Gaming is dead/Long live gaming.

GAMING IS DEAD.

The mental issue.I quote: "We do not do this because it's easy, but because it's hard.". Mini-maps. Blips. Scripted events. Rubber-banding. Hints popping up out of nowhere. And the most contagious disgrace of all: Quick Time Events. All try their best to take away as much challenge as they possibly can so you can breeze through like the mindless zombie you seemingly are.

1+2=3Sequels. Digits littering the entire market. Once legendary studio's are now old dogs afraid of learning new tricks. It's sad. It's a vicious cycle of overused and rehashed plots, style, and gameplay mechanics. The result: hardly any of them are memorable, or even fun to play anymore.

The word & the image.I quote the majority of game journalists: 'this looks good'. So here I was, thinking videogames' unique selling points were supposed to be unique types of gameplay. But that which makes a videogame a videogame is underdeveloped and left out in the cold.

And some other STD's like having a multiplayer is obligatory, even though it is rarely entertaining. Then there's the paradox that is DLC - content that's usually done before the game actually gets released and could be on your disc, making for a richer game. And of course collectibles. Good god, collectibles. It is a cheap, boring and old fashioned type of gameplay which rarely fits in the game it's implemented in.



LONG LIVE GAMING.

What now? The most interesting modern titles I have played these last few years did not suffer from the diseases mentioned above. They are... serene. They are mysterious. They are innovative. They don't involve much words. They evoke emotions. They don't take all your money. They don't have million-dollar budgets. They actually sell themselves through challenging gameplay and interactive storytelling. For me, they are the future.

It's the underground. Riding the wind as a petal gave me a feeling of freedom like no other game has ever accomplished. And the thrill of passing those freaky black spider legs was so... sigh. No hints, no words, no help. Just me. And a challenge.


And in the end, all I'm asking for... is for you to stop holding my freaking hand. Don't point out where to go. Let my favorite character die. Don't let me be the strongest. Don't make me a one man army. Kill my friends or family. Make me want to come after you. Outsmart me. Challenge me. Try your best to not let me succeed. But don't interrupt me. Let me control my character. Don't think for me. Don't give me the solution. Do not script me. Make me experiment different possibilities. Let me explore things. Teach me consequence. Reward me.

And challenge me to play a game.




Agreed?

I kind of like mini-maps and tutorials. And QTEs. I'm glad the days of games throwing you into the lion's den without a clue are over. I like a challenge, but life is already a challenge enough. And there are no guides or tutorials for that. I play games for the overall fun factor. Running around a room for a half hour only to finally realize the princess can open the way by getting close to the giant statues is not fun. You don't need to give me a full walkthrough, but at least tell me what abilities I have at my disposal and give me a general sense of what I'm doing or where I'm going.

I agree with you about the sequels. Too many sequels these days. Developers should take more chances and try to create more original experiences. All these big franchises started off as originals at some point, after all. That being said, it's hard to argue with the fact that sequels are where the money is. People like what is familiar, and, if a game is popular, an updated version will also be popular. Gaming companies are still corporations and the goal of corporations is to make money for their investors. So if sequels keep selling, companies will keep making them. A sequel probably costs less to make on average and is less of a risk to produce than an original, so the choice from a bottom-line perspective is obvious. However, I think a better business strategy is to go ahead and make your sequels, but use the revenue from those to fund more original projects. I think people will eventually get sick of Call of Duty, Halo, etc. and we will need the Next Big Thing.

I like graphics, but I agree that they get too much influence with reviewers. Plenty of PS1 or older games would be considered horrible by today's graphical standards but are still really fun games and are not eyesores. Also I'm sick of 3D. I'm glad for systems like the DS and downloadable games that still have plenty of good sprite-based games.

I think DLC was one of the worst things to happen to gaming. It's one thing to produce an add-on for a completed project. Who wouldn't want to try new levels for Super Mario World, for example. But to purposefully leave off developed items only to make them DLC later is both horrible and ingenious. Undead Nightmare for Red Dead Redemption is an example of good DLC: it's a brand new scenario separate from the main game that may not have been developed had DLC not existed. Add-on characters for Marvel vs. Capcom 3 is an example of bad DLC: trying to squeeze those extra bucks from you for a game that already cost $60 (especially since they released a brand new version of the game less than a year later!).

