You're On My List!!
Things that annoy me in the world of gaming.
Things that annoy me in the world of gaming.
Unless a game is made by the console-maker, I don't want to hear the words "platform exclusive". People should be punished as little as possible for owning only one of the consoles out there. Not everyone has a lot of money, after all, and companies that do exclusives sometimes anger their potential customers. Nobody likes to be left out of the fun, and have to plan the murder of their mocking friends. (Who own the console with the exclusive.)
Purchasing permanent exclusives from other companies is a no no, as well. I can tolerate temporary exclusives that don't last more than a few months, but that sort of thing is still anti-consumer.
I suppose that I don't mind censorship here and there, if it's minor and makes sense. (I don't want to watch people getting raped for instance.) The existence of blood or lack thereof was never a big deal for me either. However, I am not generally in favor of censorship.
If you don't find the violence level, language or presence of some other item you feel strongly against, you should simply send off a polite and well-written letter to the publisher, and not buy the game.
However, many people seem to feel that the presence of something they disagree with offensive, even if it's not being forced on them. Why some feel the need to censor religion from games is beyond me, as religion is a part of our world and has strong ties to our history. The presence of Christianity in the middle ages, adds flavor and a sense of realism to a game, as does Buddhism in a historical asian title. To remove references to certain faiths, is akin to closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and pretending that they don't exist. Rather child-like if you ask me. Does the presence of another point of view or belief somehow diminish your own views? Censorship is something that often caters to weak people, who have to make the world fit their own viewpoint, and I think we can all be better than that.
If I buy a game, I should be able to play it without being always on-line. Plenty of people use notebook computers these days, so it's ridiculous. I don't mind mild copy protection, such as CD-keys, but some DRM is quite virus-like in nature. On-line passes are a bit annoying too, as they reduce the resale value of your games.
My dislike for DRM is rooted in lack of pirating games. I believe that people shouldn't take something without permission. I prefer to buy games, as it helps to support the industry and bring us more games. This being the case, I find it even more annoying that I get punished for the wrong-doings of others.
To combat DRM, I try to buy as much from GOG.com as possible, and often avoid games where DRM is too aggressive.
There aren't many things more annoying in gaming than the "instakill". When programmers/designers add an instakill, it seems like they were being lazy, taking the "easy" path to creating challenge. Games should be challenging, but not an exercise in grief. Your opponents should be skillful and not have to "cheat" to win.
In most cases, Instakills are an insult to the person who's playing the game. The only time that I feel they are justified, is when they are part of a boss mechanic, where you can do some neat little exercise to either avoid or negate the move. In this case, it can become a positive element.
In multiplay, I have mixed feelings regarding one-hit kills, but if it's balanced out somehow, I don't always mind.
Now by this, I don't mean hacking your system to customize it, but hacking in the cheating on-line sense. Nothing ruins multiplayer like a cheater using an aim bot, wall hack (see through walls), or other nasty tools. If it weren't for these jerks, several games would still be playable on-line.
I have no problem with standard randomization, but when programmers cause the game to decide the chance for something FAR in advance of when you do it, I call that cheating. Sure, reloading to get a better result is semi-cheating too, but if they didn't want that, they should have had the game delete your save when you loaded it.
How do I feel it should work? When you perform an action the random roll happens then. The result can be different every time. It was like this in older games and the new way of doing things is just an excuse to let the game cheat, rather than the player. Siding with the computer instead of your customer, is just bad business.
I can see that if you went back in time, viewed a scene again, and did nothing to influence the person involved to change... Well, they would quite likely do the same thing, as the factors that caused them to do what they did and how they did it, would be the same. On the other hand, when I am playing a game that lets me load my games, it is as if I am a being which commands others. If am blessed with the ability to go backwards in time, then why wouldn't I be able to cause the person involved in the "random" occurrence to change? If I wanted to play a game with a predetermined outcome, I would play "Tic Tac Toe".
As it is, I prefer that my games allow me some free will, and if I want to load a game and "cheat", I should be allowed to. Again, to give the computer the power over what will happen ruins the whole point of my playing the game. Well, it does for me, at least.
Actually, I'm fine with cheating if a person does it in single player. What bothers me is when the A.I. cheats to gain advantage over you, and is incredibly obvious about it. Example: Car catching up to you with miraculous surge of speed. Perfect aim with guns. Football players running faster than they should. Reading your button presses the instant you do them, and countering your every move. That sort of thing.
