Gaming Trends

I'm reading through the recent issue of Play magazine and the reviewers had a little section talking about the gaming trends that started in the last few years and what they hoped to see in the future and what they hoped would disappear. Some spoke about the rise of the Casual gamer and DLC while others talked about the fall of Japanese gaming market and a few even bitched about gaming not being HD surround sound compatible.

For this thread, list a few trends you wish to see in the coming year and few you wish would go away.

Something I'd like to see go away is the utilization of violence to attract fans. Blech to you, Madworld. :mad2:

...

I'll probably still play it, though. It looks like fun.

These days quite a few games get released unfinished only to be "fixed" later by updates. I don't dig that.

I guess I'd like to see less use of updates in general. Everytime I put in a disc only to get the message "you need the latest update" it just puts me off.

Paying for DLC can go. Release the game as a full game.

I want regenerating health to stay and lifebars to stay away. Some could claim that makes it too easy, but not if the difficulty is adjusted with the system in mind. Some could also say it doesn't make any sense, but I accepted long ago that games don't make any sense at all.

Is "games that don't suck" a trend?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noctiluca

Paying for DLC can go. Release the game as a full game.

---

I don't have a problem paying for DLC so long as what you get is worth the price (it isn't in a lot of cases with console game add-ons these days) or if it's not something that's been included in games as a standard feature for years. I guess when it comes to major offenders in both those cases my best example would be Capcom. Mega Man 9 was terrible for offering game modes separately that should have been included if you ask me. Sure the main game was well worth $10, but the add ons weren't if you ask me. And paying a few bucks for costumes in SFIV (or any other game) is idiotic. Why would I pay as much as 5% of the price of a full game to see my character in some new duds?

If you ask me, a lot of PC games get it right by making their DLC either free or full expansions. And of course no one beats Valves value. The extra content packs for games like TF2 are much better than your typical add-ons and free to boot, while full expansions are usually pretty cheap and still include a bunch of bonus content (The Orange Box is still the best gaming value I've ever seen). I wish more people would take a page or two out of their book. Part of what keeps me coming back to their games is the awesome value (on top of being awesome games).

Why yes, I believe it is.

I agree with the use of violence as selling points. Unless its like Oneechanbara, for some reason that game is awesome. I just can't figure it out I usually hate games like that. But there's just something about it I can't place my finger on :rolleyes2

On a more serious point, I've been noticing a lack of fun minigames and sidequests. Most games sidequests are mostly fetch quests. There's a bit too much fetching going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noctiluca

Paying for DLC can go. Release the game as a full game.

---

I don't have a problem paying for DLC so long as what you get is worth the price (it isn't in a lot of cases with console game add-ons these days) or if it's not something that's been included in games as a standard feature for years.

---

If it truly enhances the game or increases what you can get out of it, then I can get behind it, but that isn't the case too often. So I can agree with you that sometimes it's too silly, but if it isn't, then it's all good. I owned a fighting game that added two new characters barely after the game was out and wanted money for them. I'd bet anything they were done and balanced already but held back for extra profit.

But I've heard GTAIV's DLC is actually really good and worth it. So that's cool and all.

I really dig procedurally generated content. PGC, more or less, makes a game endless and you get wayyyyyyy more replayability (is that a word?) out of it.

Also, user created content (ala littleBigPlanet) is great. DLC is all well and good, although I agree with Lunar - it should be free.

Really, what I'm looking forward to, are games where almost everything is procedurally generated - from levels, to characters, to storylines, to enemies, to weapons, to music and maybe, eventually, even gameplay mechanics (think ROM CHECK FAIL, but actually PCG and with more mechanics that actually make sense within a game world).

Putting too much emphasis on multiplayer rather than providing a solid single player game. Multiplayer is always a nice addition but nothing beats a quality single player game.

And DLC is also a right pain in the ass. Developers maliciously cutting content from their games to sell later on as DLC is really pathetic and hurts a developers reputation. Games are expensive enough already.

I want to see games retain couch co-op. Halo, Gears, and now RE5 all do this and it must stay. Nothing better than an epic gaming session with a good friend by your side as you fight through some form of Hell or another.

I also want them to make the Spore of GDC '05.

More 4X please, too!

Most games have contracted LMS, better known as Let's Make Sequels! where everything is premeditated to become some sort of giant series. Understandable to want to make a successful series... but that doesn't excuse the poor story-telling, pacing, or just poor stories in general (see Gears of War and Assassin's Creed where you never learn anything and "cliff-hangers" cling to the idea that saying :bou::bou::bou::bou:, not explaining anything, and stretching it out over the course of a generally brief $60 game = good suspenseful storytelling + some multi-player). This is usually forgiven because theres a focus of user-made content and/or theres multi-player...

There also seems to be more focus on evil vs good even though it may not be interesting or deep and is just there to say their game is longer than it actually is because you can play it again plus a generally insignificant decision.

'Open-World' RPGs also have the current preoccupation that a huge world automatically immerses the player... which makes it okay to make the whole world empty and same looking (also called the Bethseda Syndrome).

Theres also the popular idea of throwing in a bunch of genres into one package and then not doing any of them all that well. The jack of all trades game makes for a MEDIOCRE game. Diversity is cool, but you gotta do at least one of them well...

Also, remakes and "sequels to games that no one wants revived because they'll get raped *COUGH*OBLIVION WITH GUNS*COUGH*".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryth

Also, remakes and "sequels to games that no one wants revived because they'll get raped *COUGH*OBLIVION WITH GUNS*COUGH*".

---

What's especially ironic about this statement is that Fallout 3 is immesurably better than Oblivion. :monster:

Fallout is definitely better than Oblivion, but Fallout 3 looks like a complete tub of :bou::bou::bou::bou: when compared to the first two games. Neither TESIV or FO3 are all that good.