Things That Bother You About Gaming

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

So, looking back on it, I did like Batman: Arkham Asylum when it first came out, and it still think it's a good game. It wasn't as excellent as critics made it out to be, IMO, but for its simplistic design, it was just the right length and had some good level design that made the game fun to complete 100% without getting boring. That said, Arkham City really soured my opinion of the series. It had the same gameplay style, but it was WAY too bloated, and IMO, the level design was nowhere near as tight as it was in the first game. It just felt bigger for the sake of being bigger, but people praised it all the same, but I have to wonder, were they praising it for its impressive scale, or because it was actually any fun? To me, the terrible side-quests and less refined level design made the game get boring really quick, and in truth, I really felt that it didn't need to be that big. In general, I can't really stand the notion of just making things bigger for the sake of it. I care far more about a quality experience over a lengthy one.

Also relating to the Batman Arkham games is a matter of combat. If you weren't aware, critics praise the shit out of its combat system for being incredibly simple and accessible. That's fair enough, and it's been proven to be popular for how many games copy it, including the recent Shadow of Mordor. However, I fear that this marks a decline in popularity of the more complex yet interesting combat systems of other games. For one thing, I once read a review that criticized NGS2's combat, calling it dated and comparing it to Arkham Asylum, essentially whining that the combat in that game didn't automatically make you feel like a bad-ass just for button-, asking and occasionally pulling off an easy telegraphed counter. In another case, I've seen many people praise DMC's combat and literally say that it puts the classic games to shame, with the honest to god reason they give being that they couldn't pull off cool combos in the original because it took too much skill, so that made it bad. Just because something had a learning curve to it, that doesn't make it unplayable. It's like everyone just wants instant gratification in every aspect of a game these days. Nobody cars about being rewarded for learning how to play a game better, these days, unless it's in multiplayer.

At any rate, I'm sort of exaggerating the problem because there are still a fair amount of people who respect the games with deeper learning curves, but I'm honestly noticing that the numbers of people who support these games seems to be steadily declining,mor rather it may just be that the number of gamers who just want easier stuff are growing.

[Spark Of Spirit]

"Sadly I never really liked any of Rare's (DKC) games that much so I'd only get DKC2 since that's supposedly the best one."

[gunswordfist]

http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/14/6974791/short-games-review

Then I got to the end of Polygon's review,

And this is where I ended reading that. Whoa, the guy actually thinks 8 hours is too long. I just...

Anyway, I personally have always hated the, "I wish games were shorter" argument. They made this thing called the save feature. You may have heard of it? I don't have time for it is not a good point at all. The only time games should be considered too long is if they seem/are too repetitive. That's it.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I only find games to be too long if they are really badly padded out with lots of filler. I should never be getting bored of what I'm doing through my playthrough. A game like RE4 is 20+ hours in length! but the entire game feels like a fresh experience from start to finish with little filler, so I consider the length to be perfect for that game. A game like the first DMC is actually reassy short and can be completed within 4-6 hours, easily, but once again, I find the length to be just fine because I don't feel like the game is padded and instead it actually feels very replayable.

[Spark Of Spirit]

http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/14/6974791/short-games-review

Then I got to the end of Polygon's review,

And this is where I ended reading that. Whoa, the guy actually thinks 8 hours is too long. I just...

Anyway, I personally have always hated the, "I wish games were shorter" argument. They made this thing called the save feature. You may have heard of it? I don't have time for it is not a good point at all. The only time games should be considered too long is if they seem/are too repetitive. That's it.

"8 hours is too long. I want a compact 4 hours. Then I can return it to Gamespot and get money back."

"This level design is too open, I want one with signs and point markers to funnel me down a hallway."

"You mean I don't get rewarded with meaningless perks for playing multiplayer? Why else would I play multiplayer? Fun?"

The arguments for some of the industry's dumber traits never ceases to amaze me. "Give me less content, less options, charge more, and every game is better!"

[Foggle]

Next year it'll have been a decade since F.E.A.R first released, and there still has yet to be an FPS with better gameplay mechanics or AI. I don't even care how derivative it turns out being, I feel like begging for a literal clone of the game at this point. Here's a checklist I think every FPS developer needs to start adhering to:

- Guns that feel satisfying to use. This is the core of every first person shooter. Make 'em loud and capable of ripping your enemies into little chunks. C'mon!
- AI that knows how to do things like flank or corner the player efficiently
- Health kits that the player can hold in their inventory for later. The concept of fully regenerating health belongs in a trash can
- Grenades that immediately explode when they touch enemies because HOLY SHIT YEAH
- Badass martial arts-based melee with that real risk vs. reward feeling. If you can actually manage to get close to an enemy during a firefight, you deserve to one-shot them!
- The ability to slow down time because why the hell not?
- NO AUTOMATIC COVER SYSTEMS EVER
- Lean keys, baby!
- Environmental destruction out the ass
- This wasn't in F.E.A.R., but the ability to hold all guns at once, of course!