Have you ever seen an amazing skin shown for a character, and readied your money, only to find that it was a bonus item which was only obtainable from a specific retail store? Let's say that you do manage to pick up the game at this store and get the skin that you want. What if there are other skins that you would like, but you have to buy the entire game again at another store, just to get them?
Retailer exclusives are stupid, in that they make it very difficult for the customer to get what they want. Not only this, but they are incredibly greedy. The game publisher is taking bribes to allow the retailer an exclusive, and also forcing the fans who keep the publisher/developer alive, to buy additional copies of the game if they want more than one special skin.
Stupid A.I. for your NPC helpers to be specific. It is incredibly annoying to have your "friend" constantly shooting you, because he's too dumb to realize that you are between the enemy and him. Also upsetting is when you can't order a NPC to do a mundane task for you (perhaps pickup something or activate a switch), and it costs you the mission. Proper helper A.I. is vital.
Something I've often said in the past:
"Aside from the debate as to whether or not they're too "sexified" and lacking focus in more respectful areas such as character, there's one thing that has always bothered me about this trend. I don't like obvious attempts at luring me in with overly sexy imagery. It's like saying, "You're a primitive without any self-control, so we're going to get you to buy this item by putting a scantly-clad woman on it!" I don't like knowing that I'm being manipulated! Trick me without being so obvious, but don't insult me."
I love the physical appearance of women, but come on. I don't need to feed my libido. It's strong enough as it is, and women deserve better. :P
I'm not in favor of sexualized men either, but I suppose that women should have their turn enjoying a bit of "eye candy" after all the stuff they've endured in gaming.
If they're going for realism, I suppose they should bounce a little sometimes, but really... Pathetic.
Specifically, how old copyrights prevent or greatly delay companies from re-releasing some old classics for newer systems. Examples? "Revenge of Shinobi", which was delayed for PS3/360 release for several years. "Syndicate" was supposedly delayed for GOG.com release due to a billboard in the city. Licensed Capcom arcade games such as "Cadillacs & Dinosaurs" are unlikely to ever see a re-release for console due to 3rd party copyright issues. The few games, which are based on TV shows or movies, and are actually good, are probably not going to see the light of day again either.
It's kind of an insult to make the player pay even more just to access something, when it's already on the disc they bought. I suppose it does save download time though.
In most cases, it's just plain greedy.
I suppose I prefer to have my women look like women and my men look like men in my games. Not that I'd bash anyone in real life for it. (It's their choice, yet not my preference.)
I've seen it all before! Let me skip past this! So annoying, especially when the cinematics are lengthy.
I have to be honest. I dislike the current trend of cell phone, and tablet gaming. The controls seem awkward, and I don't care for having part of the screen covered by my hands. So long as this sector only adds to gaming, and doesn't replace the traditional vein of console/PC gaming, I don't mind too much, but I'm mildly concerned. Of the two, I prefer tablet gaming as the screen is far larger and somewhat negates the covered screen issue.
I despise the tacked on card-based combat that some games utilize. Why are we attacking via cards when the character could simply attack themselves? Games that are all about card battles is one thing, but I can't stand games that are obviously an RPG with a card-game mechanic in place of normal combat.
However, I do acknowledge that Card-Based Combat is a preference and my preferences simply don't lead me there. It is entirely valid to like Card-Based Combat in games.
aka Summons - I loathe summons. They take forever if you can't skip them and seem to take away from the focus on the characters. Perhaps this is similar to my dislike of card-based combat.
I like sequels if they're done right, and are creative. However, some companies seem to love churning out the same stuff, over and over again, with little change.
I have nothing against young protagonists. What I do take issue with is the high number of them versus protagonists of other age groups. For whatever reason, Asian developers seem to be especially fond of this trend. Not only is it limiting to a story to ONLY use youthful characters, but it kind of makes it seem like older people can't do things as well. I like variety in my gaming experiences, so I vote for characters of all ages. Fortunately, there seems to be less of this in recent years, but it was rather high for a while.
Console add-ons or upgrades only serve to divide the user-base, preventing some from playing games in the form they should be. Does a company hold back and not support the upgrade, or do they they alienate much of the established consumer base? Too messy.
Use your keyboard!
Log in to comment