Poll of the Day > Gaming pet peeves?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I dislike how much and often PvP games are changed or tuned, maybe it's jsu tme but I find that a whole lot less effort gets put into balance now that updates can essentially be changed at will, I kind of miss when a game came out and that was it aside from soem bug fixes or major expansions including reworks.

Maybe that's just because I'm tired of seeing message boards filled with complaints about balance and ranting that the devs should change this and that instead of anything else.

Motion Blur, Depth of Field, and Head Bobbing. I'm a character, not a camera. I don't need want effects like that. Especially head bobbing. That's just annoying and gives me motion sickness.

^ I just started Tomb Raider 2013 and it's like that: a swaying, choppy mess.

when ur playing fortnite and ur stepdad terry drinks all the mountin dew in the fridge and does loud sex to ur mom

faramir77 posted...

when ur playing fortnite and ur stepdad terry drinks all the mountin dew in the fridge and does loud sex to ur mom

My name is Terry and I wouldn't drink all the mountain dew. That stuff is gross.

Escort quests. You want me to get you to safety? Then why the fuck are you trying to kill yourself!?

GGuirao13 posted...

Escort quests. You want me to get you to safety? Then why the fuck are you trying to kill yourself!?

God, I hated the ones in FF14 that the person would only move if you were close to them.

Ooh, do I have a list.

-Games that require Day 1 patches. For that matter, games that release horribly broken with the intent of patching them later, because the developers are basically offloading their testing and Q&A process to their own fucking customers.

-Games where you have scripted losses against enemies that you can easily mop the floor with. I don't mind losing a battle if the story needs it to happen, but at least do me the courtesy of *actually* making me lose to a decent opponent, rather than having the equivalent of Mario surrounded by three Goombas declaring the situation to be hopeless. I absolutely love the Kiseki/Trails series, but man do those games absolutely love them this trope.

-Games with forced multiplayer achievements, particularly when multiplayer isn't even the main focus of the game. I'm a completionist and also a bit of a recluse, so I almost never play games online and it always annoys the hell out of me when I'm missing ~20% of the achievements because they require you to do random shit online.

-Everything to do with microtransactions, loot boxes, paid DLC, season passes, and basically all the money-grubbing dirty tactics that has turned gaming into absolute shit in the last 5-10 years. I honestly can't remember the last time I played a new, triple-A title, because of all the bullshit that modern gaming tosses in fistfulls at you that prevent you from actually enjoying the game. It has to have been almost a decade now - last one honestly might have been Skyrim. Since then, I'm basically exclusively into retro gaming and indie titles, because at least those games usually don't have their heads planted firmly in their own asses.

-In a game with no autosaves and/or where saving is limited to specific spots, do not present me with two identical paths, one of which leads to collectables and/or extra stuff, the other of which leads to story progression after which it is impossible to backtrack to re-explore the first path. Whichever psychopath thought this up needs to be in an institution.

faramir77 posted...

when ur playing fortnite and ur stepdad terry drinks all the mountin dew in the fridge and does loud sex to ur mom

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/5/5/AAbbn0AAD3NL.jpg

-Games that require Day 1 patches. For that matter, games that release horribly broken with the intent of patching them later, because the developers are basically offloading their testing and Q&A process to their own f***ing customers.

I understand why you've listed this, but the reality is that games today are more complicated than they were 20+ years ago, and with a lot more features and "moving parts". Being able to patch games is pretty much a necessity for any game that's large in scope.

Most day one patches address quality of life improvements on an already completed, playable game. For every Cyberpunk, there's dozens of games that are largely complete and polished and just need a little tweaking here and there. Day one patches are not a bad thing.

Post-release patches and consumers being unwitting and/or unwilling QA testers are good, too. Particularly in the case of large-scale multiplayer releases. For instance: balancing issues. It would be very difficult for games like Elden Ring to release on time and on budget with all weapons and builds being well-balanced. There will always be broken builds and weapons and tools, etc unless they can get the game out to the teeming masses to see what people can dream up, and see how things play out in-game.

Even big-budget releases like COD would suffer from having to thoroughly test every weapon and item. And I'm in no way a COD fan, and certainly not going to weep over Activision potentially making less money, but it is simply unrealistic to expect them to fully test a game like that.

I do agree that things like Cyberpunk shouldn't happen, though. Devs and publishers need to be able to put the brakes on a release and delay a game when it calls for it.

darkknight109 posted...

-Games that require Day 1 patches. For that matter, games that release horribly broken with the intent of patching them later, because the developers are basically offloading their testing and Q&A process to their own fucking customers.