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

While not quite as sophisticated as F.E.A.R.'s complex AI, Halo games come pretty close on Legendary difficulty, where enemies flank you regularly, take cover, evade grenades, throw grenades at you in exchange, and can even hijack vehicles from you. In Halo: Reach I even saw Elites hijack a human vehicle, and it was completely unscripted since it was my third time playing the game and I had never seen that before. They even had one take the gunner position. It blew my mind....until I blew them away with an awesomely skilled plasma grenade toss, but still, it was really cool to see something like that!

Anyways, I totally agree that F.E.A.R. is the best FPS ever. Not only did other developers not learn from it, but even Monolith seemed to forget what made it so awesome since they were never able to hit that level of quality again, even though I did like the second game well enough.

Next year will be the 10th anniversary of a lot if amazing games, when you think about it. There's Resident Evil 4, Devil May Cry 3, and Ninja Gaiden Black (granted that this year was the original version's 10th anniversary, but Black basically perfected the game), which is insane since one is my second favorite TPS of all time, and the other two are my top 2 favorite hack n' slash games ever made. Goddamn was 2005 an epic year for games.

[Foggle]

While not quite as sophisticated as F.E.A.R.'s complex AI, Halo games come pretty close on Legendary difficulty, where enemies flank you regularly, take cover, evade grenades, throw grenades at you in exchange, and can even hijack vehicles from you. In Halo: Reach I even saw Elites hijack a human vehicle, and it was completely unscripted since it was my third time playing the game and I had never seen that before. They even had one take the gunner position. It blew my mind....until I blew them away with an awesomely skilled plasma grenade toss, but still, it was really cool to see something like that!

The Halo series is probably the only thing that's even come close to F.E.A.R. 1 and its expansions in terms of AI. Which is totally bizarre, considering that... well... the game has two sequels. I remember reading though that F.E.A.R. didn't really have an AI system like most games do. IIRC they literally scripted every single enemy in the game separately to function intuitively based on the level they were placed in. That's some insane dedication, and proof of how amazing Monolith is (was?).

As far as core mechanics go, only the 2013 Shadow Warrior reboot and Wolfenstein: The New Order really compare for me (it took 8 years!). Hopefully Doom 4 will live up to its potential and finally dethrone F.E.A.R.

Anyways, I totally agree that F.E.A.R. is the best FPS ever. Not only did other developers not learn from it, but even Monolith seemed to forget what made it so awesome since they were never able to hit that level of quality again, even though I did like the second game well enough.

The sequels are fun (even parts of 3), but yeah, they completely fail to live up to the first game's legacy. Extraction Point is damn good though, even if it's only like 3 hours long and wasn't made by Monolith themselves.

Next year will be the 10th anniversary of a lot if amazing games, when you think about it. There's Resident Evil 4, Devil May Cry 3, and Ninja Gaiden Black (granted that this year was the original version's 10th anniversary, but Black basically perfected the game), which is insane since one is my second favorite TPS of all time, and the other two are my top 2 favorite hack n' slash games ever made. Goddamn was 2005 an epic year for games.

2005 really was an amazing year for video games. So was 2004, when I think about it. And 2001-2003. Dang.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Basically all of the PS2/GC/XBOX/DC gen was the best gen of gaming ever.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Is it strange to say that I miss the keycards that game journos were ripping on back in the '90s? Lead to more labyrinth level designs like those beasts in DOOM II.

[gunswordfist]

except duke nukem, i don't know any fpses with health kits you can store in your inventory.

[Foggle]

Basically all of the PS2/GC/XBOX/DC gen was the best gen of gaming ever.

Yes!

Is it strange to say that I miss the keycards that game journos were ripping on back in the '90s? Lead to more labyrinth level designs like those beasts in DOOM II.

Oh yeah, I definitely miss that kind of design too. They don't even need to use keycards specifically, they just need to make levels like that again.

except duke nukem, i don't know any fpses with health kits you can store in your inventory.

F.E.A.R. 1 & 2 and Blood are the only others I can think of off the top of my head. Some of the other Build Engine games might have had them too, though.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Also, speaking of things that nobody has ever learned from, why have no games ever tried to copy Ninja Gaiden Black's level design? I still think it's the best in the genre to this day. Even Bayonetta 2, which believe me looks super amazing and makes me really want to buy a Wii-U just to play it, still gets by on flashy environments featuring you fighting in crazy places or even on moving objects, but still has really linear levels at heart. I love how NGB has an interconnected world that wasn't as expansive as a Metroid game, but just perfectly sized and well-suited enough for a hack n' slash game. I don't care how flashy you make your environments; I will still always consider open and interconnected in-game areas to be more interesting level design, though it certainly wouldn't hurt for a game to combine the best of both worlds.

[Foggle]

Yeah, Ninja Gaiden and Devil May Cry still have the best level design in that genre IMO.

[gunswordfist]

bayonetta has my favorite. it's still the only game that feels nextgen to me.