Things that grind your gears in gaming
Discussion
The three things that really piss me off in gaming are:-
1) Console/PC exclusive games. I have been gagging to play The Last of Us and Destiny but I'm not buying a PS4 to do it.
2) Unskippable cutscenes especially in the second playthrough
3) Bad sports. Why can't gaming have good sportsmanship like other sports?? I know not everybody that plays football or rugby are good sports but gaming seems to be completely immune to fair play and good natured competitors.
1) Console/PC exclusive games. I have been gagging to play The Last of Us and Destiny but I'm not buying a PS4 to do it.
2) Unskippable cutscenes especially in the second playthrough
3) Bad sports. Why can't gaming have good sportsmanship like other sports?? I know not everybody that plays football or rugby are good sports but gaming seems to be completely immune to fair play and good natured competitors.
Lag.
Not a lot f**ks me off more than being killed by someone purely because of lag.....
PS - The Last of Us is worth buying a PS4 for. With the added bonus that Battlefield 1 and Skyrim will also be out soon..... Not to mention the VR kit that you could play X-Wings in with Battlefront too...
Not a lot f**ks me off more than being killed by someone purely because of lag.....
PS - The Last of Us is worth buying a PS4 for. With the added bonus that Battlefield 1 and Skyrim will also be out soon..... Not to mention the VR kit that you could play X-Wings in with Battlefront too...
In actual game design, why havent destructive physics engines been advanced?
Case in point - Red Faction: Guerilla. Great destructible environments, on PS3/XBox 360. Since then, there have been huge advances in processing capability and yet all we get are superficial graphical enhancements. I would like to see less graphical fidelity and more physics in games. Free up some head room for it by reducing the more superficial elements.
Red Faction: Guerilla wasn't the prettiest game, but I spent hours just blowing things up in interesting ways! Kerbal Space Program isn't the best looking game (although it has its moments), but the physics make it the game it is.
I understand that map design plays a role too - you can't have destructibility if it means that an integral part of the game has been blown up, but I'm fed up when generation after generation yields the same un-blow-uppable structures and scripted plot devices.
Case in point - Red Faction: Guerilla. Great destructible environments, on PS3/XBox 360. Since then, there have been huge advances in processing capability and yet all we get are superficial graphical enhancements. I would like to see less graphical fidelity and more physics in games. Free up some head room for it by reducing the more superficial elements.
Red Faction: Guerilla wasn't the prettiest game, but I spent hours just blowing things up in interesting ways! Kerbal Space Program isn't the best looking game (although it has its moments), but the physics make it the game it is.
I understand that map design plays a role too - you can't have destructibility if it means that an integral part of the game has been blown up, but I'm fed up when generation after generation yields the same un-blow-uppable structures and scripted plot devices.
dalzo said:
The way dlc is now.
Few years ago the full game would be released then a few months
After dlc would be added to keep players interested , now it seems game are sold as bare shells and dlc is sold to make up the full game
This is a fair point. Also the game is £50 then the DLC is another £40 or so....Few years ago the full game would be released then a few months
After dlc would be added to keep players interested , now it seems game are sold as bare shells and dlc is sold to make up the full game
Jasandjules said:
dalzo said:
The way dlc is now.
Few years ago the full game would be released then a few months
After dlc would be added to keep players interested , now it seems game are sold as bare shells and dlc is sold to make up the full game
This is a fair point. Also the game is £50 then the DLC is another £40 or so....Few years ago the full game would be released then a few months
After dlc would be added to keep players interested , now it seems game are sold as bare shells and dlc is sold to make up the full game
The basic game is free. Then many games require payments to be made to either unlock things that allow you to win or gain advantage over other players ("pay to win").
DLC when done right is fine but when it is just a load of stuff which should really have been in the main game then it is taking the mickey a bit. Star Wars Battlefield is the case in question for me. The DLC should have been in the original pack really.