I like having control over my characters but at the same time I do enjoy the more cinematic approach to today's games. I like a lot of character interaction because otherwise I find the experience one-dimensional. Maybe because I'm older now and have less of an imagination. I do enjoy exploration (especially in RPGs), but I prefer a scripted more linear plot because I find that to be more focused and powerful. If I had a choice between challenge and a good story, I'd pick good story every time.

Flower and Limbo are two of the best games ever crafted and their beauty and perfection can be attributed almost entirely to their simplicity. Thatgamingcompany, the company behind Flower and Flow and the upcoming Journey for which I'm very excited, has a good philosophy for developing games, which in short views video games in the artistic sense of communicating something experiential and existential to the audience.

That being said, though, there's room for all kinds of video games in the modern market. I don't agree that the things OP mentioned necessarily mean games are being dumbed down. Instead perhaps the more complicated the games get the more developers find it necessary to make them easy to access initially but with steeper roads to climb to reach mastery.

We all choose to play games. Nobody forces any game on us. Therefore it is our responsibility, not theirs (the developers), to make the right decisions as to whether or not to buy a game, or how we express ourselves to the developers as a community of consumers and players after the fact.

With gaming taking over as the leading form of entertainment globally, there are a wide range of personalities and, dare I say, IQs playing games now. Some people, quite simply, need the help. Nearly all tutorials are skippable, in any case. Also, there are plenty of games that are freaking hard as hell. You're not looking hard enough.

Video games are a visual medium. We interact with them, first and foremost, visually. Flower is a very simple game, but it is incomparably lovely and a joy to play. However, if it looked like crap, however simply and pleasant the controls and story are, it would not be nearly as enjoyable. Yes journalists over-emphasize graphics sometimes, but that's because the visual aspect of a game is something that everyone can understand, and understand at an almost instinctive level. Battle mechanics, story, these are things that aren't always agreed upon--it's difficult to be objective about such things. Some people think FFVIII had a terrible story (smart people), other people loved it. Some people love JRPG style rpgs while others enjoy the somewhat ambiguous and not yet fully defined western style more. For that matter, games like Flower and Limbo, which part of me thinks everyone should just love blindly because they're so perfect, don't please everyone, either.

Underground is not a synonym for good. There are as many bad indie games (and movies, and books, and music) as there are bad mainstream games. This fallacy (of indie/underground = quality) is tantamount to our society's refusal to appreciate (and learn from) the past. There's nothing inherently wrong with trying to pull yet more out of a dried up genre. Every once in a while this process produces a standout wonderful game. Large companies simply cannot follow the indie model. It's just not a valid (large scale) business model. Of course, I guess you would say then, "down with large companies," but that's just silly, they are the foundation, there would be no gaming industry without the industry, without the big boys, like it or not.

In my personal opinion, most of the problems OP mentioned aren't the developers' faults at all, but the consumers. The gamers. And it's not really the gamers' faults, it's the system. And the system is really just a byproduct of humanity's social evolution, which is just a byproduct of its biological evolution which is just a byproduct of nature.

I want to play Limbo :(

Anyway, I agree with pretty much everything Del said. I would like to add that sequels can be pretty sweet sometimes. Importing player decisions into Mass Effect 2 made it fun to revisit Mass Effect over and over again, and I had such a blast making the WORST IMPORT EVER in preparation for Mass Effect 3 coming out next year. Everybody is dead but Shepard and Joker and I totally ruined everything ever at every opportunity. It's going to be great to contrast it with my "perfect" file.

The Mass Effect series took sequels to a whole new level. Sequels are fine if the series is supposed to be a trilogy. But 5 years from now when ME4 is announced you may see people roll their eyes (but probably not me since I'm down for more ME).

So an ode to Dark Souls, basically.

I love minimaps, and the game not telling you how it's supposed to be played is just annoying. Tutorials have just taken over the purpose that game manuals had in the past. Learning by doing is much better than learning by reading in some manual. It doesn't need to tell you every single aspect of gameplay, but I don't think I've had a tutorial that does that either.

Being a one-man-army is also something that has been around since the dawn of gaming

Honestly, many of the things you say you want in a game actually exists in many modern games. Maybe you're just playing the wrong ones?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

All these big franchises started off as originals at some point, after all.

