Gaming trends that irk you

[Velaryon]

And two, DLC on disk. If I support a game by buying cosmetic DLC, I would really like for this DLC to actually be seen by other people in multiplayer. Unfortunately, this means that other people have the data, but not the ability to use said data. But if it is purely cosmetic, does it really matter if it is on the disk? Please just let me have my pretty hat and the ability to have others see my hat. If it is not entirely cosmetic, such as a hat, then yes I'd be upset too. BUT LOOK AT MY HAT DAMMIT.

It is entirely possible for games to have compatibility patches, allowing players who do not purchase DLC to still play with those who do. For example, if you were playing Borderlands 2 and chose not to purchase the Mechromancer or Psycho characters, you could still play in games with people who did because you would get the compatibility patch. It absolutely does not require that content be already on the disc.

All on-disk DLC does is allow companies to charge customers twice for the same data.

[Honest Tiefling]

Eh, true, it doesn't need to be on physical copies, and can be downloaded later. I took the phrase, perhaps erroneously, to mean data included with the game on release without necessarily being paid for, due to the prevalence of digital games distribution. Probably a stupid mistake, but in my defense I don't even know of anyone who buys physical copies anymore.

[Bohandas]

Because it's a weird statement. Half-Life 2 barely has a plot, and stating it was some "story before gameplay" game is even contradictory with your own statements. If it's a "glorified physics test" (which in ways it was, to be sure), then it is objectively by that metric a gameplay before story game. Because then literally the primary reason it exists is to test gameplay elements. You can't have that argument both ways.

If it didn't have a plot, than what did they keep locking you in a room with for twenty minutes at a time? It certainly sounded like plot whenever I popped in to see if the cutscene had ended yet, although I confess I never actually listened to the cutscenes.

Also, given that the rest of Half-Life 2 was just an infomercial for the Source engine, my complaint that they forgot to actually include a game still stands.

EDIT:

In fact, that last bit's actually a more important complaint, and I'm going to state it seperately now

I don't like games that are just a long-winded demonstration of some new engine or technique.

I don't like other media that do this either. You see it a lot in movies too; 2001: A Space Odyssey and Avatar are the biggest offenders I can think of. They just had special effects that were new at the time, they aren't actually good movies that are fun to watch.

[Eldonauran]

Eh, true, it doesn't need to be on physical copies, and can be downloaded later. I took the phrase, perhaps erroneously, to mean data included with the game on release without necessarily being paid for, due to the prevalence of digital games distribution. Probably a stupid mistake, but in my defense I don't even know of anyone who buys physical copies anymore.

I purchase physical copies of games, though not for all the games I purchase. There are some games that I have an interest in but have no intention of paying the full asking price for the game when I know I am not going to get the same level of content/enjoyment from it that I assign to that value. That actually extends to 90% of the games out there (I have high standards). So, I wait and visit Gamestop or other used game stores to pick up a used copy.

[Erloas]

If it didn't have a plot, than what did they keep locking you in a room with for twenty minutes at a time? It certainly sounded like plot whenever I popped in to see if the cutscene had ended yet, although I confess I never actually listened to the cutscenes.

Also, given that the rest of Half-Life 2 was just an infomercial for the Source engine, my complaint that they forgot to actually include a game still stands.

EDIT:

In fact, that last bit's actually a more important complaint, and I'm going to state it seperately now

I don't like games that are just a long-winded demonstration of some new engine or technique.

I don't like other media that do this either. You see it a lot in movies too; 2001: A Space Odyssey and Avatar are the biggest offenders I can think of. They just had special effects that were new at the time, they aren't actually good movies that are fun to watch.

You've got your complaint backwards and don't actually understand it. You don't like Avatar, 2001: A Space Odyssey, or Half-Life 2 and you've tried to tie them together in ways that simply don't fit. As well as not mentioning significantly worse offenders for what you're claiming you don't like. About the only thing those have in common is that they're very visually heavy in their style of storytelling. Avatar did use a lot of new technology, as did Half-Life 2, but they have completely different issues. Half-Life 2 did have some pacing issues, but "unskippable cutscenes" was more an artifact of the time than showing off, it was probably also a limitation of technology based on the fact that it was live-rendered rather than an actual cut-scene. Avatar was just James Cameron turning everything up to 11 visually and not worrying about the actual plot or really not putting enough time into the story he was trying to tell so he had more time for special effects, it is probably the only one that actual fits what you're trying to claim.

