Things That Bother You About Gaming

[Avaitor]

Yeah, it was still incentive enough for me to get a Wii. I had basically abandoned my Gamecube at that point, and the rest of the console was interesting enough for me to want to try it.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Oh no, you're definitely right. Like I said, it might be my close-mindedness coming out, because I don't play any of those games that comes out with a new console on launch (Wii Sports and Forza don't interest me), but to go for 2+ years with nothing, that's pushing it. If I were a Nintendo fan that would probably get me to drop them, or rather close to it. I'd probably drop Sony and Microsoft if they did something similar, but then again, I was very late to the party when it came to getting my PS3 and 360 so the games were already there for me.

But I do agree that people are very quick to say that _______ will be crap. Heck, I'm actually looking forward to the PS4 now, but if there are no games that interest me at launch I won't get it until later on down the road if there are games actually worth my time.

Well, yeah, I think we can both agree that the Wii-U's current line-up is very bland, and there hasn't really been enough revealed about the software for the upcoming Microsoft and Sony consoles to conclude whether those will have interesting launches or not. That said, I doubt any of the new games from this gen will really manage to impress me until at least next year when we get some of the better developers coming out with games that have been in the works for a decent amount of time, rather than the very rushed products that we typically get bombarded with by third-rate developers who want a quick cash-grab while the current generation is still new and hyped up to the extreme.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I think EK means that the Wii's original selection wasn't very strong. And to be fair, he is right. The best games that were available at first were Twilight Princess, which was also on the Gamecube, and Wii Sports, which got old a week after you first played it. It took a while for more of the great games, like the Galaxys, Brawl, No More Heroes, etc, to come out.

Really, most Nintendo consoles never had a great opening selection. Most consoles, in fact.

Yeah, this is exactly what I meant. Of course I would never deny that the Wii had a stellar launch from a business point of view, as it easily trumped the sales of both the XBOX360 and PS3 launches combined (and even those consoles sold a lot).

As Avaitor pointed out, my statement about the Wii having a weak launch was in reference to its software line-up. As you guys pointed out, it wasn't until 2007's Super Mario Galaxy that the Wii started turning things around by bringing out quality products that people had come to expect from a Nintendo console.

[gunswordfist]

And since Sony seems to not want a traditional R&C game to be made, who knows where Insomniac will end up in a few years? I don't think their brand of games are really in-line with the "AAAA" plan and I'd hate for them to die off.

I think it's more that Insomniac is just taking a break from traditional R&C for the moment. Then again, maybe A4O and FFA were Sony mandates. I have no idea.

Hopefully Nintendo will buy R&C, J&D, and Sly from Sony. Wouldn't that be something!

That would fucking suck.

[Spark Of Spirit]

First years for consoles are almost always terrible, I think only the SNES (which also had a bit of a dry spell after launch) and the Dreamcast (which was delayed a year so it didn't launch with unfinished games like Japan's Sonic Adventure) are the only ones that had strong starts.

I've been playing these things for a long time, so I barely ever pay attention to the first year outside of some first party stuff. Year two is when it begins to cook.

[gunswordfist]

Ugh at people thinking the X-Men Legends games and MUA is better than Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2. XML and MUA1 are already horribly outdated and it's actually fun to play through all of MUA2. I liked how you got to go to a much wider variety of levels in MUA1 (Space levels, Mephisto's realm, Murderworld, etc.), how it didn't have the stupid fucking Civil War storyline and some of its heroes should have been in MUA2 but that's it. Why anyone would rather have XML3 instead of MUA3 is beyond me.

[Avaitor]

I remember really liking X-Men: Legends, but never got to play the sequel or the MUA games.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I played MUA1 back on the original XBOX on co-op with my older brother and liked it a lot at the time. That said, I'm not surprised to hear that it hasn't aged well, but I'm still interested in trying out the sequel someday. The only reason that I haven't done so yet is because I really no nobody to play the game with, and the MUA games are the kind that I prefer to play co-op rather than solo.

[gunswordfist]

I used to like the XML games and MUA1 but they got stale after awhile. Meanwhile MUA2 got much needed gameplay improvements and is one of the only good 3D beat em ups from last gen, if not the best from that era. I love beating the hell out of superhero and villain bosses. The game is kind of addictive.

I played MUA1 back on the original XBOX on co-op with my older brother and liked it a lot at the time. That said, I'm not surprised to hear that it hasn't aged well, but I'm still interested in trying out the sequel someday. The only reason that I haven't done so yet is because I really no nobody to play the game with, and the MUA games are the kind that I prefer to play co-op rather than solo.

And good luck finding anyone online to play against. It's a barren wasteland there.

[Grave]

The lack of replay value. This is the one edge that I will give retro games and RPGs. Games these days just lack replaying because everything is all tied into either DLC or its all about rankings, achievements, and trophies. I could careless about leaderboards. The only games that should even bother with rankings and leaderboards imo is the fighting games. Games like Batman: Arkham City, nah, I don't want to see who can beat these games in the fastest time. I want to unlock costumes that have merit. I want to unlock some type of weapon that just makes me feel like I can plow through the game when I start a New Game+. I want to feel rewarded when I actually beat the game. Give me more than a costume that does nothing but change my looks.

I think this is one of the reasons why I hold the Metal Gear franchise (mainly MGS3 at least until I play MGS4) so high compared to a lot of games, because it gives you a reason to want to come back to play the game again. Because you know once you get stealth camo, all types of fun opens up.

But naw, why care for any of this stuff when you can just go and download it? Don't get me started with games like Phoenix Wright. I'm losing my train of thought so I'll stop there.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

The lack of replay value. This is the one edge that I will give retro games and RPGs. Games these days just lack replaying because everything is all tied into either DLC or its all about rankings, achievements, and trophies. I could careless about leaderboards. The only games that should even bother with rankings and leaderboards imo is the fighting games. Games like Batman: Arkham City, nah, I don't want to see who can beat these games in the fastest time. I want to unlock costumes that have merit. I want to unlock some type of weapon that just makes me feel like I can plow through the game when I start a New Game+. I want to feel rewarded when I actually beat the game. Give me more than a costume that does nothing but change my looks.

I agree with you 100% on this. That was my main problem with last gen's games. ESPECIALLY the AAA titles. I can't stand the modern gaming trends of just trying to make a very linear blockbuster experience with little to no depth and of course no replay value. Its all about extending the life of games these days, rather than making a game with enough substance to keep people playing it for a long time without any add-ons whatsoever. It all fits in with the modern gamer and modern gaming journalists mentality of just playing whatever's hot at the time and then dropping it after 8 hours (or maybe 50+ hours if its a multiplayer-heavy game or an RPG), and then moving onto then next popular thing. Most modern gamers don't seem to care or get the value of a game that has enough care put into its development to the point where it has so much more to offer beyond just the first time that you play it. Games like Ninja Gaiden Black, the Resident Evil games, and the MGS games can be played multiple times over and still feel fresh in some way each and every time you play them based on just how much they really have to offer beyond your initial experience at beating their respective story modes.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Where do I even start with this?

[Foggle]

Looks pretty cool. Sucks it's only on phones, though.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Other than the microtransactions, anyway.

[Commode]

Contra on a smartphone?  That's murder right there, those games are hard enough with traditional controls.