---

That is indeed very true and in a perfect world this alone should be motivation enough for companies to take a chance. However, as you said, they don't really need to as the company is already making money as it is. And with money as the goal there seems to be little to no value given for a memorable and enriching experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chionos

Flower and Limbo are two of the best games ever crafted and their beauty and perfection can be attributed almost entirely to their simplicity. Thatgamingcompany, the company behind Flower and Flow and the upcoming Journey for which I'm very excited, has a good philosophy for developing games, which in short views video games in the artistic sense of communicating something experiential and existential to the audience.

---

These are indeed exceptions of what's mentioned above and Thatgamingcompany's philosophy is lovely. Same goes for team ICO who so far only made original, memorable, enriching experiences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

However, I think a better business strategy is to go ahead and make your sequels, but use the revenue from those to fund more original projects.

---

Agreed. I wish there were more developers who put this to practice. Portal emerged from such tactic, if I recall correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

If I had a choice between challenge and a good story, I'd pick good story every time.

---

I'm not sure whether these two are actually a case of 'either one or the other'. Combining exploration and a good story on the other hand seems to be very rare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chionos

That being said, though, there's room for all kinds of video games in the modern market. I don't agree that the things OP mentioned necessarily mean games are being dumbed down. Instead perhaps the more complicated the games get the more developers find it necessary to make them easy to access initially but with steeper roads to climb to reach mastery.

---

I can imagine the developers wanting to make their more complicated games easier to access, but the steeper roads to climb are exactly what I think is missing from most games. In a lot of games there is no mastery. To me, mastery is overcoming a challenge by learning and improving. I believe that curve does actually get dumbed down in a large number of games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chionos

We all choose to play games. Nobody forces any game on us. Therefore it is our responsibility, not theirs (the developers), to make the right decisions as to whether or not to buy a game, or how we express ourselves to the developers as a community of consumers and players after the fact. ... Also, there are plenty of games that are freaking hard as hell. You're not looking hard enough.

---

Point taken. That may indeed be the case. Maybe I'm just a little frustrated that games to my liking are no longer the standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chionos

Video games are a visual medium. We interact with them, first and foremost, visually.

---

I don't agree. We interact with the in game environment not only with our senses (which goes beyond visuals only, like sound and the touch of a controller), but mostly with our mind. We connect the links to complete a certain task not with our eyes, but by thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chionos

Underground is not a synonym for good.

---

You're right, I think I may have to rewrite that statement. Although I do believe underground does represent a different motivation for actually making a game compared to triple A developers. Hence innovation and originality is mostly found here, but like you say, that doesn't guarantee it's good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chionos

In my personal opinion, most of the problems OP mentioned aren't the developers' faults at all, but the consumers. The gamers. And it's not really the gamers' faults, it's the system. And the system is really just a byproduct of humanity's social evolution, which is just a byproduct of its biological evolution which is just a byproduct of nature.

---

Still trying to wrap my around this, but I believe this may be a bit out of scope for this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jessweeee♪

Importing player decisions into Mass Effect 2 made it fun to revisit Mass Effect over and over again, and I had such a blast making the WORST IMPORT EVER in preparation for Mass Effect 3 coming out next year. Everybody is dead but Shepard and Joker and I totally ruined everything ever at every opportunity. It's going to be great to contrast it with my "perfect" file.

---

Unfortunately I haven't played the ME series, mainly because I'm on PS3 and we're missing the first one, but the concept of continuing with imports from previous games adds a lot of value to the sequel.


Edit: props to everyone who takes the time to follow this discussion!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete for President

Agreed?

---

Pretty much, yeah. :p I would say more, but repetition isn't fun!

EDIT: I do have to say though, I love manuals. I think moving towards in game tutorials is sad. Manuals are a companion, to keep on hand and to reference. Sure, I don't mind in game tips, but I like to figure it out as I go, not be shown how to do things and then be told to continue doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jiro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete for President

Agreed?

---

EDIT: I do have to say though, I love manuals. I think moving towards in game tutorials is sad. Manuals are a companion, to keep on hand and to reference. Sure, I don't mind in game tips, but I like to figure it out as I go, not be shown how to do things and then be told to continue doing it.

---

Word. For example the maps given with the manual in GTA III and Vice City booklets were awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete for President

I can imagine the developers wanting to make their more complicated games easier to access, but the steeper roads to climb are exactly what I think is missing from most games. In a lot of games there is no mastery. To me, mastery is overcoming a challenge by learning and improving. I believe that curve does actually get dumbed down in a large number of games.