I still cannot understand how games like COD and Battlefield cannot get spawning right. The amount of times I have been spawned in front of the enemy is unreal and the same problem that these games had 10 years ago. On a similar point, it winds me up when I join a game only to get 30 seconds of play before the game ends.
I still cannot understand how games like COD and Battlefield cannot get spawning right. The amount of times I have been spawned in front of the enemy is unreal and the same problem that these games had 10 years ago. On a similar point, it winds me up when I join a game only to get 30 seconds of play before the game ends.
The best game - dlc experience I had is with Burnout Paradise. The base game is huge, then you had a few car paint packs which were free, followed by some new cars which cost a small amount, topped off by an entire island and a couple of cars for something like £7.
Then EA got hold of it...
My biggest grip is the deficit between paying to win and grinding it the hard way. GTAV online is a good example of this, you want the Hydra? You can either spend a very very long time grinding through missions/races/heists for a few 100k's, to the average/casual player this could take months, or pay something like £74.99 for the top card to get the funds straight away.
Red Dead & GTA VI better be utterly mind blowing for the amount of money Rockstar have made...
Then EA got hold of it...
My biggest grip is the deficit between paying to win and grinding it the hard way. GTAV online is a good example of this, you want the Hydra? You can either spend a very very long time grinding through missions/races/heists for a few 100k's, to the average/casual player this could take months, or pay something like £74.99 for the top card to get the funds straight away.
Red Dead & GTA VI better be utterly mind blowing for the amount of money Rockstar have made...
Alias218 said:
In actual game design, why havent destructive physics engines been advanced?
Case in point - Red Faction: Guerilla. Great destructible environments, on PS3/XBox 360. Since then, there have been huge advances in processing capability and yet all we get are superficial graphical enhancements. I would like to see less graphical fidelity and more physics in games. Free up some head room for it by reducing the more superficial elements.
Red Faction: Guerilla wasn't the prettiest game, but I spent hours just blowing things up in interesting ways! Kerbal Space Program isn't the best looking game (although it has its moments), but the physics make it the game it is.
I understand that map design plays a role too - you can't have destructibility if it means that an integral part of the game has been blown up, but I'm fed up when generation after generation yields the same un-blow-uppable structures and scripted plot devices.
Yes! This! Is it really hard for developers to incorporate destructive environments or something?Case in point - Red Faction: Guerilla. Great destructible environments, on PS3/XBox 360. Since then, there have been huge advances in processing capability and yet all we get are superficial graphical enhancements. I would like to see less graphical fidelity and more physics in games. Free up some head room for it by reducing the more superficial elements.
Red Faction: Guerilla wasn't the prettiest game, but I spent hours just blowing things up in interesting ways! Kerbal Space Program isn't the best looking game (although it has its moments), but the physics make it the game it is.
I understand that map design plays a role too - you can't have destructibility if it means that an integral part of the game has been blown up, but I'm fed up when generation after generation yields the same un-blow-uppable structures and scripted plot devices.
One thing that really bugs me: stupidly accurate AI in FPS's while I struggle to get a good aim
Dicks in GTAV, turned it on yesterday for the first time in months. Casually finding my feet and going through the controls in my car, some 
pulls up next to me and I realise hes throwing sticky bombs at me, I think "FFS" and speed off, he chases me and somehow I blow up. I just don't get what he got out of it?!?
pulls up next to me and I realise hes throwing sticky bombs at me, I think "FFS" and speed off, he chases me and somehow I blow up. I just don't get what he got out of it?!?J-D-Stagpump said:
3) Bad sports. Why can't gaming have good sportsmanship like other sports?? I know not everybody that plays football or rugby are good sports but gaming seems to be completely immune to fair play and good natured competitors.
This is the reason we played counterstrike as a clan. We had a public server that we policed and set a really good attitude on. We also chose fun practice matches (5 v 5) and set the same professional attitude in those as we displayed when representing our clan in tournaments.In conclusion, I hear you and I am saying good sportsmanship is definitely there, you just need to go look for it. Shame it isn't more wide spread.
RW
Gassing Station | Video Games | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff