Things That Bother You About Gaming

[Nel_Annette]

MICROTRANSAGGEDON HAS BEGUN. 

[Rynnec]

http://www.joystiq.com/2013/12/07/konami-requests-skullgirls-takedown-from-xbla-psn/

Fuck off, Konami.

[gunswordfist]

Gold in the comments section:

"Another win for the physical/digital debate. A physical game can never be "delisted". It exists on the second hand market forever as long as there are copies to be had."

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

So over the course of last gen, there have been a growing number of people claiming that older 3D games (and even classics in general) mostly haven't aged well and only look good through rose-tinted nostalgia glasses. These sorts of people claim that those games are in fact bad games and just don't measure up to the great games of today. While there certainly are games out there that haven't aged well, there are many games that get victimized by these claims which I feel still hold up well and don't deserve nearly as much criticism as people may give them.

One example is the older DMC games, specifically the first one. That came up a lot this year when people were defending the reboot and saying that fans overrated the older games. Common problems they pointed out ranged from a clumsy camera to challenging difficulty. And yes, older games will have a certain amount of crudeness to them. Sometimes the platforming can be rather clumsy and the voice acting is horrid by today's standards (though arguably gives the game more charm for how hilariously bad it is). But people praise newer games for being so streamlined and seamless, while never truly understanding WHY those older games were even popular in their day to begin with. DMC1 still has MUCH more clever enemy and boss design than most games today. People can rave about Uncharted or Call of Duty all they want, but the single-player for those games don't have nearly the creativity or nuance of some of the classics.

With something like DMC, I don't think these people even play more than a few levels of it before deeming it crap by today's standards. They never try to get better at games, and therefore have no appreciation for the rewarding feeling of learning how to use the nuance of these games to their advantage, and furthermore how varied these experiences are compared to most newer stuff. Yeah, there is definitely some crap elements to these games, but god forbid people have to out up with some crude elements to get to the good stuff. I'd take these games with their flaws over games that baby the player the entire way through in the name of being more seamless.

Anyways, DMC was just an example, but I've noticed the same thing for many other action games, like Ninja Gaiden, Resident Evil, Max Payne, and so on. I just don't buy that older games are inherently inferior to the great games of today. I just feel like you have to not be so shallow and know how to look past some of the minor elements that haven't aged well in order to realize what still makes these games amazing. Anyways, I'm just noticing a slowly but surely growing negativity towards some truly classic games, and it does definitely bother me somewhat.

[Spark Of Spirit]

The single most annoying comment when just about ANY game that's announced that doesn't look like a AAA shooter with uber-realistic gameplay:

It looks like an N64 game! Come on, this is *insert year here which doesn't actually mean anything* and we deserve better!

I have come to the conclusion that few people actually remember what N64 games look like, because most haven't played one since 2001. Not a good barometer of judgement.

[talonmalon333]

What I think is that, and with some exceptions, what age mostly does is make a game less welcoming by today's standards. For example, some people might think Super Mario 64 isn't as welcoming as Super Mario 3D World. However, anyone who can look past superficial things like that will see that the game is still very good. Games like Mario Galaxy being better doesn't mean Mario 64 got worse. It just means they topped the level of quality they hit back then.

Now, what I said above doesn't apply to all old 3D games. There are some old 3D games that just don't hold up in their core design. But it's far from the claims that people make, like "the N64 is only good if you have overwhelming nostalgia attached to it".

Also, I've heard many people say that Twilight Princess is technically a superior game to Ocarina of Time, because it is apparently "a better and more polished version of the same game". This annoys me as it implies TP is "objectively" a better game and picking OoT is just subjectively picking the game that's actually inferior. Yeah, liking OoT more than TP is subjective. But saying TP is better than OoT is also subjective. And in my opinion, the reasons why people claim TP is factually better are superficial. Yeah, the controls, graphics, sound quality, and writing are better. But those types of things are expected with the evolution in gaming.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Yes, I'm a proponent of judging games on the era they were made in. I can't blame an old FPS for not having iron-sights when they weren't invented yet, or a third person action game for having analog camera control in an age before twin sticks. I might not enjoy those aspects, but I live with them. If I couldn't I wouldn't be playing old games because what's the point?

[Eddy]

I remember people bitching that Deadly Premonition looked like a PS1 game. Now, Deadly Premonition is no graphical powerhouse, but have these people SEEN a PS1 game lately?

[Rynnec]

Critics said similar things about the Disgaea games looking like SNES games.

[Nel_Annette]

Hey guys, I'm going to copyright basic words like "candy" and "saga" because I'm a fuckwit that doesn't want other game companies using those words for the titles of their games, as it might damage the sales of my shitty ass game. 

[gunswordfist]

Did those idiots succeed at that?

[Nel_Annette]

They got "candy" trademarked. Now they're suing that new game Banner Saga for use of the word "saga". Pathetic and greedy. A comment on Kotaku actually made me laugh.

"(Candy Crush is) hardly a saga. It's 8mb at best." 

[gunswordfist]

Those morons actually pulled that off? I guess everyone who pulled that shitty game gave them the income to be able to do something that ridiculous.

[Eddy]

Wait, hold up, they actually succeeded in copyrighting the word "candy"? How the hell did that happen?

[gunswordfist]

Wait, hold up, they actually succeeded in copyrighting the word "candy"? How the hell did that happen?

Once I think about it, it's even crazier than I thought. I assume this just means video game title but I'm sure Reese's or whatever should be kicking the shit out of them in court right now for even thinking to try to copyright any use of the word.