Top 5 Things that annoy you about Games/developers Today?

[TheMeekon]

Like someone said above most of these problems are caused by publishers, license holders and console companies (nintendo etc). The hoops they make you jump through and demands they make are unreal. You have no choice to cull design, change art, make last minute ports or release DLC otherwise you will not meet milestones and will not be paid.

The amount of ideas that get canned due to publisher milestones is unreal. I am experiencing one at the moment due to reasons I cannot say.

Art and design/game mechanics sometimes become too seperated in a studio and while say the artists are doing a good job the design have messed up. Too late to go back and rip up artwork due to their incompetence, you got a beta deadline breathing down your neck. Could also be the producers who are at fault.

 

[OpenToSuggestions]

1. DLC - I feel that I just paid full price for a cut down game. You can **** off -I am not paying £10 for 3 new maps.
2. DVD required to play. If I get the game via 'other means' then I don't need the dvd at all!
3. Crap ports. Don't port it from console to pc overnight - Do the job properly or not at all.
4. Games that are released 6 months after the console version (such as Resi5) just so they can make more £££ by people paying £45 for the console versions first.
5. Patches - I appreciate that sometimes games cannot be perfect but everything these days requires patches to work properly. Did Tomb Raider 1 or C&C:Red Alert need a patch to play? No it didn't!

 

[Deific]

Bad ports
Dumbing down for console audiences
No dedicated servers
Publishers that try to churn out games in a franchise every year to make money from the franchise name
Lack of originality and developers/publishers afraid to stray from systems that they know work

 

[kylew]

1. DLC - I feel that I just paid full price for a cut down game. You can **** off -I am not paying £10 for 3 new maps.
5. Patches - I appreciate that sometimes games cannot be perfect but everything these days requires patches to work properly. Did Tomb Raider 1 or C&C:Red Alert need a patch to play? No it didn't!

1: DLC is now what expansions where then. Not all DLC is stuff they held back at release, some developers actually work on it post release to continue supporting games. I get what you mean about some DLC though like the MW2 half arsed "Map packs" for £10~ or Bioshock 2's "DLC" that was already on the disc.

5: Patches, comparing games now to Tomb Raider 1, or C&C: RA isn't really "right", PCs were far far simpler back then, and the amount of configuriations possible were too, also, it's not just PCs that have patches, console games do too. There are so many variations in hardware now though that it's somewhat unavoidable, as it would be very difficult to test every possible hardware configuration.

 

[Phinor]

1: DLC is now what expansions where then. Not all DLC is stuff they held back at release, some developers actually work on it post release to continue supporting games.

The issue I have with DLC is the price/content ratio. I wouldn't mind the movement from expansions to DLC if they kept the price/content ratio the same. So a £5 DLC would have (depends on genre etc.) around 3 hours of solid gameplay. But the reality is, £5 DLC these days has 30 minutes of content, maybe one hour at best. And often the quality of the DLC isn't up to par with the game you bought.

Another issue is that DLC prices never really drop. Sometimes Steam has some DLC on sale but generally the DLC prices never drop. Expansion prices dropped if you waited few months. In DLC era, you can wait the regular six months or so for the full game price drop from RRP to let's say £10 but the DLC still costs £5 per, meaning few hours of DLC costs more than the full game.

 

[Evilsod]

The issue I have with DLC is the price/content ratio. I wouldn't mind the movement from expansions to DLC if they kept the price/content ratio the same. So a £5 DLC would have (depends on genre etc.) around 3 hours of solid gameplay. But the reality is, £5 DLC these days has 30 minutes of content, maybe one hour at best. And often the quality of the DLC isn't up to par with the game you bought.

Another issue is that DLC prices never really drop. Sometimes Steam has some DLC on sale but generally the DLC prices never drop. Expansion prices dropped if you waited few months. In DLC era, you can wait the regular six months or so for the full game price drop from RRP to let's say £10 but the DLC still costs £5 per, meaning few hours of DLC costs more than the full game.

Indeed... Best example recently i'd say is Dragon Age. It had not 1 but 2 DLC on release, purely to screw over people who didn't buy it on release as they wouldn't get it. Then after release they put out Return to Ostagar which was diabolical. 66% was locations already in game, 33% was 'new' locations with existing textures, no new voice acting at all and it wasn't even balanced given that i swear most of the enemies could be 1 hit killed.

Also agree with the pricing. Some of them take to time to release a 'game of the year' edition which includes it all, some don't bother. Comparing Borderlands and Fallout 3 is obvious here but then Borderlands is still getting DLC released for it. Unlike Just Cause 2 which has minor, mostly weapon and vehicle skin additions as DLC and will obviously never get a GotY edition.

 

[Gerard]

Devs hyping standard crap like dedicated servers that have been a part of pc gaming for well over a decade, and all because theyre on the console bandwagon and we play a distant second fiddle.

PC game quality suffering because the devs used a console as the primrary platform instead of creating it on pc and making proper use of the pc then dumbing it down for consoles.

 

[atmax1]

*** Paying for Map Packs
*** CD in tray winds me up
*** Not making use of Dx11
*** Bad Storys

 

[Kelt]

DLC, as said, charge full price for half a game...
Games being too short...