---

Couldn't agree more with this honestly. As much as I still enjoy and play more mainstream titles, I think there's a reason that my tastes have by and large strayed towards competitive multiplayer games in the last several years. Whenever I have the itch for something challenging: something that requires time and effort in the pursuit of mastery, it's hard to find it outside of competing with other human beings. At least there, there is no coddling the player. There are no hints and tips for how to deal with your opponent. And there aren't checkpoints if you fail. You compete head to head with another human being hoping that win or lose you can learn something that will help you improve.

I'll probably have some more thoughts to share later on, though I do agree with you on a lot of what you said Pete. With the exception of rubber banding being something in there to help the player anyway. It can to a certain extent, though in most recent Mario Kart games it seems to do the opposite and provide a borderline unfair advantage to the NPC's to make up for the fact that we haven't improved racing AI one bit in almost 20 years. And then once you put those games on 150cc it usually crosses the border into genuinely unfair.

I think that was well written, Pete, and I agree with the spirit of nearly everything you said. Although I think the QTE fad has died off, it seemed confusing and outdated when Battlefield 3's campaign had it, I can't remember the last new game I played that did it, other than God of War III, but it wouldn't be God of War without the insanely brutal and over-the-top QTEs.

I understand that big companies need to make money. I'm an RPG guy, but I love me some big shooters and racing games as well. But I think the current environment is not very conducive to meaningful experiences. A game doesn't have to innovate or revolutionize, but it should have that charm or that x-factor, that magical video game element that really pulls you in, but I have to say even the cream of the crop games this gen just don't have that. This generation has been disappointingly mediocre. But I have a weird mind state where I can admit to being disappointed, but still put that aside and enjoy something for what it is nonetheless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jiro

EDIT: I do have to say though, I love manuals. I think moving towards in game tutorials is sad. Manuals are a companion, to keep on hand and to reference. Sure, I don't mind in game tips, but I like to figure it out as I go, not be shown how to do things and then be told to continue doing it.

---

Co-sign 110%!!! It's super disappointing that most games give you a couple black and white pages to pass for a manual! I love manuals with awesome artwork from the game and cool character portraits like Metal Gear Solid. Even though MGS4 was black and white, I still loved the comics they packed in, especially the Metal Gear Online one at the end. It was funny! Back in the NES days games used to come with entire strategy guides for them! I know some passionate publishers make an effort to do this, but I'd really like to see it more, especially for a big AAA title.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

Co-sign 110%!!! It's super disappointing that most games give you a couple black and white pages to pass for a manual! I love manuals with awesome artwork from the game and cool character portraits like Metal Gear Solid. Even though MGS4 was black and white, I still loved the comics they packed in, especially the Metal Gear Online one at the end. It was funny! Back in the NES days games used to come with entire strategy guides for them! I know some passionate publishers make an effort to do this, but I'd really like to see it more, especially for a big AAA title.

---

Comics in MGS4's manual? Funny story: I've been so conditioned by games coming with troutty manuals for the better part of at least 10 years that I haven't read one in at least as long. I've never even looked at MGS4's manual.

But I agree that it's sad manuals have gone to black and white with minimal information past the bare bones gameplay stuff and screen caps that are so hard to see you wonder why they bothered. I remember when I got a Sega Genesis a few years after I got a SNES and seeing Sonic 2's black and white manual while asking myself what the hell this trout was after years of glorious full colour SNES manuals. I used to read the manual for FFVI cover to cover like it was the greatest book ever written. I'd sit their just looking at Amano's art for half an hour some days. I got to see games like Illusion of Gaia have their entire strategy guide in the manual like you mentioned.

It was glorious. And that's without getting into the number of fold out maps and full sized posters I got out of these things too. The only company that really does anything remotely comparable these days is Atlus.

