Games expectations

Discussion in 'Console & PC Gaming' started by ImMano99, May 22, 2020.

  1. ImMano99

    ImMano99

    Messages:
    95
    Location:
    France
    Heyall,

    Just been thinking lately about all sorts of games that came out in the recent years.
    Whether it's racing games, sports games, FPS, etc.

    I have a feel each year we get told so much good about them all that we end up having our expectations far too high.
    Just thought of a game called Fortnite. I don't play it, but these guys are an example, they never promised a hell of functionnalities, never said their game was gonna be over amazing and so on but still millions of players played with its bugs and issues and with the game being a BETA without ever complaining.

    I know there's a few game developpers on this forum, I'd like to know what yall thinking.
    Would you rather wait and see what the game is like without having much clue or do u want to be detailed and give yourself an image of something that's not going to be the final product.
     
  2. Jawehawk

    Jawehawk Premium

    Messages:
    4,616
    Location:
    Denmark
    I'd rather that...

    1. Game developers stop outright lying about their products. SMS for instance, talk big about features and content in their games, only for the features to be non existent and the content being paid DLC post release. A lot of developers do this.
    2. Publishers give their developers more time when they need it. Don't released an unfinished product. Horribly common too.
    3. Developers leave their politics out of their games. SJW BS is getting increasingly prominent and annoying in gaming, with developers such as DICE apparently believing it to be their mission to change the world and to rewrite history in the process.
    4. Stop implementing micro transaction and loot boxes. Both are painfully transparent money grabs. If I've paid full price for the game, then don't ask me to pay more still for content that is already on the disc and in the game. Again, far too many companies do this.

    If they didn't show us anything, nor talked about their games, then how do you expect them to sell copies and make money? Silence isn't an option. They just need to cut the crap.
     
    Tired Tyres and MikeV27 like this.
  3. LeGeNd-1

    LeGeNd-1 Premium

    Messages:
    5,892
    Location:
    Australia
    ^Agree with all points above. Especially number 4. I mean I know game devs need to make money, but I've played some games where it feels like every design decision is maximised to extract the most $$$ out of players.

    Also, with the advent of internet I feel everything moves at a million miles per hour these days and nothing is secret anymore. Drumming up interest is good but by the time a game is released nowadays you pretty much already know half of it thanks to dev diaries, trailers, influencer gameplay livestreams and people picking apart every little detail in forums. Just look at the GT7 forum. People demand everything and raise their expectations too unrealistically high, and what they got will never be able to satisfy that even though objectively the game itself is OK.
     
  4. Silver Arrows

    Silver Arrows Premium

    Messages:
    3,494
    Location:
    Canada
    That says a lot more about you then it does the industry.

    Games are inherently political. Every game you play is political in some way. Yes, including racing games. Yet somehow, apparently a first person shooter set in World War II...is bad for being political. Strange.
     
  5. Jawehawk

    Jawehawk Premium

    Messages:
    4,616
    Location:
    Denmark
    No entertainment mediums are inherently political... Mario Kart for instance is not political in the slightest. Battlefield V was atrocious for a lot of reasons, the political agenda (attempting to promote a new discourse regarding who fought in the war), being only part of it. I believe it was the lead game designer at Dice that, in response to the controversy, responded by saying "I am going to be on the right side of history". As a historian, that strikes me as both a hopelessly arrogant, obnoxious and outright dangerous position to take.

    You might say that everyone has some political awareness and that this then results in tainting whatever they are working on, yet many people are capable to reflecting on their own biases, and thus don't let it reflect on everything they do. Add to this that different people with different political opinions are working on the game, and the end product ought not to be a circle jerk for any given political orientation. Unless of course the specific goal of any product is to promote an agenda, such as was the case with Battlefield V (this much was obvious from their marketing and their handling of the controversy).
     
    Quattro20v and MikeV27 like this.
  6. MikeV27

    MikeV27 Premium

    Messages:
    2,104
    Location:
    Canada
    Too much emphasis on resolution and not enough on frames per second. As an example, Ubisoft saying the next AC game will be "at least 30 fps" is a joke.


    The best part was Soderlund saying "if you don't like it, then don't buy it." and calling people uneducated for not liking the concept. Then getting fired. EA later declaring that BF5 failed to meet sales expectations was the cherry on top.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2020 at 2:44 PM
  7. Silver Arrows

    Silver Arrows Premium

    Messages:
    3,494
    Location:
    Canada
    Have you interacted with any work of art, games or otherwise, ever? You'd realize very quickly that every piece of entertainment or piece of art is inherently political. The best works often times either make that political nature known and upfront, or are allegories, or are between the lines! If works of art or entertainment didn't have political intentions, then life would be pretty boring.