From Wikipedia "Half-Life 2 received critical acclaim, with praise directed towards its advanced physics, animation, sound, AI, graphics, and narrative, and is widely considered to be one of the greatest games of all time." That doesn't exactly sound like a game that "forgot to include a game." And the defense of "I didn't actually pay attention to the narrative so it must not have been any good" is just... odd. Most of what makes it one of the greatest games of all time only really show up in actual gameplay, because "good graphics, sound, AI, physics, and animations" are rather meaningless in a cut-scene, cut-scene style narratives were what every other game was still doing at the time, which is why they way they did it was as important as it was.
I'm not even that big of a fan of Half-Life, I don't think I finished either game (shooters have never really been my thing), but there simply no foundation to try to build the "the game actually sucked, people just miss-remember it as good" that you're trying to paint.

2001: ASO actually widely panned by critics of the time, it was the general population that actually understood what he was doing, it wasn't one of those "art films" where the director is just showing off for the critics. He did a lot of things differently, but it was because that was the kind of director Kubrick was, not because he was pioneering new technologies or techniques. He had his own style and that is what he was doing, it was not showing off anything like the others were. There were plenty of parts that were not really clear, but that was by design rather than an omission from trying to cram too much "new" into something.

The Source engine also ran pretty well on a large variety of systems (at least from what I remember, I don't remember the specs holding back a lot of people from playing at the time), which isn't really in line with the games that push everything just to push it and show off. Such as games like Crysis which were widely used as benchmarks because so few systems could run them well, those are the games that were designed just to show off.

I purchase physical copies of games, though not for all the games I purchase. There are some games that I have an interest in but have no intention of paying the full asking price for the game when I know I am not going to get the same level of content/enjoyment from it that I assign to that value. That actually extends to 90% of the games out there (I have high standards). So, I wait and visit Gamestop or other used game stores to pick up a used copy.

Personally I hate Gamestop and always have. It does show that you are only a console player* because there haven't been used PC games... since pretty much forever (doesn't mean they weren't shared, but I don't think anyone really sold them) and I'm not sure any PC game ships on physical media any more.
But it is the used/resale market that specifically pushed developers to the DLC method of monetization and especially the day-1 DLC, because no matter how new a game is you'll still find used copies of it for consoles. Gamestop is like half-a-step away from piracy, and from a developer's perspective almost indistinguishable. Although I agree that most games aren't worth what they're charging for them to me, but Steam sales are frequent enough that is easy enough to wait a bit and pick it up there, where at least the developer gets something for it.

*not that it matters, but it does mean you don't get things like Steam sales. Though I think the huge draw of Steam sales has been one of the reasons all the consoles have similar sorts of sales on their digital platforms now. But of course there were many years between the ubiquitous of digital distribution for PC games before consoles made hard drives mandatory and started to really enter that space as well.

[Honest Tiefling]

...And I'm not sure any PC game ships on physical media any more.

After my blunder, I'm going to have a look at this. Firstly, I can get Borderlands 3 at target...For the Xbox OR Playstation, no mention of a PC copy. Amazon and Wal-mart are the same way. I would check the local Gamestop, but the one near me seems closed and I'm not going to the next town over for a forum post.

So apparently, no physical copy of Borderlands 3 for the PC really exists, because I can't even get a collector's edition for PC from the borderlands website.

[Man_Over_Game]

After my blunder, I'm going to have a look at this. Firstly, I can get Borderlands 3 at target...For the Xbox OR Playstation, no mention of a PC copy. Amazon and Wal-mart are the same way. I would check the local Gamestop, but the one near me seems closed and I'm not going to the next town over for a forum post.

So apparently, no physical copy of Borderlands 3, really exists, because I can't even get a collector's edition for PC from the borderlands website.

