The worst of the worst - Evolution in gaming.

Crni Vuk

M4A3 Oldfag oTO
Orderite
What do you see as the worst thing in gaming, either from gameplay or technology?

For me personaly:

In shooters - Autohealing.
As far as shooters goes, I think that it really was one of the worst things they could do. Sit behind a corner, wait for your health to regenerate. Get back in to the action. I mean it's clear why they did it, to speed up the game. But you loose any sense of 'danger' that way.

In RPGs - Dialogwheel.
That one should be a no brainer. I mean it's outright lazy design. I am not saying that it can't ever be done correctly, but seriously it often simply isn't.

In general - Mapmarkers.
Now, this is a bit tricky. I certainly don't mind it in games like GTA for example, as they are simply fucking huge and some open world games do need it. But if we look at sooo many games that have them, they often are just a way to make 'lazy' designs. Why do I need describtions? Or intelligent game design? Just place a map marker and call it a day!

Gaming - Exclusives.
I really hate them. Always did. The PC and the Console are so close these days, there is absolutely zero reason to make a game only for one platform, be it the PC or the Console, technical limitations asside of course. I mean, it seems to me always a bit fishy, when a company like Sonny or Microsoft decides that a certain game should be "only" available on their console.
 
RPG:
-D100-some-formula+involving-(STR-and-weaponskill) to calculate damage or chance to hit someone. It's a kind of classic that must go, just go away, go back to D&D tabletop and never bother computer RPGs again.
-Witcher's senses. It's just doesn't look that good, be it either red or purple and still takes away from using your brain and eyes.
-Romances. No one can write these good. No one. The Witcher 3 doesn't count since Geralt's relationship with Yen was already established and developed in books and Triss path is cheesy as fuck as much as any of Bioware game. Any.
-Inflation of words for the sake of getting alot of words. This is a complex set of problems in modern cRPGs but the whole point lies in this simple one.
 
Last edited:
I agree with 'relationships', it's just cheesy ... it's already hard to do it in novells and movies, but it seems writers in games just can't get it to work.
 
1. The skill systems games like Far Cry use. It's cheap, the skills are easy to get and make you overpowered.
2. I also don't like territory capturing based games. Far Cry for another example, you liberate a couple outposts and enemies become scarce.
3. And DLC's like Fallout 4's Automatron Is just something that should be In the game from the start, not an extra five bucks.
 
Gaming - Exclusives.
I really hate them. Always did. The PC and the Console are so close these days, there is absolutely zero reason to make a game only for one platform, be it the PC or the Console, technical limitations asside of course. I mean, it seems to me always a bit fishy, when a company like Sonny or Microsoft decides that a certain game should be "only" available on their console.

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here a bit and say that while I agree in the long run, it does offer some kind of "Alternative" to getting different consoles. I agree, it's kind of dumb and think that everything should be on PC, but it's just business. Plus Companies like Sony will partly fund development of a game and have their own development studios so I can understand why they won't want their game on a competitor's Console.

I agree, it does hurt gamers in the long run, but I guess it's the price to pay for healthy competition.

For me, I really detest Annual Releases, Microtransactions and not including all content in certain "Complete" editions of games.
Let me explain.

Annual Releases- These basically kill the creativity of a series and leaves the series continuing in name only. There's also the problem of oversaturation, which we've seen with both COD and Assassin's Creed. Simply put, they are rushed out the door with the tightest budget possible in order to capitalise on the success of the previous game. It's an endless cycle of "Plan, Make, Sell, Repeat" with little to no improvements over the formula.

Microtransactions is a given at this point. It just feels a bit tacky to make someone play £50 for a game, and then make them pay for items in game as well. Leave this to shitty mobile games (Luckily, it seems this practise is dying out).

Complete Editions aren't complete- There's a few example I can give, one being the COD4 remaster which isn't a Complete edition itself, but considering that the game is 10 years old, I don't think making people buy DLC content for a game that was exclusive to a special edition of a game no one cared about. Actually, this COD4 remaster stuff is probably the worst thing and most anti-consumer thing I have ever seen a Game's Company do. I may do a rant on this sometime in the near future as I feel it deserves it (be it a bit late).
The other example is the Mass Effect Trilogy, I'm just kind of disappointed that they don't include ALL DLC in it. It says "The Complete Experience" but it isn't.

Also something a bit more shoved on... we all complain about Season Passes, but probably the worst and most aggressive form of Season Pass I've ever witness is Dead or Alive 5.
So I like DOA5, but even I admit that it's a massive joke.
There's about 6 Season Passes at nearly £100 each, it costs more than the actual console to play it on.
What's worse, I've not seen anyone really talk about it. Maybe this deserves another rant sometime in the future...
 
Gaming - Exclusives.
I really hate them. Always did. The PC and the Console are so close these days, there is absolutely zero reason to make a game only for one platform, be it the PC or the Console, technical limitations asside of course. I mean, it seems to me always a bit fishy, when a company like Sonny or Microsoft decides that a certain game should be "only" available on their console.
I'd say PC exclusives are somewhat more forgivable than Console Exclusives.

If a game is PC exclusive, it's usually because either it wouldn't work on a console, or the devs couldn't find the time to port it over. I doubt games like Europa Universalis would work on Consoles due to having so many fiddly parts that simply wouldn't be easily usable with just a controller, or if they found a way, it would probably be very time-consuming.

Pretty much any game that runs on a console could be emulated on a PC. If you make console exclusive, you are pretty much only doing it to keep obsolete platforms on life support.
 
Pre order bonuses are the most anti consumer, predatory practice. Even worse than Day 1 DLC or Micro transactions.

Mass Effect Andromeda is trying to one up that one with their "Collector's Edition" that doesn't even include the fucking game even tho they have a 100 price tag, good thing nobody is gonna buy into that shit, right? Right? Please, tell me no one is stupid enough....
 
Steam/Origin/GOG Galaxy. Anything additional malware user have to install to play legally. It's objectively anti-consumer practice. Piracy is a corporation's problem, not user's.
 
Pre order bonuses are the most anti consumer, predatory practice. Even worse than Day 1 DLC or Micro transactions.

I think if the Bonus isn't going to get its own release later on (See Halo ODST with Johnson for this) then yeah, it's really dumb.
It's dumb enough as it is, althrough, I will say I was kind of sadden I didn't get my Armoured Vault 13 Bonus with New Vegas back in the day.
Still, the game lived up to my expectations and I later got it for about 99p.

But yeah, Pre Order bonuses are dumb.
 
Steam/Origin/GOG Galaxy. Anything additional malware user have to install to play legally. It's objectively anti-consumer practice. Piracy is a corporation's problem, not user's.

I don't mind this so much, I mean Origin can be an annoyance. However, I do agree they should be optional.
 
Steam gets you cheaper games and makes match finding super easy so I really don't mind it one bit.
 
Back
Top