The main problem with PC games are nowadays theres so many damn variables when it comes to components and drivers its almost impossible for them to test for them all. And sometimes crap like that make a difference. I can't remember what game it was, but I once played a game that wouldn't load some times. Finally figured it was firefox, deleted it and switched to Chrome and never had the problem again with that game. So I can only imagine the pain in the ass they have with QA

Oh I got another one.

Games with any type of "sniping" and have it where the INSTANT you shoot every enemy within sight knows exactly where you are and shooting at you.

Hard_Light posted...

i specifically only aim for dicks and asses in call of duty

I had a mod for Unreal Tournament that would announce "CROTCH SHOT"

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/9/8/AAQwHjAAD3N2.jpg

captpackrat posted...

I had a mod for Unreal Tournament that would announce "CROTCH SHOT"

You know speaking of game announcements, I don't think any game hyped me up more than Halo when you were getting killstreaks. I mean I vividly remember my first "Killionaire!". but I can't recall any of the times I got anything meaningful in any other game I did well in.

LinkPizza posted...

No. Those are fine. I mean forced tutorials where they make you do something. Like when it wanted me to learn how to equip accessories. And I literally couldnt move my character. It made me pause the game, go to the character screen, and equip before I could exit and move again. If I push any other button, or tried to choose another choice, it would make a sound, or just not work. At that point, they might as well just did it themselves. If its just showing a screen, I wouldnt care

I hate the ones where the game does it itself but wants to hover over every option in the menu for like 3 seconds until it finally gets to the right one. Sucks more when it sub menus involved or they wanna do the shit where they pass by the right option almost as if saying if you've gone this far down you've gone too far

hypnox posted...

You know speaking of game announcements, I don't think any game hyped me up more than Halo when you were getting killstreaks. I mean I vividly remember my first "Killionaire!". but I can't recall any of the times I got anything meaningful in any other game I did well in.

Double Kill!
Multi Kill!
Mega Kill!
ULTRA Kill!
M-M-M-M-M-MONSTER Kill!
LLLLudicrous Kill!
HOLY SHIT!!!

captpackrat posted...

Double Kill!
Multi Kill!
Mega Kill!
ULTRA Kill!
M-M-M-M-M-MONSTER Kill!
LLLLudicrous Kill!
HOLY SHIT!!!

Seriously, I would take the Halo announcer saying my achievements in that epic tone over an AC-130 in CoD any day.

Any game with a day 1 patch should be automatically disqualified from any GOTY or greatness consideration.

I have games from the 80's & 90's that still play great and didn't need patches. You can claim there are more moving parts all you want, but back then they used Assembly to program all their games so it all evens out in the end.

Release completed games.

Early Access games suck too.

captpackrat posted...

Double Kill!
Multi Kill!
Mega Kill!
ULTRA Kill!
M-M-M-M-M-MONSTER Kill!
LLLLudicrous Kill!
HOLY SHIT!!!

I loved the easter egg in Unreal Tournament 2004 when you set all your graphics settings to the max it would play the announcer going "HOLY SHIT!!!". I got a good laugh out of that.

bo_danvers posted...

Any game with a day 1 patch should be automatically disqualified from any GOTY or greatness consideration.

I have games from the 80's & 90's that still play great and didn't need patches. You can claim there are more moving parts all you want, but back then they used Assembly to program all their games so it all evens out in the end.

Release completed games.

Early Access games suck too.

^ dumb take

Not a fan of early access, but day 1 patches are fine and anyone whining about them doesn't understand modern game development

Sucks for people with poor - or no - internet, but such is progress

darkknight109 posted...

-Everything to do with microtransactions, loot boxes, paid DLC, season passes, and basically all the money-grubbing dirty tactics that has turned gaming into absolute shit in the last 5-10 years. I honestly can't remember the last time I played a new, triple-A title, because of all the bullshit that modern gaming tosses in fistfulls at you that prevent you from actually enjoying the game. It has to have been almost a decade now - last one honestly might have been Skyrim. Since then, I'm basically exclusively into retro gaming and indie titles, because at least those games usually don't have their heads planted firmly in their own asses.

People have been saying this for like ten years and it's still a flat out lie ten years later.

Do those monetization practices exist? Yes. Is it happening to every AAA game? Not even remotely. The biggest offenders are the annual franchise games and it's not exactly like those were ever not money grubbing

When my controller dies when Im in the tub and I dont have batteries at hand. Lol

Far-Queue posted...

Not a fan of early access, but day 1 patches are fine and anyone whining about them doesn't understand modern game development

I honestly feel the opposite.

Early Access is fine, it is how modern software development usually works. Deliver something to the customer that gives some functionality and continue to iterate through development until you complete the project. It is just an evolution of the concept of pre-orders except you have something to enjoy and give feedback on.

Day 1 patches are just poor product planning (which honestly from the outside looking in is a huge problem in most game studios).

Far-Queue posted...