Thinking about it, it's probably not reasonable to. Due to how different and chaotic the many types of graphics cards are, as well as problems related to piracy, it probably isn't a beneficial choice to make a physical copy of a game for PC any more. By the first month the game ships out, there will be over a dozen patches trying to fix the problems they may have missed, the problems with several graphics cards, and solving any network-related problems.

Version 1.0 is a broken game, and wasted time, effort, and security to put much investment into. Version 1.09 is MOSTLY finished, but it's not until Version 1.1 that was put out 6 months after release that's ACTUALLY finished making everyone's version of the game playable.

So why frustrate players by sending them a faulty physical copy of the game that cost you money and ceases to be the most playable version past the week after they get it?

[Erloas]

After my blunder, I'm going to have a look at this. Firstly, I can get Borderlands 3 at target...For the Xbox OR Playstation, no mention of a PC copy. Amazon and Wal-mart are the same way. I would check the local Gamestop, but the one near me seems closed and I'm not going to the next town over for a forum post.

So apparently, no physical copy of Borderlands 3, really exists, because I can't even get a collector's edition for PC from the borderlands website.

I wasn't totally sure, because I know they have boxes in stores. The few I checked on Amazon all said digital downloads. I checked Target and a few didn't say but the Q&A with customers said they were actually just codes. The only one I noticed was Civ 6, said it had an actual disc, the Q&A said it had an actual disc as well as a download code. It was by no means an exhaustive search though, I checked a hand full of games on each.

[Rodin]

Thinking about it, it's probably not reasonable to. Due to how different and chaotic the many types of graphics cards are, as well as problems related to piracy, it probably isn't a beneficial choice to make a physical copy of a game for PC any more. By the first month the game ships out, there will be over a dozen patches trying to fix the problems they may have missed, the problems with several graphics cards, and solving any network-related problems.

Version 1.0 is a broken game, and wasted time, effort, and security to put much investment into. Version 1.09 is MOSTLY finished, but it's not until Version 1.1 that was put out 6 months after release that's ACTUALLY finished making everyone's version of the game playable.

So why frustrate players by sending them a faulty physical copy of the game that cost you money and isn't applicable for the player past the week after they get it?

PCs have had massively different specs between customers for the past 30 years. Whether the distribution is digital or on disc, the game developer still has to account for all the different graphics cards and operating systems. It's just part of developing for PC and I can't see it making a substantive difference in the sales models.

Version 1.0 being a broken game is universal across all systems - ever get a console game from a physical store and then launch it without downloading a patch first? I haven't. So that logic doesn't work either.

I think you had it right with piracy, but I think the bigger factor is digital distribution simply being better. PCs did it first, and due to the greater hard drive space PCs are better equipped to handle a large amount of installed games where consoles still benefit from having a physical disc to hold a large amount of the data. Consoles have caught up to PCs in this regard substantially in this regard, which is why "traditional" brick and mortar stores have been having so much trouble. Used game retailers are really the only ones that have survived, with big supermarkets like Walmart picking up the slack.

Speaking personally, I was pure digital for years before I noticed that the PC game selection in stores had vanished. I don't believe it was a conscious decision of the developers, but rather a reaction to PC gaming culture shifting away from physical copies in the same way that large bookstores started going out of business once E-books took off.

The only physical copies I buy these days are non-indie console games, and that's solely because I live in a village with a single independent games store run by a very nice local lady who has the place kitted out to double as a table-top/CCG gaming place for the schoolkids to hang out in after school. I like supporting the local shops in town and so when the opportunity arises I get physical copies from there.

[Zevox]

Eh, true, it doesn't need to be on physical copies, and can be downloaded later. I took the phrase, perhaps erroneously, to mean data included with the game on release without necessarily being paid for, due to the prevalence of digital games distribution. Probably a stupid mistake, but in my defense I don't even know of anyone who buys physical copies anymore.

If you're a PC gamer, that makes sense. The last few times I got disks for PC games (one of which was Empire: Total War a full decade ago, the others gifted copies of Civilzation 5 and 6 in more recent years) all they did was let me download the games on Steam. Outside of having something physical to give as a gift, there's little point to that. But it's still common with console games. I know I prefer to get a physical copy of a game whenever possible, and it's very rarely not, at least for the sorts of games I play (I imagine it's probably rare for indie games). That's one reason, albeit a lesser one, why I prefer consoles to PC gaming, actually.

