Editorial Five features that irreversibly ruined gaming forever

[DarkUnderlord]

Tags: Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords

It's been at least a week since someone's made a list, <a href="http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/features/133032.20090422.Five-features-that-changed-gaming/">so here's GamePlanet's "5 Features that changed gaming"</a>:
<br>
<blockquote>1) The cover system
<br>
2) The [faux] moral dilemma
<br>
<blockquote>Star Wars: Knights Of the Old Republic is to this day still not only one of the best Star Wars games ever made, but also one of the best role playing games, period. The combat, graphics, settlings, and story - all of this had such incredible polish that it practically made BioWare a household name.
<br>
<br>
One of the standout features of the title was being able to either follow the "light side" or the "dark side". This was done by having the player make moral decisions. While Knights Of the Old Republic was fairly straightforward with good and evil choices, future games to use this concept would elaborate further. Knights Of the Old Republic 2 had additional grey area in its choices, so the decisions were tougher to make. Mass Effect didn’t even give you the choices between good or evil, as you were always going to be the guy saving the galaxy. Your choices were more confined to playing things by the books, or punching panicking scientists in the face.</blockquote>
<br>
3) Achievements and Trophies
<br>
4) Co-operative gameplay
<br>
5) Stuck in the sandbox</blockquote>
<br>
Okay, so maybe 5 isn't so bad.
<br>
<br>
Spotted @ <a href="http://www.gamebanshee.com">GameBanshee</a>

 

[Wyrmlord]

The moral dillemma is total fucking bullshit.

Like GTA4. Trample 500 pedestrians but then be given the moral choice of sparing or killing the man who betrayed you in Russia. What the fuck?

Instead of understanding that this was bullshit, they thought that "grey" areas would make it less simplistic.

OH MY GOD IF I KILL THE BABY I SAVE THE TOWN IF I SPARE THE BABY I DOOM THE TOWN I AM IN SUCH A WRECK HERE MY LIFE DEPENDS ON PRESSING TWO ARBITRARY CHOICES LISTED ON A MENU ON A COMPUTER SCREEN WHAT DO I DO

 

[Multiple Sarcasm]

Oh, I see what they're up to. They're hoping to achieve such an irreversibly grand stupidity that a mere gaze at it would make brains leak out of our ears and our heads explode killing bystanders with skull shrapnel covered in vile, corrosive hatred...
Clever. But I'm onto them.

 

[MetalCraze]

Co-operative gameplay? What? I so wish more games had co-operative gameplay.

 

[Rhalle]

Let me add:

'Episodic Content'

and

Immedeate franchise-ization-- that every game has to have a title followed by a colon which is followed by a subtitle. It seems like no game can just have a single name anymore; there always has to be the suggestion of a sequel or future installments because of the subtitle, like it presumes it is a franchise worthy of successors before it even launches.

And God I fucking hate that.


I like co-op. I even like a cover system, if it's mixed with equally satisfying run and gun.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Co-operative gameplay? What? I so wish more games had co-operative gameplay.

The article DU linked to is praising those features.

DU jokingly called them as whole features that ruined gaming.

But yes, co-op makes any game infinitely more fun.

 

[Shannow]

Yes, and skyway was adressing DU, who only mentions sandbox gaming as not so bad.

All of the mentioned features can be very good in/for gaming, depending on implementation. Yes, even achievements (Just not kiddie-box online wankerism...)

 

[Monocause]

So far the only cRPGs that presented me with some tough-to-make choices were The Witcher, MotB and the original Fallouts (back when I played them the first time).

In other games I've played the choices were all but tough. You could be good or evil. There were no "sacrifice for the greater good" situations, no steal or starve, no kill or get mutilated. Nothing tough, it's all that Bioware'ish good-neutral-evil bullshit.

 

[Malachi]

In my opinion, they missed a big one that changed / ruined games forever -- the Xbox. Microsoft's console -- essentially a lobotomized PC -- had lulled game developers into thinking that they can hit two markets with a single game (PC and console), with only minimal adjustment between the two. More money for the same product!

Theoretically, developers could do a good job of this. But it turns out that game developers have proven to be horribly inept at adapting the console interface and controls to suit the PC. And console games, for lack of a better word, tend to be juvenile, twitch-focused, and (at times) just plain stupid. Hmm... perhaps I could put that more tactfully... let us just say that console games are aimed at a different, more profitable demographic.

This, in turn has led to the "dumbing-down" of the PC market. It simply does not make financial sense to develop a game for one market (PC) when you could develop for two (PC + console). Prior to the Xbox, there was crossover, but it took much more effort to do it, and so"console-itis" was minimal. Now it is rampant.

In a word, gentlemen, I blame the goddamned Xbox for the sorry state of PC gaming generally, and that of RPGs (which rely on people actually thinking now and then) in particular.

/soapbox

 

[Bluebottle]

4) Co-operative gameplay

:evil:

I geuninely wish it had, but not only has it not changed gameplay for the worse, it hasn't really changed gameplay much at all. Games that feature coop are pretty rare, and games that are designed with coop as the primary focus are even rarer.

 

[Wyrmlord]

I geuninely wish it had, but not only has it not changed gameplay for the worse, it hasn't really changed gameplay much at all.

This sentence totally contains the right number of negatives to make sense.

 

[Bluebottle]

I geuninely wish it had, but not only has it not changed gameplay for the worse, it hasn't really changed gameplay much at all.

