#59 Posted by oraknabo (1503 posts) -

For people to stop buying annualized sequels and force big publishers to make interesting games instead of relying on their big franchises.

#60 Edited by Hunter5024 (5808 posts) -

My biggest problem this generation was that budgets got too big, and it became unfeasible to create a game of the same scope and relative fidelity as earlier generations. This hit RPG's particularly hard. So my one wish for the next generation would be that better tools will be created, which allow this content to be created more efficiently, without costing so much that poor sales could potentially sink a company. It looks like budgets are only getting worse this time though.

#61 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

Custom Achievement Noises - it will be the TXT message ringtone market all over.

#62 Posted by Regal (434 posts) -

@blu3v3nom07: I think you nailed it. The non-existant collision detection for many games (and particularly games like Resident Evil) is the most immersion breaking thing there is in video games. I mean people have been making fun of 'running against wall'-type stupidity since the beginning of the industry. Let this at long last go into the dustbin of history!

#63 Edited by Blu3V3nom07 (4234 posts) -

@regal: I just see in my mailbox, "Blu, you're so fucking right." And I'm like, well what did I say? I don't think I've said any diatribe responses the last couple of days. And I go and look and its this one-liner about a PS Home 4.0 (Ha!?)

I do hope we get something good this generation that's more than just, "Oh well this one game is good. Well my friend spent his 60 on this other game." So I guess we won't play or ever talk to each other about it, with any real meaning.

That said, I don't think Xbox is gonna have a real PS Home equivalent.. I certainly think that they could just build their own version, with awesome avatar stuff and casino rooms and stuff. Its just.. probably not gonna happen.

#64 Edited by onyxghost (313 posts) -

Good cape and beard tech locked at 60 frames a second.

#65 Edited by MonetaryDread (2074 posts) -

@zeik said:

If the new console has new hardware that means you do have to buy the console if you want to play any game that utilizes that new hardware. They'd either have to make the revisions incredibly incremental and effectively unnecessary, so that it doesn't instantly make the previous hardware obsolete, or make legitimate hardware changes that screw over everyone that bought a version of the console with weaker hardware. This would mean developers would most likely make all their games for the weakest console, because that's the only way they could actually sell the game to everyone, not just the people with the newest version of the console.

One of the big draws of consoles over the PC is that once you buy a console you can expect to be able to play every game released for that console, regardless of when it's released. Once you start locking people out of being able to play new games based on which version of the console you have there's little advantage to it over a PC, which are fully customizable and don't require you to go out and buy a brand new one every time some better hardware comes out.

Besides, a year is way too quick of a turnaround for this kind of hardware. You'd pretty much have to be working on the next revision as soon as the last one was out.

The big problem I have with your stance is that it relies on a reality where games will not work with older hardware. There is zero evidence to support that idea and there is evidence that points to the contrary. Look at IOS as an example of a platform that gets upgraded every year (A person can also say that Microsoft has been chasing Apple for the past couple of years) and you will see was suggesting in a previous post. You do not have to buy a new iPhone to play games because the 3gs still plays 99% of the marketplace. If you do buy the newest hardware then you get 60fps instead of 30, widescreen support, or high-res textures; lesser hardware does not mean that you cannot play the game, it just means that you miss out on a few bells and whistles. So does this mean that the upgrade is unnecessary, maybe, but when does something being unnecessary equal it being automatically a bad thing, again, the iPhone 4s was unnecessary but millions of people still bought it.

Then there is the realities of a PC. If Microsoft was stupid enough to not create a rule that says a game has to work on any hardware that is less than four years old, then developers would be able to decide what system requirements are supported... just like a PC. Yet, name one PC game that does not support four year old gaming hardware (this does not include your overpriced macbook, or that $500 dell that came with on-board video because those are not gaming PC's). Instead of throwing out my old PC with an 8800gt (a card that came out almost six years ago) I set it up in the spare bedroom in case I wanted an old school LAN game. Guess what? My 8800gt sill plays Crysis 3 at 720p with playable frame rates, while still looking and functioning better than the 360 port. Just because there are different tiers to gaming platforms does not mean that the low tier gets the shaft, it just means that they do not have the best version. Then you have to look at all the people who do not give a shit about owning the best version of a game. Look at consoles in general, there is not one single multiplatform title that is better on console than its PC counterpart. Yet people still buy consoles instead of PC's, so how important is experiencing the best version of the game?

As far as new hardware releases confusing the customer like a PC. Well, whats wrong with a PC? The operating system is confusing for some people, the cost is more expensive than a console, and it takes research to build instead of just going into a store and grabbing a box off the shelf. So name one of those problems that will be introduced if a console comes out with yearly revisions? The cost will stay flat every year, just like a cell phone, and the price will certainly be less expensive than the equivalent gaming PC. It will still be presented in a box that you can just pick up off a shelf and buy (just like an iphone or a current 360). The only problem I can see is that it might get confusing for some people. This is a valid concern, but if Microsoft does yearly updates they can just call the thing Xbox, and you just go to the store and buy your Xbox. The only people that might get confused is elderly people buying a gift for their grandchild and see the two year old stock that BestBuy is clearing out for $199, instead of buying the new $399 console. Yet how is this any different than a parent picking up an old iphone 4s instead of the 5 for a child, or the kid who gets the Arcade SKU of the Xbox 360 instead of the version with a hard drive. Really this is only a problem for children that cannot afford to buy their own system. In the end, you still just go to a store, pick up a box, and go to the register. Only if you go into a store to buy a new console three years in, you get a better console.