^ dumb take

Not a fan of early access, but day 1 patches are fine and anyone whining about them doesn't understand modern game development

Sucks for people with poor - or no - internet, but such is progress

I understand perfectly well about game development. They could release (mostly) bug-free games in the 90's while coding in assembly without issues.

If you want to patch games - it should be optional, not required.

bo_danvers posted...

I understand perfectly well about game development. They could release (mostly) bug-free games in the 90's while coding in assembly without issues.

If you want to patch games - it should be optional, not required.

In the 90s most games weren't being published by people with businesses degrees with no game experience looking at profits and not actual game quality in mind.

MagicalPrincess posted...

DLC. Just make the full game flat out. Also, remakes that remove things instead of just adding on to. Example is REmake of 1 is a remake done right but remakes of RE2 and 3 are a disservice and RE4 remake is also a disservice because in the original Ada is wearing the red dress and in the remake she'll be wearing a red sweater. As I said, REmake of 1 is a remake done right and there's no excuse to have RE2 and 3 not done like that and there's no excuse to have Ada in a sweater instead of the red dress.

I can't tell if this is serious with the remake of RE4 being a "disservice", because of a sweater.

when an enemy can hit you with something before they even appear on screen

hypnox posted...

In the 90s most games weren't being published by people with businesses degrees with no game experience looking at profits and not actual game quality in mind.

In the 90s? When video game file sizes were still measured in megabytes? Before household internet was a common utility? Of course they could release complete games without requiring patches back then.

Today, things are different.

Day 1 patches are just poor product planning

Nope. Having a game go gold knowing you can get it to store shelves by a certain deadline and assure quality with a patch is good planning

Escort Missions

Also, anything to do with loot boxes, micro transactions, etc. Just ridiculous. I don't mind the occasional DLC if its really good and really adds to the experience, but when its just skins and stuff, that should have been in the base game.

Far-Queue posted...

Nope. Having a game go gold knowing you can get it to store shelves by a certain deadline and assure quality with a patch is good planning

That...has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

Product planning has to do with understanding the work before you set a deadline and being able to adjust and compensate based on unexpected factors. It isn't forcing your employees to work 80+ hours a week just to get their game out before the holiday season, and having to produce a patch due to physical releases preventing you from updating things two days before they ship. A good project releases does everything you mentioned AND the employees enjoy normal 35-40 hour work weeks with PTO and sick time accounted for.

Dikitain posted...

Day 1 patches are just poor product planning

it's not at all

do you think work on a game stops as soon as it goes gold?

no, it doesn't.

there will always be things that need patches and updates. a day 1 patch is a mighty fine thing and far superior over what it used to be like.

which was you would buy just a permanently broken product.

I personally dont mind early access of Day 1 patches. But thats just me I understand that Day 1 patches can help a game run better and shit like that. Or make sure certain things were fixed, or optimize whatever And I enjoy early access games, as well Ive been playing one for a while that fully realized recently Im still playing it to this day

fettster777 posted...

Also, anything to do with loot boxes, micro transactions, etc. Just ridiculous. I don't mind the occasional DLC if its really good and really adds to the experience, but when its just skins and stuff, that should have been in the base game.

Some games actually do make more stuff after. Sometimes, its free. Other times, it not. If everybody was asking for a skin that they didnt originally have, and then add it in later, I dont really see a problem with that. And also have no idea how its be in the base game if they didnt know people would want that

Hard_Light posted...

it's not at all

do you think work on a game stops as soon as it goes gold?

no, it doesn't.

there will always be things that need patches and updates. a day 1 patch is a mighty fine thing and far superior over what it used to be like.

which was you would buy just a permanently broken product.

Again, nothing to do with what I said.

A game that requires a day 1 patch didn't account for printing disks in their project plan and also didn't get ample time for quality assurance. Even something as simple as releasing the digital version a month or two before the physical release makes much more sense than producing a non-working product and expecting the consumer to download a ton of updates just to get it playable. That is true if the game was released in the 70's or today.

The modern solution to that, is early access. Produce something that is in the consumers hands, then release updates for it. Once you have something you feel confident making a "permanent" copy of, then it moves out of early access into being a commercial release. Then you can produce physical copies which are the "permanent" product. Also, that doesn't stop you from producing patches and updates after it is out of early access, just you are then telling the consumer that your product is working as designed, and they can use it without worrying about having an incomplete product.

Games where you just KNOW something is going to happen as soon as you step through a trigger point.

Like the railroad bridge in Half Life 2. I got to that bridge and I just KNEW a train was going to come through as soon as I tried to drive across. So I waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, just sat there for like 10 minutes, and nothing happened. No sign of a train or anything. And the INSTANT I started across, here comes the train!