This sentence totally contains the right number of negatives to make sense.

Yes, it didn't not.

 

[sheek]

Co-operative gameplay? What? I so wish more games had co-operative gameplay.

Same. I don't see what this has 'ruined', and it's always existed so not a recent "invention". There were ZX Spectrum games I remember that were team played.

 

[Luzur]

In my opinion, they missed a big one that changed / ruined games forever -- the Xbox. Microsoft's console -- essentially a lobotomized PC -- had lulled game developers into thinking that they can hit two markets with a single game (PC and console), with only minimal adjustment between the two. More money for the same product!

Theoretically, developers could do a good job of this. But it turns out that game developers have proven to be horribly inept at adapting the console interface and controls to suit the PC. And console games, for lack of a better word, tend to be juvenile, twitch-focused, and (at times) just plain stupid. Hmm... perhaps I could put that more tactfully... let us just say that console games are aimed at a different, more profitable demographic.

This, in turn has led to the "dumbing-down" of the PC market. It simply does not make financial sense to develop a game for one market (PC) when you could develop for two (PC + console). Prior to the Xbox, there was crossover, but it took much more effort to do it, and so"console-itis" was minimal. Now it is rampant.

In a word, gentlemen, I blame the goddamned Xbox for the sorry state of PC gaming generally, and that of RPGs (which rely on people actually thinking now and then) in particular.

/soapbox

 

[SuicideBunny]

Five features that irreversibly ruined gaming forever
<blockquote>
3) Achievements and Trophies
</blockquote>

story related fallout perks are achievements.
:ducksandcovers:

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

1) The cover system

How revolutionary. Even in Doom projectiles don't pass solid objects. I suppose this means the kind of systems where you always know what the enemies are doing because of the camera angle, even if you are ducking behind a sandbag wall facing in the opposing direction. How great.

2) The [faux] moral dilemma

I suppose since ~some ancient game I haven't played but which first featured moral choices it would have been silly to make an RPG where you can't make any. But it was certainly not KOTOR that did that first. Heck, even in Link's Awakening your name changes to "THIEF" for the rest of the game if you steal the shopkeeper's stuff - a more long-term consequence than some "Pay me 500 and I'll get you that cure - MWA HAHAHA HAA".

3) Achievements and Trophies

Instead of high-scores from since the first arcade games, and things like seeing the Metroid heroine with only bikini on for completing the game fast. Of course.

4) Co-operative gameplay

I suppose so, but that's a very old thing. You could as well say "3D graphics cards".

 

[Yeesh]

1) INTERNET FORUMS
Because bitter old nerds formerly could only mumble to themselves (and possibly their long suffering families) about how every game sucks.

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

1) INTERNET FORUMS
Because bitter old nerds formerly could only mumble to themselves (and possibly their long suffering families) about how every game sucks.

Totally NOT a alt. Seriously, Trust Me.

 

[racofer]

Co-operative gameplay? What? I so wish more games had co-operative gameplay.

 

[obediah]

3) Achievements and Trophies

Instead of high-scores from since the first arcade games, and things like seeing the Metroid heroine with only bikini on for completing the game fast. Of course.

Relying on high-scores in arcade games, and on hardware capable of offering little else in reason to keep playing is one thing. Coming back to those principles 20 years after gaming climbed above them just to monetize a compulsion for trivial competition/perfection is quite another (all with close to $0 development cost!)

The bikini deal is a case of more not always being better. In moderation, unlockables are a nice nod to fans. But, they are often abused as a cheap substitute for real content.

 

[Zomg]

Eh, I hate coop. It's never inherently fun or well-designed. People give it credit because they're essentially hanging out (either remotely or directly) with their friend and shooting the shit at the same time they're doing a moderately fun stimulus-response activity. I'd have as much fun doing yard work while buzzed and gabbing intermittently with said buddy as I'd have playing some random shooter zonked out on the couch and talking on a Goddamn headset. I play video games because I want long dissociative mental events, which is a solitary goal.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Eh, I hate coop. It's never inherently fun or well-designed. People give it credit because they're essentially hanging out (either remotely or directly) with their friend and shooting the shit at the same time they're doing a moderately fun stimulus-response activity. I'd have as much fun doing yard work while buzzed and gabbing intermittently with said buddy as I'd have playing some random shooter zonked out on the couch and talking on a Goddamn headset. I play video games because I want long dissociative mental events, which is a solitary goal.

I can see why she dumped you.

 

[Agent5]

Direct achievements are a bane. I don't need the developers to digitally congratulate me every time I do well in a video game, nor do I need bragging rights in the way of points. Perhaps if achievements weren't so often used in such arbitrary ways I might not dislike them as strongly as I do. Madden 2007 had an achievement one received by selecting an option in the Main Menu. I cannot wrap my mind around that.

 

[Ardanis]

1) The cover system

At least not for RPGs.

3) Achievements and Trophies

If they can't provide addictive gameplay or various playstyles then would I bother replaying it at all? Diablo2 is sure superb, but are there any achievments? I think not.

4) Co-operative gameplay

I for one prefer singleplayer.
On the other hand, we've got HoMM3, but that's much closer to chess than mindless shooters anyway...

2) The [faux] moral dilemma
5) Stuck in the sandbox

That's always good.

 

[HanoverF]

6) Retarded gaming "journalists"