Current Events > Which good game had the most negative impact on gaming?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Generally these games are very well received but somehow impacted their genre or gaming as a whole in a negative way.
---

Halo CE cemented the 2 weapon bullshit that ended up infecting PC First Person Shooters so fuck that game extra hard.
---

How did most of those negatively impact their genre?
---

Skyrim and modern warfare.

One leads into endless empty open world fetch quests trend with shallow mechanics and RPG wannabe, one leads into a corridor shooter where you follow a line anx shoot till a,cutscene appear.

Examples of why extremes are bad in both sides of the spectrum
---

CoD4/MW2 wrecked the gaming industry IMO but i dont want to give it too much blame because if CoD4/MW2 hadnt done it, another game would have. this was inevitable
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Halo CE cemented the 2 weapon bullshit that ended up infecting PC First Person Shooters so fuck that game extra hard.

"WHY CAN'T I CARRY LITERALLY EVERY WEAPON IN THE GAME ALL AT ONCE?!?! WHAT IS BALANCE I DON'T EVEN"
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Halo CE cemented the 2 weapon bullshit that ended up infecting PC First Person Shooters so fuck that game extra hard.

---

weapon_d00d816 posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

Halo CE cemented the 2 weapon bullshit that ended up infecting PC First Person Shooters so fuck that game extra hard.

"WHY CAN'T I CARRY LITERALLY EVERY WEAPON IN THE GAME ALL AT ONCE?!?! WHAT IS BALANCE I DON'T EVEN"

youd think a guy named weapon_d00d would be more interested in carrying as many weapons as possible
---

Out of those I'd say possibly Skyrim, because it showed that so long as you raise the dramatic stakes of a game you can compromise on all the mechanics that make it a great game, and still be successful.

What your poll is missing there TC is any game that proved that microtransactions and online-only play are the most successful business models and the way of the future. So games like Angry Birds or Candy Crush or whatever. Not great games, but good games - and they are where the money is now.
---

Romulox28 posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

Halo CE cemented the 2 weapon bullshit that ended up infecting PC First Person Shooters so fuck that game extra hard.

"WHY CAN'T I CARRY LITERALLY EVERY WEAPON IN THE GAME ALL AT ONCE?!?! WHAT IS BALANCE I DON'T EVEN"

youd think a guy named weapon_d00d would be more interested in carrying as many weapons as possible

weapon_d00d always has the shittiest opinions.
---

Didn't Counter-Strike have a 2 weapon limit somewhat (knife and grenades don't count imo), long before Halo

Anyway I'd say Skyrim because goddamn everything is open world now.
---

Skyrim, but also Oblivion and Fallout 3 tbh. They all had a part in messing up RPGs and popularizing big empty soulless open worlds with nothing to do in them
---

Funkydog posted...

How did most of those negatively impact their genre?

---

DarthAragorn posted...

Didn't Counter-Strike have a 2 weapon limit somewhat (knife and grenades don't count imo), long before Halo

Anyway I'd say Skyrim because goddamn everything is open world now.

yes but it was a round based game - you buy your weapons at the beginning of the round, go kill or be killed, next round starts

you had the choice right at the beginning of every round to choose what you wanted at least
---

I feel like in single player you should have the allowance to do as you feel, be free to carry each gun and then balance the game around that, but in competitive there REALLY needs to be a limit.

Anyway more on topic, tf2? The practices of that game let other devs know just how lazy they can be with updates. Also whats the game with the infamous horse dlc again? I feel like that should be there.
---

ultimate reaver posted...

Skyrim, but also Oblivion and Fallout 3 tbh. They all had a part in messing up RPGs and popularizing big empty soulless open worlds with nothing to do in them

Well, at least there are still some semblance of effort in oblivion and fallout 3 content. There are choices and consequences, as shallow as bethesds can make it to be, but still ironicallly entertaining at the same time.

In skyrim and fallout 4, well they didnt try at all
---

Funkydog posted...

How did most of those negatively impact their genre?

Halo popularized two-weapons-only as well as health/shield regen

CODMW led to a shitton of bad shooters

Skyrim helped popularized Open World for the sake of it, leading to a lot of games that don't need it at all having it

TF2 popularized the loot crate and style>technical depth

Dark Souls has led to "the Dark Souls of (genre)" and a lot of annoying and toxic ideas in general

Super Mario 64 had everyone look at the collection shit when imitating it rather than the great amount of depth to the actual platforming.
---

DarthAragorn posted...