People be like "DLC bad, back in MY day we just kept buying Street Fighter II at full price over and over!"

lmao crunch time and day 1 patches aren't synonymous my dude. Do you really think that doing away with industry crunch will make day 1 patches go away? The day 1 patch is part of the planning. Devs don't set out to complete a game 100% any more. They set out to get the bulk of the game playable and pretty enough, and they plan for a day 1 patch to smooth out the wrinkles.

That is understanding the work and what it takes to meet a deadline. And crunch has little to do with it. That's a whole separate issue.

I was hoping this topic would have more answers about game design rather than industry practices. Like yeah we all know that microtransactions and broken releases suck

honestly laughing at the notion that getting rid of crunch time will somehow make day 1 patches a relic lmao

hypnox posted...

The stupid rubberband mechanics and the "Random" power ups that completely based on pole position.

Yeah, I don't want bananas and green shells when I'm #1. I want stars and lightning bolts and blue shells

Dmess85 posted...

Yeah, I don't want bananas and green shells when I'm #1. I want stars and lightning bolts and blue shells

Personally I want triple red shells.

Far-Queue posted...

^ dumb take

Not a fan of early access, but day 1 patches are fine and anyone whining about them doesn't understand modern game development

Sucks for people with poor - or no - internet, but such is progress

The dumb take is actually from post #60.

LinkPizza posted...

I personally dont mind early access of Day 1 patches. But thats just me I understand that Day 1 patches can help a game run better and shit like that. Or make sure certain things were fixed, or optimize whatever And I enjoy early access games, as well Ive been playing one for a while that fully realized recently Im still playing it to this day

What game?

Far-Queue posted...

lmao crunch time and day 1 patches aren't synonymous my dude. Do you really think that doing away with industry crunch will make day 1 patches go away? The day 1 patch is part of the planning. Devs don't set out to complete a game 100% any more. They set out to get the bulk of the game playable and pretty enough, and they plan for a day 1 patch to smooth out the wrinkles.

That is understanding the work and what it takes to meet a deadline. And crunch has little to do with it. That's a whole separate issue.

What I am saying is that by planning for a day 1 patch you are basically forcing a release rather then planning a working product. That is not real project planning, that is procrastination. While not directly leading to crunch, it is a huge factor in it.

I would rather a game take 5-7 years to complete and be released without a day 1 patch then 3-5 years with one.

Most developers would prefer to have the time they needed to release a quality product

Most big publishers don't seem willing to take those risks unfortunately

I get why day 1 patches are annoying when you just want to play the game, but if it's day 1 that basically is meeting release imo. My guess would be just that they have to get discs printed ahead of time and maybe there is also some lead time to getting them on digital store fronts but updates are more lenient.

Then again it just begs the question of why not just plan for this, since I'm sure in the past the finish date was really planned to be weeks before actual release date

Metalsonic66 posted...

Most developers would prefer to have the time they needed to release a quality product

Most big publishers don't seem willing to take those risks unfortunately

Well the actual developers yeah. The executives want the rush.

dud posted...

I get why day 1 patches are annoying when you just want to play the game, but if it's day 1 that basically is meeting release imo. My guess would be just that they have to get discs printed ahead of time and maybe there is also some lead time to getting them on digital store fronts but updates are more lenient.

Then again it just begs the question of why not just plan for this, since I'm sure in the past the finish date was really planned to be weeks before actual release date

The discs are pointless now since there's no true physical release anymore.

Getting pedantic over people using the term "developers" to mean "anyone who is involved in putting out games", yet calling physical releases "pointless".

Like I get what you're saying, but I'm gonna be you. There is literally data on the discs that installs the game onto the console, so they aren't pointless. And since discs can't be printed the same day they are shipped out, that's part of the reason for day 1 patches.

idiots who pretend they aren't playing a character, but are actually in the game

Do you mean role-playing?

Dikitain posted...

I would rather a game take 5-7 years to complete and be released without a day 1 patch then 3-5 years with one.

Bro you do realize there are games that take 5-7 years to release right now that require day 1 patches, no? Day 1 patches aren't going anywhere any time soon

The day 1 patch is part of the planning. Not procrastination. It's industry standard now. And it's not going away without a substantial shift in development practices and/or technological advancement.

And again, crunch is a separate issue that has little bearing on whether or not games get day 1 patches. Devs may crunch in order to meet a deadline for a patch, but that patch was gonna be there regardless

dud posted...

Getting pedantic over people using the term "developers" to mean "anyone who is involved in putting out games", yet calling physical releases "pointless".

Like I get what you're saying, but I'm gonna be you. There is literally data on the discs that installs the game onto the console, so they aren't pointless. And since discs can't be printed the same day they are shipped out, that's part of the reason for day 1 patches.

They are pointless since they're not actually a physical release. They still have to download.