Which actually gives me a side line into something I want to mention: companies complain about piracy and used sales hurting their bottom line. They come up with intrusive DRM that forces paying customers to put up with a worse copy of the game than the pirates get once it's inevitably cracked. But you know what I honestly believe would be more effective (aside from making better games)? Give us more in the damn case. Instead of some low quality manual, make it as much a full colour art book as a guide to learning how to play the game. Give me a soundtrack disc that costs you a few extra cents to print and package in the case. I don't have the disposable income I used to, and I will wait a few months or a year or buy used to get your game cheaper if it's not at the top of my must play list or I don't have the time. But I will go out of my way to buy Atlus games brand new, simply because I don't know if I'll be able to get the packaged art book and soundtrack in a few months or a year, and I'm damn sure it will not be in the used copy Gamestop is selling. I don't care if I have to put off buying comics for a few weeks, skip a meal out with the wife (I'm a terrible husband), or whatever else, I will get the Atlus games I want on day 1, even if I cold otherwise wait for the game itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

I don't care if I have to put off buying comics for a few weeks, skip a meal out with the wife (I'm a terrible husband), or whatever else, I will get the Atlus games I want on day 1, even if I cold otherwise wait for the game itself.

---

LOL this line is epic although I do feel for your wife a little bit man she's putting up with your bizarre obsession with these weird games from Japan!

But yeah we do need more of this stuff. Funny how artbooks and soundtracks do come with games, but not the standard edition like Atlus does, but the oversized boxes and prices of limited editions. I think it would be cool if they just put all that stuff in one game-sized, but deeper, box, not with the crazy Helghast helmet that now watches over me while I sleep, judging me with its yellow eyes for desperately holding on to my childhood.

I like to think the half-cloaked Scout action figure is taking out germs with his VC32 sniper rifle, though.

I just want Microprose and oldschool Firaxis and Maxis to come back. I want Paradox to keep doing what they're doing (minus all the DLC.) I don't want any of this social gaming crap, I want old strategy games with manuals the size of the Bible and UIs that lean dangerously close to being too complicated.

I don't speak for everyone, of course. I speak for myself and for MILF, though. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

LOL this line is epic although I do feel for your wife a little bit man she's putting up with your bizarre obsession with these weird games from Japan!

---

To be fair, I had shelves filled with a few hundred video games and boxes filled with what must at this point be thousands of comics when she met me and I made no effort to hide these facts from her. She knew what she was getting into, though I'm sure there are some days that she regrets not turning around and running the other way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike

I want old strategy games with manuals the size of the Bible and UIs that lean dangerously close to being too complicated.

---

Let's not stop at too complicated though. Let's include buttons and menu's that do everything in their power to completely obfuscate their function from the user, while still conveying some bare minimum of clues as to what they do. I'm looking at you X-Com. I may love you, but sometimes you make me feel like a battered wife. You're so great the rest of the time that whenever I have to press a button I convince myself that you really do love me, and you're not this obtuse all of the time.

You guys are in luck! X-Com's coming back and it's going to be an immersive and mindblowing first person shooter!!!

I remember reading a PS1 magazine (it's like a games website made of 'paper' or something, my memory is hazy), well over a decade ago now, where in the letters section was a rant from some guy complaining that 'all games nowadays are just sequels, nothing original anymore'. Nostalgia goggles, my friend.

There was also a prophetic letter from somebody saying that 'a Final Fantasy game mixed with Disney characters would be awesome!'.

EDIT: Oh, and another one about how, far into the future of 2010 we'd be driving in our hovercars to buy a holo-copy of GTA7. The future sucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike

I just want Microprose and oldschool Firaxis and Maxis to come back. I want Paradox to keep doing what they're doing (minus all the DLC.) I don't want any of this social gaming crap, I want old strategy games with manuals the size of the Bible and UIs that lean dangerously close to being too complicated.

I don't speak for everyone, of course. I speak for myself and for MILF, though. :p

---

Europa's pretty speshul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

You guys are in luck! X-Com's coming back and it's going to be an immersive and mindblowing first person shooter!!!

---

If I wasn't certain that you were joking you'd be dead to me. :colbert:

I couldn't detect the sarcasm. I was going to ban him. You saved his ass Vivi22.

^ Thanks, Jiro!

NetHack exists, therefore gaming can never be dead.

I am pleased to say I have found some redemption and found a little faith in gaming by Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Where is my Heart. That means some of you have been right: I may have not been looking hard enough for gems like these. Dark Souls and the first Deus Ex are now on my wanted list, and I hope they will be gems for me too.

Edit: Deus Ex: HR's normal difficulty is called; give me a challenge. It could not have been more fitting as a response to this thread.

We are waiting for you.

this isn't the main thrust of the thread, but I think the point is important anyway. once games started allowing instant or on-demand saving (years ago), they became much much easier. Plus, regardless of the relative difficulty of games, we as players get older and more experienced. Of course the first games we play will seem hardest because we are youngest and have the least skill. And generally, aging leads us all to complain that things used to be better than they are now, for a number of reasons.

I don't play a ton of video games anymore (nor do I have the time), but the ones I do are amazing. Uncharted 2 and 3, Fallout 3, Portal and Portal 2, etc.

I don't agree that auto saving has to make games 'easier'. In fact, it allows the developer to create a much more difficult encounter.

Lets say you want it to take 1 hour to get past a certain part of your game. The old way would make you do 10 minutes per try because you have to re-do everything to get to that point. If you auto-save right before you can do one attempt every minute, allowing you to tune it difficult enough to require 60 attempts to complete instead of 6. In theory it allows you to make it 10x more difficult.

Unfortunately whenever a game developer wishes to capitalize on the 'hard game' market niche they do so by making the game moderately more difficult and adding a lot of repetition to pad every attempt.

I guess a good example of what I am talking about would be 'Prinny: Can I Really Be The Hero?' You start the game with 1000 lives and there is a checkpoint like every 30 seconds. It is also exceedingly difficult.

I think he means easier in the sense that you can go haphazardly through the game, knowing you are only losing a few seconds or minutes at most of your time if you make a wrong move. You have to think less about every move you make, and that makes it easier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VeloZer0

I don't agree that auto saving has to make games 'easier'. In fact, it allows the developer to create a much more difficult encounter.

Lets say you want it to take 1 hour to get past a certain part of your game. The old way would make you do 10 minutes per try because you have to re-do everything to get to that point. If you auto-save right before you can do one attempt every minute, allowing you to tune it difficult enough to require 60 attempts to complete instead of 6. In theory it allows you to make it 10x more difficult.

Unfortunately whenever a game developer wishes to capitalize on the 'hard game' market niche they do so by making the game moderately more difficult and adding a lot of repetition to pad every attempt.

I guess a good example of what I am talking about would be 'Prinny: Can I Really Be The Hero?' You start the game with 1000 lives and there is a checkpoint like every 30 seconds. It is also exceedingly difficult.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delicious Murder

I think he means easier in the sense that you can go haphazardly through the game, knowing you are only losing a few seconds or minutes at most of your time if you make a wrong move. You have to think less about every move you make, and that makes it easier.

---

Both are valid points, and both would suit different types of games I think.

I remember a few moments in Vagrant Story where I was on the edge of my seat nearly begging for a save point in the next room. Thrilling indeed.

It doesn't make it easier, it makes it less stressful. Part of the point I was making is that there are so many more things at play than how 'easy' or 'hard' the actual gameplay is.

Perhaps one of the problems is the 'hard game' desiring community hasn't drawn a distinction between all of the different things that can be used to make a game 'hard'. Punishing consequences for failure, exceedingly steep learning curves, extreme dexterity, all of these things can be used to different extents in games. A hard game doesn't have to be all of these things all the time.

I agree, it just makes things less tedious. You know what really pisses me off? When I get past a difficult encounter and then find out the hard way that the game developers put some retarded impossible to notice death trap just afterwards and I lose two hours of progress :|

I don't think QTE's are around as much as they were and in general I don't find them fun. I would comment about the hand holding thing, but I don't ever understand what people are talking about when they say that. As for difficulty I'm not entirely sure on the subject, but looking back at the games I've played this gen I found all of them to provide some kind of challenge. Some may have been easy on lower difficulty levels, but then I just changed the difficulty to give me that challenge. Portal was the game that gave me the most challenge this gen, but only on my first playthrough. After that, the solutions to the puzzles remained in my head and as a result I was able to solve them a lot faster than on my first run.

I felt that the Arkham games boss battles are far too easy and too simplistic in design with the exception of Mr. Freeze whose boss fight is even better and more challenging on New Game +.

I do despise the handling of DLC in a lot of recent games. Batman Arkham City and Uncharted 3's online passes are money grabs. Since Arkham City was revealed they treated Catwoman as a part of the main game that you didn't have to pay for up until like a week or two before the game released. I didn't support either game's handling and instead just got those disc locked content by downloading them off of someone else's account. My integrity is not worth such a small amount of money.