[Honest Tiefling]

If you're a PC gamer, that makes sense. The last few times I got disks for PC games (one of which was Empire: Total War a full decade ago, the others gifted copies of Civilzation 5 and 6 in more recent years) all they did was let me download the games on Steam.

I am indeed, a part of the PC gamer race.

So uh...What WAS the last game anyone bought on disk for the PC? I wonder if the fact that most PC gamers have migrated to Steam/Origin/Epic has any impact on these trends. For instance, more games might have DLC instead of expansion packs due to how digital game platforms can cater to impulse buying.

[Eldonauran]

Personally I hate Gamestop and always have. It does show that you are only a console player* because there haven't been used PC games... since pretty much forever (doesn't mean they weren't shared, but I don't think anyone really sold them) and I'm not sure any PC game ships on physical media any more.

Well, you'd be only partially correct, in that I HAVE a console but I also have a PC and spend vastly more time on it that any console I've ever owned. And, yes, (some) PC games do ship on physical media, though you often get a chance to download new content via the internet. I was just in Wal-mart the other day (and Best Buy), and both still have a (small) PC game section.

But it is the used/resale market that specifically pushed developers to the DLC method of monetization and especially the day-1 DLC, because no matter how new a game is you'll still find used copies of it for consoles. Gamestop is like half-a-step away from piracy, and from a developer's perspective almost indistinguishable. Although I agree that most games aren't worth what they're charging for them to me, but Steam sales are frequent enough that is easy enough to wait a bit and pick it up there, where at least the developer gets something for it.

I don't buy the "used games are almost piracy" argument. I've heard it often enough and find it has very little merit. If they don't want a used game market, stop selling it on a medium that can be resold. They have control over that.

[Honest Tiefling]

I don't buy the "used games are almost piracy" argument. I've heard it often enough and find it has very little merit. If they don't want a used game market, stop selling it on a medium that can be resold. They have control over that.

I think it could be interpreted as 'as far as profits are concerned, used games are almost piracy', not that it is immoral. Through apparently a lot of companies are indeed limiting physical PC copies.

[Triaxx]

They did, and then realized that once they could force you to buy it that way, they could stop you playing just the disc version.

[Man_Over_Game]

Version 1.0 being a broken game is universal across all systems - ever get a console game from a physical store and then launch it without downloading a patch first? I haven't. So that logic doesn't work either.

There's a big difference between trying to accommodate 2 console companies with 3 separate, slightly varying hardware options each (so 6 console options), and the hundreds of different configurations of PCs.

Additionally, every console has a disk reader included, but disk readers are starting to be phased out of many computers (mostly laptops), so you HAVE to create a digital copy for at least some of your PC customers. At that point, what benefit are you providing by making the game a physical disk? Traditionalism?

[Zevox]

I don't buy the "used games are almost piracy" argument. I've heard it often enough and find it has very little merit. If they don't want a used game market, stop selling it on a medium that can be resold. They have control over that.

Microsoft tried to create an environment where they could do that for a minute there, with their original X-Box One plans. Then they reversed course a week later after it became clear what a disaster that would be. Console gamers are not fans of losing physical ownership of our games.

That said, I don't buy that argument either, precisely because of how physical ownership works. The creators got paid for that copy of the game already - what the subsequent owner does with it is their business alone. Aside from whatever small number of people are silly enough to buy a used copy shortly after release that's barely cheaper than a new one, there's little reason to believe that people who buy a game used would buy it new. And used copies can keep games available for far longer than they're available new. There's nothing wrong with the practice - only with a hypothetical person who only buys games used when they could afford to buy them new, and I'm skeptical that too many of those exist.

Version 1.0 being a broken game is universal across all systems - ever get a console game from a physical store and then launch it without downloading a patch first?

I do all the time, actually. I only even bother connecting my consoles to the internet when I'm playing a game's online multiplayer or buying something (usually DLC) from its online store, so I'm generally starting my games that way. With no issues.