Mafia 2, I'm looking at you.

 

[kylew]

The issue I have with DLC is the price/content ratio. I wouldn't mind the movement from expansions to DLC if they kept the price/content ratio the same. So a £5 DLC would have (depends on genre etc.) around 3 hours of solid gameplay. But the reality is, £5 DLC these days has 30 minutes of content, maybe one hour at best. And often the quality of the DLC isn't up to par with the game you bought.

Another issue is that DLC prices never really drop. Sometimes Steam has some DLC on sale but generally the DLC prices never drop. Expansion prices dropped if you waited few months. In DLC era, you can wait the regular six months or so for the full game price drop from RRP to let's say £10 but the DLC still costs £5 per, meaning few hours of DLC costs more than the full game.

I think Borderlands is the best example of DLC. £6 DLC, but each one has provided at least 10 hours of game play. Their latest DLC, about 30 hours on my save file.

 

[bhavv]

No RPGs as good as Baldurs Gate since Baldurs Gate II.

Everything these days is horribly dumbed down so that the average skill - less clown can win the game with no effort.

 

[VonScar]

1) DRM
2) DRM
3) DRM
4) DRM
5) DRM

I think that companies go to extreme lengths to protect their intellectual property, to the point that no one can play the stupid games! An example would be Starcraft 2, if you have a PC not on your internet connection, you can forget it....If games companies want to kill gaming off on PC's they are going the right way about it.

Cheers

Von

 

[kylew]

1) DRM
2) DRM
3) DRM
4) DRM
5) DRM

I think that companies go to extreme lengths to protect their intellectual property, to the point that no one can play the stupid games! An example would be Starcraft 2, if you have a PC not on your internet connection, you can forget it....If games companies want to kill gaming off on PC's they are going the right way about it.

Cheers

Von

Actually, rather than no one, they do so much to "Protect" their games, that the only ones who can play it unhindered are the pirates, those they're trying to "Protect" themselves from.

 

[SeraphX]

1, laziness - devs not checking everything and rushing the job just to beat the competition, case point EA with NFSW Vs Atari with TDU2, EA should know better!

2, DLC, pretty much everything that everyone else has said, including about borderlands, although i'll add about the fallout 3 DLC, urgh, playable game then you spend more money to make it worse? totally not on Bethesda

3, Release dates - why bother? RD are a PITA - the game will be out by blah blah blah, day comes, oh sorry it's postponed by 6 months, AARRGGHH, sometimes i wish they wouldnt bother with release dates, just give you the option for pre-order and then forget about it lol

4, graphics over gameplay, looking back to the old days of gaming this has gotten so much worse it's not even funny, devs think that shiny shiny will distract from the often shoddy and short storys in a game, in some ways yeah it works, but not everytime,

5, Money for well not much IMO-, back in the day ( yeah am old lol ) you'd pay 20-30 quid for a brand new game, it would come with a decent story most times, depending on what type of game it is, cliffnotes version, games need more story and depth, comparing playstation 2 comes on dvd, thats 4.7Gb or just under 9Gb on a DL disc, you get hundreds of hours of game play ( final fantasy X my main is on 475 hours and i still have things to do ), playstation 3 comes on blu ray, thats 25Gb at least, 50 on a dual layer, they really cant be using all that extra space of stupid sodding textures for the HD content

 

[Jonny ///M]

Just what everyone in here has already said.

I still enjoy playing the original max payne. The story is good and the game plays smoothly with no fancy **** to slow it down.

Fast loading hassle free gaming is where it's at.

 

[Vertigo]

Selling out for the sponsorship/marketing money at the expense of gamers. As already ranted about in the other thread, currently very angry at Codemasters for selling out to AMD/ATI with Dirt2, delaying the game by months for DX11 compatibility no one wanted, and selling out to Microsoft and making all their stuff GFWL when everyone prefers Steamworks.

 

[Jono8]

Realism....

You can make games look as pretty as you want but if there are still invisible walls, soldiers that can take 3 bullets to the chest and still run about, and incredibly stupid AI then i am afraid all immersion is lost.

More time should be spent in makeing a gamne world feel real rather than look real.

 

[XPE]

That wash out colour games use to make it look more gritty, some games it so bad you have to ask why they used any colour at all, why not just sit down at the start of development and say here 52 shades of grey.

While I’m not opposed to dlc i haven’t seen any yet that’s worth the money.

 

[XPE]

That wash out colour games use to make it look more gritty, some games it so bad you have to ask why they used and colour at all, why not just sit down at the start of development and say here 52 shades of grey use them.

While I’m not opposed to dlc i haven’t seen any yet that’s worth the money.

 

[mame]

its not just the expense of buying the games, the bandwidth steam must be able to cope with when a new game is released, say mafia 2, must be insane and cost quite a lot of money to be able to provide so that

Expensive yes, but surely it's a fraction of the cost of running a string of shops, having a supply chain in place with warehouses, HGVs and 100's and 100's of staff in these shops and warehouses. Electric bills, Fuel bills. It must be far cheaper to sell games through downloads.