Worst trends in video games?

[A1260]

crappy pc converts for consoles... simplified, gameplay changed, removed parts of the game etc...

released buggy half asses unfinished games, that you need 10 updates before its playable...

100 useless button mashing/keyboards combos to 100 diffrents sword/fist/gun/strategy etc, when you only need 3 and you cant remember the rest anyway....

insane hard game bosses, typically a game that have nothing going for it. and desperatly need to make the playing time longer.

singel player games(rpg games specially), that could be easly done (2-4) co-op online. but instead you have one or more useless ai character as companion.

releasing singel player games in 2011. gaming is a social affair it is not the ps2 90's anymore. co-op online is where the fun is. every game should have an option to play it  through with a friend.
 
the 'no time to put in the game before release' excuse. then sell it as an expansion/dlc to cashin more on the game later.  (new maps/more levels/new guns etc)

[Khephren]

releasing singel player games in 2011. gaming is a social affair it is not the ps2 90's anymore. co-op online is where the fun is. every game should have an option to play it  through with a friend.
 (new maps/more levels/new guns etc)

Yeah, all games should be balanced for co-op. Where we differ though, is I call co-op someone having fun in the same room as me, not on a net connection. Split screen all the way for me. The Amiga and c64 taught me that.

[A1260]

You need to update your hardware at least every second year to play current titles. A C64 was good from 1983 to 1989!

it may be true for the pc for now but not for the consoles anymore.. i know that the ps3 that arrived in 2006 will be here at least until 2015 before the ps4 arrive.. the xbox360 will have its xbox720 more or less in the same time to. but becouse of this pc game makers will also follow the consoles, and not force anyone to upgrade often (expect games as crysis). the reason for this is simply, games are getting so big and to much time consuming to make. the game companies want to use more of what they got to earn the money. than just jump on anything new rigth away and start all over, thats always very costly... so expect long intervals like the c64 times before anything new arrive from now on.

[A1260]

Yeah, all games should be balanced for co-op. Where we differ though, is I call co-op someone having fun in the same room as me, not on a net connection. Split screen all the way for me. The Amiga and c64 taught me that.

dont get me wrong sitting in the same room as your buddy and playing co-op is fun. for 2d games a splitscreen can work pretty well. but with 3d games its just a nightmare(camera!! argh!!), thats how i feel about it. if i am going to have a friend over for co-op, i set up my older tv so we both have our screens and he can bring his box. anyway as it is with work and other commitments(wife,kids & motherinlaw etc), its just easier to send a invite for a game when you see your friend online and have some fun with headset/mic for a casual game....

[Khephren]

True, their not mutually exclusive. I guess I just resent MS trying to corall me into giving them multiplayer cash. Should have bought a PS3

[A1260]

True, their not mutually exclusive. I guess I just resent MS trying to corall me into giving them multiplayer cash. Should have bought a PS3

i was actually planing to buy a xbox360 this gen to, but with all the rrod trouble and taking money for using your own bandwith(no game servers hosted by ms). i got a ps3 instead dont regret it at all and its a good divx/xvid movie player to.

[stefcep2]

Lack of split screen multiplayer.  Multiplayer=online these days.  But there's nothing like playing with 3 others at home, drinks/beer, nibblies, trash talk and hangin' on the losers.

Its why i like Nintendo consoles.  4 player split screen built in from N64 days.  Goldeneye multiplayer on N64 was great as was Mario KArt, theres some great 4 player games on Gamecube eg Mario Kart, 007 Nightfire, FzeroGx, Smash Brothers, even Fifa.  

Just bought a Wii today and son's having fun with two other mates getting to grips with it.

Hell I'd settle for two-player split screen.

[stefcep2]

dont get me wrong sitting in the same room as your buddy and playing co-op is fun. for 2d games a splitscreen can work pretty well. but with 3d games its just a nightmare(camera!! argh!!), thats how i feel about it.

I though the Nintendo 64 did a good job of split screen multiplayer in 3D eg Goldeneye, MarioKart 64.  And following that my son and his mates have had 5 good years of Gamecube split screen mulitplayer in 3D

if i am going to have a friend over for co-op, i set up my older tv so we both have our screens and he can bring his box. anyway as it is with work and other commitments(wife,kids & motherinlaw etc), its just easier to send a invite for a game when you see your friend online and have some fun with headset/mic for a casual game....

I get where you coming from but I see it as a disturbing trend that we make less and less time to interact with friends in person what with facebook, forums, online gaming.  One day we'll never leave our home and just have virtual friends, if that time isn't here already..