[Eldonauran]

There's nothing wrong with the practice - only with a hypothetical person who only buys games used when they could afford to buy them new, and I'm skeptical that too many of those exist.

Oh, I certainly could afford to buy the games new if I had the mind to do so. And I certainly DO purchase games new that come from developers that have won my trust. In fact, I will re-buy games on separate systems (Skyrim, for example. Baldur's Gate is another) just to do my part in keeping those kinds of games on the market. Other games? Nope, I will wait until my desire to play them finally matches up with their retail value.

[Rodin]

The last physical PC disc I can recall buying was Batman Arkham Asylum, which would make it August 2009. That is also about the date where my oldest Steam games date to, so that seems to match up.

There's a big difference between trying to accommodate 2 console companies with 3 separate, slightly varying hardware options each (so 6 console options), and the hundreds of different configurations of PCs.

Additionally, every console has a disk reader included, but disk readers are starting to be phased out of many computers (mostly laptops), so you HAVE to create a digital copy for at least some of your PC customers. At that point, what benefit are you providing by making the game a physical disk? Traditionalism?

Again, your first argument has existed since the advent of Nintendo, Sega, Playstation, etc. It's not a reason to not sell PC games in store because they did just that for many years.

I would say the disk readers being phased out of PCs is a result rather than a cause. Digital distribution became commonplace long before disc readers were phased out of PCs, and is the reason disc readers became superfluous.

I should state here that I am not arguing that PC games should be provided physically. It is both economically better for the companies to not do so and easier for the consumer. There are negative side effects (like the effect on the used games market and overpricing of older games), but overall the change has been for the better. The current explosion of indie developers could never have happened without digital distribution.

To sum up - my argument is that it isn't some inherent inferiority in PCs vs. consoles that caused PCs to stop being distributed physically. Rather, it was a shift in culture of PC gamers that drove the market. When digital distribution first started to become a thing, the PC was capable of it and consoles were not. Once PC developers saw the trend (and the ability to reduce piracy) they leapt on it. For consoles, there was no equivalent to Steam and it's only in the current generation of consoles that they really got the whole "e-shop" thing figured out. But then, they could afford not to - the culture of console gamers didn't shift in the same way that PCs did. My personal theory is that the demographics are simply different.

[Tvtyrant]

One thing that irks me is the lack of a real Pokemon MMO. The game has simple graphics, easy requirements, and is easily converted to having live characters as well as NPCs (you walk up to someone and ask if they want to battle.) Add some harvest moon stuff to it and you have a perfect kid MMO. I expected them to make that over a decade ago, it still hasn't happened.

[Balmas]

Version 1.0 is a broken game, and wasted time, effort, and security to put much investment into. Version 1.09 is MOSTLY finished, but it's not until Version 1.1 that was put out 6 months after release that's ACTUALLY finished making everyone's version of the game playable.

The cynic in me would phrase it differently: "Digital releases make it possible for publishers to release broken, unplayable messes, secure in the knowledge that they can just patch the game if things go horribly wrong."

[Erloas]

The cynic in me would phrase it differently: "Digital releases make it possible for publishers to release broken, unplayable messes, secure in the knowledge that they can just patch the game if things go horribly wrong."

It isn't exactly a trend though, and it happened long before digital distribution was common-place. Fallout 2 was pretty much unplayable at release, or more accurately there were a few bugs that made it impossible to get past a few points but otherwise worked. Game patches were very common in the late 90s. They were a lot smaller and didn't include content for the most part, they just fixed things.

I think MMOs were really the sort of leader of digital distribution, even if they did ship on CDs (I remember having to search out expansions for DAOC on release day) they still pushed patches online with some regularity, and continued updates and changes were sort of expected as part of the subscription fee.
I think multiplayer FPS also helped push that too, because all players had to have the same version to play, and I remember many a LAN party where the first hours were spent making sure everyone had the same versions of the game. When they started to integrate automatic patching to keep everyone up-to-date that was a good thing.