Didn't Counter-Strike have a 2 weapon limit somewhat (knife and grenades don't count imo), long before Halo

Anyway I'd say Skyrim because goddamn everything is open world now.

Most games at the time let you carry multiple weapons in single player but only 2 in multi.
---

Whichever one popularized online multiplayer.
---

pinky0926 posted...

What your poll is missing there TC is any game that proved that microtransactions and online-only play are the most successful business models

TF2. But yeah, Angry Birds or something should be on their. I don't even think of mobile games when I think of gaming because of how bad it's gotten
---

COD only because then franchises started releasing games every year. Quality suffered.
---

lol at anyone who says Halo: CE.
---

Dragon's Lair.
Doesn't matter how awful the actual gameplay is, so long as it's pretty.

Having a limited amount of weapons carried makes the gameplay deeper and more interesting. You have to decide which combo of weapons to take into each situation as they arise. You could take a Sniper Rifle and a BR/Magnum/DMR in order to pop their shields at long range and clean them up with a quick headshot from the secondary weapon, but that makes close combat tougher. You could take an AR/SMG secondary to deal with close range targets, but that makes it more imperative that you hit your targets right with the Sniper Rifle. You could take a Rocket Launcher to deal with heavy enemies and crowds, but then you've got a versatility disadvantage for dealing with standard enemies. And so on. Limited weaponry makes the battlefield more interactive too because you're scavenging for dropped weapons and constantly on the lookout for stashes.
---

DragonJumpKick posted...

Also whats the game with the infamous horse dlc again?

That was Oblivion with its horse armor DLC.
---

weapon_d00d816 posted...

Having a limited amount of weapons carried makes the gameplay deeper and more interesting. You have to decide which combo of weapons to take into each situation as they arise. You could take a Sniper Rifle and a BR/Magnum/DMR in order to pop their shields at long range and clean them up with a quick headshot from the secondary weapon, but that makes close combat tougher. You could take an AR/SMG secondary to deal with close range targets, but that makes it more imperative that you hit your targets right with the Sniper Rifle. You could take a Rocket Launcher to deal with heavy enemies and crowds, but then you've got a versatility disadvantage for dealing with standard enemies. And so on. Limited weaponry makes the battlefield more interactive too because you're scavenging for dropped weapons and constantly on the lookout for stashes.

Except games always put the weapon you will need on the ground.
---

Lonestar2000 posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

Having a limited amount of weapons carried makes the gameplay deeper and more interesting. You have to decide which combo of weapons to take into each situation as they arise. You could take a Sniper Rifle and a BR/Magnum/DMR in order to pop their shields at long range and clean them up with a quick headshot from the secondary weapon, but that makes close combat tougher. You could take an AR/SMG secondary to deal with close range targets, but that makes it more imperative that you hit your targets right with the Sniper Rifle. You could take a Rocket Launcher to deal with heavy enemies and crowds, but then you've got a versatility disadvantage for dealing with standard enemies. And so on. Limited weaponry makes the battlefield more interactive too because you're scavenging for dropped weapons and constantly on the lookout for stashes.

Except games always put the weapon you will need on the ground.

Then that is a problem with casualization and not the gameplay mechanic.
---

Call of Duty 4. It's an incredible game but for the last 10 years the series has been trying to recapture that lightning in a bottle twice.
---

weapon_d00d816 posted...

Having a limited amount of weapo

This is a very good point and I can see how it can change the game up. Maybe then it all comes down to preference and not quality of the game. Some gamers may prefer the freedom while others may find the depth and challenge more fun.

Surely there's enough room in the FPS industry for both; I worry that repetitiveness is the main enemy here. Not all shooters should have the same basic mechanics. The reasoning for it is obvious, but it tends to make everything feel samey and reduce creativity.

Master_Bass posted...

That was Oblivion with its horse armor DLC.

Aye thank you
---

CoD basically killed the Medal of Honor series of games.

So definitely that franchise is the most "negative"
---

Superlinkbro posted...

CoD basically killed the Medal of Honor series of games.

So definitely that franchise is the most "negative"

Nah, that reboot in 2009 would've been bad either way
---