#66 Posted by isomeri (1317 posts) -

I just want to buy all my games through the internet.

#67 Posted by Zeik (2538 posts) -

@monetarydread: The gaming landscape of iOS is very different from modern consoles though. The type of games that are released don't rely on the same kind of hardware that consoles do and don't push the hardware in the same way that console games often do. AAA gaming development just doesn't exist in the same way.

Also you have to realize that most of the stuff that gets revised from one iPhone to the next often has little to do with the gaming side. You will get things that have an inadvertent affect on games like better network support or a nicer resolution on the screen, but the actual hardware that affects what games can be made on it isn't going to advance much from one iteration to the next. There is more justification for new hardware when you're updating a variety of features that cater to a variety of different services. Gaming consoles may have more going on than just gaming these days, but most of the hardware is still dedicated to gaming. I don't see how they could ever justify releasing a new console every year with such incremental upgrades. That would only make the manufacturing process more difficult and expensive.

And honestly, I personally hate the idea of needing to buy the same console multiple times just to be able to play a game at the expected baseline. (And yes, I think anyone who would buy a new iPhone every year is absolutely insane, whether or not they can afford it.) It's the very reason I prefer console gaming over PC gaming. If I put a game into my console I can expect it to work like it's "supposed to". If I play a game on my PC there's no guarantee anything will work like it should. If the developer releases a poorly optimized game I consider that the fault of the developer, not the hardware. It shouldn't be the onus of the consumer to keep buying new hardware just to make up for developers who can't make games run on current hardware.

#68 Edited by sins_of_mosin (1556 posts) -

When there is a game update, have the damn changes come up on screen.

#69 Posted by James_Hayward (415 posts) -

some thoughts;

* increasing design scope to include optional corollary in-game systems that make use of mobile device cameras and geo data, thus potentially enabling a deeper connection to the game and 'away from the game gaming'. Coderunner struck me as a conceptual leap forward that has opened up an entire area of game design that is now waiting to be built upon and exploited.

* Oculus rift looks to be another leap forward toward greater immersion. I don't know about how feasible it would to have the tech implemented as an add on to next gen consoles (perhaps this has already been suggested?).

* more variety in character types, their motivations.. i.e. diversify from the heroic journey trope that, while enjoyable, is far too dominant.

* perhaps as a consequence of the above we have had far too many shooters this generation, and frankly the only enthusiasm I can muster for the shooters of the next generation is in relation to implementation of oculus rift tech.

and finally,

* more female protagonists and a greater variety in the depiction of women in games in general. I'm bored of encountering shallow, two-dimensional female characters with little more than MacGuffin-level significance.

#70 Posted by Mezmero (1965 posts) -

Bigger explosions. Better face and neck stabbing tech. An A.I. that can truly feel fear and pain to the point that it rises up against me as machines tend to do. You know, the usual stuff.

#71 Edited by McTangle (157 posts) -

Economies that aren't exponentially functioning. I don't want to be a pauper one day and king of the motherflippin' universe the next, with so much money pouring out of my every orifice I can't even buy anything without it seeming wanton and superfluous. I'm staring right at you, Assassin's Creed II.

#72 Edited by Regal (434 posts) -

@blu3v3nom07: Actually I was kind of attempting to reply to jdevlin24tgb about the lack of collision detection for the character you're controlling, but never mind that PS home comment was pretty freakin' sweet too! No really I'm riled up about it. They're gonna give me another PS home that ain't worth a damn? Hell nah! You tell em blu.

#73 Edited by Ostratego (39 posts) -

There is away for Steam to default to the small games list during start-up. Sony consoles since the PSX have the XMB interface without ads. I don't understand how people will enjoy the next Xbox with a barrage of ads, let alone enjoy it while paying for the ads every month. In the next generation, I want the interface to recognize players as the consumers and not as the merchandise, as is the case with advertizement model on the "experience".

#74 Edited by jdevlin24tgb (39 posts) -

Not sure if next gen matters much to me. So far in the past few months I've had more fun with Monaco than anything else, and that doesn't require anything next gen to play. Though the last game I had a lot of fun with pre-Monaco was Batman:AC so more games like that and I'll be good too. So maybe next gen does matter. I'm confused.

Good point. The recent flux of indie game popularity has shown that it doesn't take massive open worlds, photo realistic graphical fidelity, and superbly detailed animation to sell games. It's interesting to see that graphics are getting better and better, but becoming less and less the focus for game designers.

#75 Edited by Nezza (373 posts) -

I'd like to see proper cheat codes come back into games. Sometimes I want to just stick it in god mode, act like an idiot for a while and then reset and play as normal again.

#76 Posted by DrIntrovert (81 posts) -

I want developers to focus on making games that focus on fun gameplay over all of the flash and explosions. I don't care whether the game is a really impressive experience visually, the most important element of any game is whether it is fun to play, not whether it is pretty to look at. Too many recent games have been all style and no substance.