I can't remember when I got Steam, I think around the Orange Box, but I sort of think I had it before that, just didn't have much there. Don't remember the last physical game I bought, the last I remember for sure was STALKER, which was 2007, but I wouldn't have bought it close to release, probably a few years later. I only bought it physically because it was cheaper that way (still true for CDs sometimes, as rarely as I ever buy a CD). Of course at this point I was thinking about going back and giving STALKER another try but I have no idea where the disc is (not actually true, I'm pretty sure it is in a box in my dad's garage 1000 miles away, or maybe not even there any more as quite a bit of the stuff I left was garage sale'd) At this point unless I own a game on Steam I don't really own it any more.

I actually think I technically bought a physical copy of WAR, but that was just because I bought the collector's edition which included a CD that I probably never stuck in my PC.

[Zalabim]

You've got your complaint backwards and don't actually understand it. You don't like Avatar, 2001: A Space Odyssey, or Half-Life 2 and you've tried to tie them together in ways that simply don't fit. As well as not mentioning significantly worse offenders for what you're claiming you don't like. About the only thing those have in common is that they're very visually heavy in their style of storytelling. Avatar did use a lot of new technology, as did Half-Life 2, but they have completely different issues. Half-Life 2 did have some pacing issues, but "unskippable cutscenes" was more an artifact of the time than showing off, it was probably also a limitation of technology based on the fact that it was live-rendered rather than an actual cut-scene. Avatar was just James Cameron turning everything up to 11 visually and not worrying about the actual plot or really not putting enough time into the story he was trying to tell so he had more time for special effects, it is probably the only one that actual fits what you're trying to claim.

From Wikipedia "Half-Life 2 received critical acclaim, with praise directed towards its advanced physics, animation, sound, AI, graphics, and narrative, and is widely considered to be one of the greatest games of all time." That doesn't exactly sound like a game that "forgot to include a game." And the defense of "I didn't actually pay attention to the narrative so it must not have been any good" is just... odd. Most of what makes it one of the greatest games of all time only really show up in actual gameplay, because "good graphics, sound, AI, physics, and animations" are rather meaningless in a cut-scene, cut-scene style narratives were what every other game was still doing at the time, which is why they way they did it was as important as it was.
I'm not even that big of a fan of Half-Life, I don't think I finished either game (shooters have never really been my thing), but there simply no foundation to try to build the "the game actually sucked, people just miss-remember it as good" that you're trying to paint.

If this is still a thing that has to be talked about, then here's my two cents as an uninformed but hopelessly correct outsider. If you're locked in place while someone stories at you, that's a cutscene by any other name and that is not gameplay. If you're locked in a room with nothing to do but move the camera around while someone stories at you, that's still not gameplay. Physics, animation, sound, graphics and narrative are not synonyms for gameplay and all could be effectively demonstrated with cutscenes, literal or effective. AI could involve gameplay, but critics aren't shy about saying gameplay when they mean gameplay. A game can certainly be one of the greatest of all time for reasons that have nothing to do with its gameplay, as well. Planescape: Torment is a great example of that. Its best feature is its narrative which you get to influence, so you do play, but its the combat is not a good kind of gameplay in a lot of senses. The praise for HL2 hits all the markers for being a tech-demo backed up by a well-delivered narrative, but there's no indication whether it delivered good/fun/engaging FPS gameplay.

[Keltest]

The cynic in me would phrase it differently: "Digital releases make it possible for publishers to release broken, unplayable messes, secure in the knowledge that they can just patch the game if things go horribly wrong."

History would seem to suggest that releasing a broken game at launch without a fix immediately and widely available will spell the doom of the game, even if a fix does eventually become available.

[137beth]

I think it could be interpreted as 'as far as profits are concerned, used games are almost piracy', not that it is immoral. Through apparently a lot of companies are indeed limiting physical PC copies.

No, as far as profits are concerned, piracy is almost the same as someone deciding not to play the game at all. A used game purchase is still supporting the publisher, since the person you bought if from had to pay the publisher in the first place.

That said, I don't buy that argument either, precisely because of how physical ownership works. The creators got paid for that copy of the game already - what the subsequent owner does with it is their business alone.