[Roj]

releasing singel player games in 2011. gaming is a social affair it is not the ps2 90's anymore. co-op online is where the fun is. every game should have an option to play it through with a friend.

I've yet to play an online multiplayer game which doesn't have at least two players cheating in various ways. Usually it's more, but I've yet to play with less than two clear cheaters.

I'd much rather play solo than with a cheater. If that's "so 90's" then so be it. They ruin it, and I've had more than enough of paying $50 or more just to find I can't compete unless I break down and install cheats of various sorts.

[Khephren]

@Roj
I think A1260 was talking about co-op with people you know well, and your playing with, not so much against. as opposed to generic online multiplayer, where you get sworn at at by cheating kids

[A1260]

I though the Nintendo 64 did a good job of split screen multiplayer in 3D eg Goldeneye, MarioKart 64.  And following that my son and his mates have had 5 good years of Gamecube split screen mulitplayer in 3D

for me the n64 gfx looks like some smeared oil painting, visuals on the 3d games on that consol was bad. and 4 player split screen with a 5" play area for each player.. what a mess... but i guess kids dont know better so its ok for them...

I get where you coming from but I see it as a disturbing trend that we make less and less time to interact with friends in person what with facebook, forums, online gaming.  One day we'll never leave our home and just have virtual friends, if that time isn't here already..

like i said before when you get older you get wife,kids and motherinlaw and other commitmens. it can be hard somethins to squeeze in time for your beer mates to come over and play games... so i see nothing wrong with calling a friend and then invite for a casual game when you have 1 hour to kill... and sometimes you just have to play with strangers, and add them to your friend list. after a couple of time gaming, you find out he just lives a few blocks away. then you have a new friend to take a few with at the pub, you never know

[tone007]

3D games should never have happened!

[commodorejohn]

releasing singel player games in 2011. gaming is a social affair it is not the ps2 90's anymore. co-op online is where the fun is. every game should have an option to play it  through with a friend.

I beg to differ. Games that have multiple player characters/allies should support multiplayer (as in Secret of Mana, for example,) but shoehorning it into every game is just going to ruin games that aren't designed for it.

As for me, I'll vote for the ur-trend: everybody blindly copying what everybody else is doing without any regard to whether it fits in their game or was even good to begin with. That's how all the rest of these trends proliferate.

[A1260]

I've yet to play an online multiplayer game which doesn't have at least two players cheating in various ways. Usually it's more, but I've yet to play with less than two clear cheaters.

I'd much rather play solo than with a cheater. If that's "so 90's" then so be it. They ruin it, and I've had more than enough of paying $50 or more just to find I can't compete unless I break down and install cheats of various sorts.

i dunno what games you play or what platform is your gaming rig... but i have never played with cheaters, and if i notice anyone cheat i would quit the game thats for sure. i dont continue gaming and raise my fist about it. i play only on my ps3, cant stand pc games anymore (specially as i also have the pc as a work place). if its going to be solo it must have a very good story that interest me, there is few and long between those games. i prefer much more to share my playing experince with my friends than alone. playing alone is what we did in the 90's, and nothing i want to do all over again in 2011. as i said before gaming is social experience nowdays, with strangers or your friends...

[A1260]

I beg to differ. Games that have multiple player characters/allies should support multiplayer (as in Secret of Mana, for example,) but shoehorning it into every game is just going to ruin games that aren't designed for it.

As for me, I'll vote for the ur-trend: everybody blindly copying what everybody else is doing without any regard to whether it fits in their game or was even good to begin with. That's how all the rest of these trends proliferate.

what the games are about today is the story, the way of gaming them is pretty much standardized with a few diffrences here and there. but i dont think you should be afraid of the shoehorning. there are game companies that do what they think is best for their games and always will. if you get tired of new games you can always go back to the good old times. as many of us gamers that have lived for a bit, also have our old gaming rigs (i see you have a pretty neat list in your sig).

[commodorejohn]

what the games are about today is the story, the way of gaming them is pretty much standardized with a few diffrences here and there.

"What games are about today" is just another empty trendiness. Games are about the same thing they've always been about: having fun. If they're the kind of games that would be enhanced by multiplayer, sure, they should support multiplayer. But if they're the kind of games that would be degraded by it, they shouldn't be forced to support it anyway.

but i dont think you should be afraid of the shoehorning. there are game companies that do what they think is best for their games and always will.

Eh, I'd have more confidence in this if we didn't see game companies awkwardly compromise designs to fit whatever the last blockbuster did all the time.