Nitpick: If it's an AAA game, then the creators didn't get paid for the copy, or for any copies. The owners got paid for the copy. If it was an indie game then there is a greater chance that those two sets of people overlap. I agree with everything else in your post, though.

[spectralphoenix]

I am indeed, a part of the PC gamer race.

So uh...What WAS the last game anyone bought on disk for the PC? I wonder if the fact that most PC gamers have migrated to Steam/Origin/Epic has any impact on these trends. For instance, more games might have DLC instead of expansion packs due to how digital game platforms can cater to impulse buying.

Diablo 3 (2012). I had been pretty much pure Steam for a while, but it wasn't on Steam and I figured I might as well skip the download and have a hard copy of the game. It turns out the disc only had the web installer and activation code on it. And frankly, I wasn't that into it anyway.

The cynic in me would phrase it differently: "Digital releases make it possible for publishers to release broken, unplayable messes, secure in the knowledge that they can just patch the game if things go horribly wrong."

Publishers have always released broken, unplayable messes - they used to just stay broken and be forgotten. Now they just say it will be patched eventually instead of hoping as many people buy it without reading the reviews as possible before stores start putting it in the bargain bin.

[Erloas]

If this is still a thing that has to be talked about, then here's my two cents as an uninformed but hopelessly correct outsider. If you're locked in place while someone stories at you, that's a cutscene by any other name and that is not gameplay. If you're locked in a room with nothing to do but move the camera around while someone stories at you, that's still not gameplay. Physics, animation, sound, graphics and narrative are not synonyms for gameplay and all could be effectively demonstrated with cutscenes, literal or effective. AI could involve gameplay, but critics aren't shy about saying gameplay when they mean gameplay. A game can certainly be one of the greatest of all time for reasons that have nothing to do with its gameplay, as well. Planescape: Torment is a great example of that. Its best feature is its narrative which you get to influence, so you do play, but its the combat is not a good kind of gameplay in a lot of senses. The praise for HL2 hits all the markers for being a tech-demo backed up by a well-delivered narrative, but there's no indication whether it delivered good/fun/engaging FPS gameplay.

I agree that watching things happen but not really being able to do much essentially counts as a cut-scene. What I'm saying is that no one is going to *praise* the game for "good cut-scenes" whether or not they'rr rendered in-engine or not. Having good graphics in a cut-scene does not merit praise. You can't judge physics by what happens in a cut-scene because it could be entirely scripted and physics would never come into it, you can only know how good the physics are by actually interacting with things on your own. Same with sound, having directional sound, room/atmospheric effects to the sound are meaningless when you're in a cut-scene because those can be faked because they know exactly how everything is going to happen. Narrative too is a "whole game" thing, no one judges the narrative of a game based on just a few small parts, and having a dozen "good cut-scenes" without the rest of the game to reinforce and back that up isn't going to earn praise for narrative.
In short, it isn't that those things can't be good in a cut-scene, but that being good in cut-scenes is not enough to garner praise.

There are also many games that look pretty but don't get great reviews. So just being "a tech demo" without having a good game around it isn't going to garner praise either.

History would seem to suggest that releasing a broken game at launch without a fix immediately and widely available will spell the doom of the game, even if a fix does eventually become available.

Not really true at all. I can't actually think of any game that didn't have patches near and just after release. I think WoW classic will be a good demonstration of that too, because it *became* a game many people loved but it took a long time to get there, the "just after release" version of the game had a lot of issues. There wasn't even really an end-game at release partially because they knew they had a while before enough people got to "end-game" to make it an issue.
The real question is how *bad* are the issues and how good is the rest of the game. Fallout 76 wasn't just panned because of the bugs, it was poorly designed enough that many gamers wouldn't put up with the bugs. Alternatively Fallout New Vegas still crashes regularly but it is well regarded because the rest of the game is good. If you've got a mediocre game those bugs hurt a lot more.

No, as far as profits are concerned, piracy is almost the same as someone deciding not to play the game at all. A used game purchase is still supporting the publisher, since the person you bought if from had to pay the publisher in the first place.

Buying a game used, and not buying anything else for it like DLC also doesn't give the developers anything else. The developers got the money from the game for the original purchase and that is it, whether you then play that game for 10 years, 2 months then leave it on a shelf, or 3 months and then sell it used makes no difference to the developer. They get nothing more if that later person plays a used copy of the game, pirates the game, or doesn't play it at all. Which is why DLC got it's big push. No matter how you get the game, they've got the DLC access locked down (for the most part, pirating DLC I'm sure is still possible, haven't pirated anything in a long time) so they'll at least get something. Also why so many "digital deluxe" editions come out, where there is a lot of essentially DLC type stuff is packaged with the game but only unlocked via software codes/controls so only the original owner gets it.

[Bohandas]

Personally I hate Gamestop and always have. It does show that you are only a console player* because there haven't been used PC games... since pretty much forever (doesn't mean they weren't shared, but I don't think anyone really sold them) and I'm not sure any PC game ships on physical media any more.
But it is the used/resale market that specifically pushed developers to the DLC method of monetization and especially the day-1 DLC, because no matter how new a game is you'll still find used copies of it for consoles. Gamestop is like half-a-step away from piracy, and from a developer's perspective almost indistinguishable. Although I agree that most games aren't worth what they're charging for them to me, but Steam sales are frequent enough that is easy enough to wait a bit and pick it up there, where at least the developer gets something for it.

I'm just the opposite, especially as pertaons to major developers. I like the games but I'm so sick of the the sleazy business practices of the big media companies (not just game companies, also film studios, record labels, etc) themselves that I'll go out of my way to buy things used so that they don't get any of my money.

[Draconi Redfir]

it's a minor one, but i've never been a fan of the RPG mechanic where you get a bunch of characters to use in fights, but you can't use all of them at once.

off the top of my head, offenders are Golden Sun, tales of Symphonia, and Wildermyth. In some cases i can understand it if you get a LOT of characters such as in pokemon, but if you can use four characters in a fight, and you only ever get eight total, then it feels a bit of a waste. I feel like it'd be better to implement a system where the additional four characters can still participate in the battle, just maybe as support characters using ranged attacks and spells, or even just providing passive buffs and jumping in when someone goes down or something.


With Golden Sun in particular i noticed this. if your four heroes go down then the other four jump in sure, but if those first four don't go down, then those second four never see any action. I would have preferred if i could have put the melee fighters up front and the spellcasters in the back. Then if a melee fighter goes down, then the enemy can attack the spellcaster directly behind and to either side of them or something.


not going to stop me from playing a game or anything, but it can be annoying, particularly if you find yourself using some characters more then others, and so the others get left behind in terms of levels and such.

[Bohandas]

You've got your complaint backwards and don't actually understand it. You don't like Avatar, 2001: A Space Odyssey, or Half-Life 2 and you've tried to tie them together in ways that simply don't fit. As well as not mentioning significantly worse offenders for what you're claiming you don't like. About the only thing those have in common is that they're very visually heavy in their style of storytelling.

The storytelling in 2001 was terrible too. I could show someone the actual last 10 minutes of the film and still not spoil the ending, because it's impossible to tell what's happening there if you haven;t read the book.

As for the Half-Life and 2001 supposedly being unrelated, I would point out another vice they share, other than being groundbreaking yet bad, they all have 20 minute sequences where the protagonist sits in a moving vehicle and doesn't do or say anything (the boring tram sequence from the beginning of Half-Life 1, the boring train sequence from the beginning of Half-Life 2 and the mind-numbingly boring hyperspace sequence from towards the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey)

[Rynjin]

The storytelling in 2001 was terrible too. I could show someone the actual last 10 minutes of the film and still not spoil the ending, because it's impossible to tell what's happening there if you haven;t read the book.

As for the Half-Life and 2001 supposedly being unrelated, I would point out another vice they share, other than being groundbreaking yet bad, they all have 20 minute sequences where the protagonist sits in a moving vehicle and doesn't do or say anything (the boring tram sequence from the beginning of Half-Life 1, the boring train sequence from the beginning of Half-Life 2 and the mind-numbingly boring hyperspace sequence from towards the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey)

TIL 5 minutes, 1 minute and 30 seconds, and 10 minutes are all the same length of time as 20 minutes.