    But then again, going by the tone of both yours and Mike's comments, you probably believe that any sort of 'politics' that doesn't uphold the status quo (Mainly white, masculine, capitalist) is bad, and doesn't deserve to be thought about. Which, considering the vast majority of media, even going back to the beginning of time, means that you enjoy nothing. Hope you like reading Gregorian chants in a monastery, then.

    Think about racing games for a moment. Think about global warming as it pertains to the automobile. How North American cities like Los Angeles, built around the car, are choked full of pollution and smog because of the constant use of vehicles with internal combustion engines. How the transit system within cities in North America specifically were underdeveloped for years because Detroit, through lobbying and through measures like the Interstate system (or in my case, the Trans-Canada Highway) neutered things like train service, making them impractical for modern long distance travel, forcing people to either buck up for plane tickets if they need to go further then the next state or province over, or drive. Those are all sub-consciously brought to the table when this forum talks about racing games, and hell, cars as a general idea. Why do you think that interest in cars, racing games, and motorsports as a whole is down across the board for this generation? People are realizing what damage the automobile, and by extension, racing games are causing by upholding the systems that allowed the automobile, and every single facet birthed from it, to be placed as the main mode of transportation.

    Fun fact: World War II wasn't just the Americans fighting in Western Europe. The entire point of BFV, the one that DICE made clear very quickly after it was announced, was to shine on lesser known conflicts of the war.

    I've played BFV a lot. Probably a lot more then either of you have. Yes, it was an abject failure. There are a lot of reasons why that was the case. I can tell you, that having a woman on the cover, or having minorities in the game, was a problem for a small subsection of the gaming public. The type that harbored ill feelings towards minorities to begin with. Those that didn't play the game for any length of time. Those that wanted a piece of red meat hanging for their stupid 'SJW' war that is echoing in posts in this thread. And likewise...

    ...was said when a very loud subsection of the gaming world, the kind that hang out on 4chan and are already chuds to begin with, found out that a woman was on the cover. And they got very mad. Why the hell should a company want the dollars from those types of people, the types of people who believe women are meant for their own titillation and nothing more?

    Once more, there are legitimate reasons why DICE failed with BFV. The fact that it was a poorly run company during the development and post launch of the game has a lot to do with it. You know what has nothing to do with it? Putting a woman on the cover of a FPS game set in World War II, that was explicitly said to focus on lesser known theatres of the conflict. Running with obfuscated lies that fit the agenda of a group that sees gaming as the domain of a bunch of white boy nerds when gaming as a whole was never that, and the only reason that it was, was because said white boys wanted their own little fiefdom that they could deny those that weren't them from entering.

    But then again, I really shouldn't be surprised to see lies like this, wrapped in kernels of truth, parroted from you, who, when presented with the fact that an actual race car driver said an incredibly demeaning and racial epithet on stream, responded thus:

     
  8. T0MMY3688

    T0MMY3688

    Messages:
    571
    Knowing whats in the game is always better for the player expectation but the expectation for games has been pretty low for me, less expectation less disappointment. Games like Assassin Creed has huge improvement to the world design and more RPG element on the character progression but the AI is still as dumb as ever and it still feels repetitive like it always has.

    Also, the writing in games these days is just awful and I started avoiding narrative driven games. Even games like Borderlands 3 and Wolfenstein 2 has a far worse writing than the previous games. Comic books writing has been pretty crap for recent years too. Racing games and ARPG as a whole is harder to be disappointing, good amount of tracks/maps and a satisfying physics/combat is enough to sink many hours into it.

    This is the first I see someone tried to make Mario Kart political, the whole genre not doing as well as it used to has a lot more to do with less impressive games and 2010 onwards more racing games was going for more realism while the casual audience losing interesting in it. Also, motorsport as a whole has been as crazy or entertaining to watch as it used to and having everything behind a pay wall just to watch doesn't really help either.

    No one wanting to buy a racing game will think about the issues of pollution, if in game pollution and harm being such a big deal everyone should have stop buying CoD every year since a war is destructive to the environment and human lives.
     
  9. Jawehawk

    Jawehawk Premium

    Messages:
    4,616
    Location:
    Denmark
    I've played countless games and watched countless movies and TV shows, so yes, I've interacted with entertainment... That some, perhaps even many, have political meaning is not in dispute, and indeed, some works are elevated for that very reason. I'd say the best works as regards movies/games with political narratives, are the ones that illustrate a nuanced picture, rather than being nothing more than a circle jerk for any given agenda.


    So many words, yet not one of them link Mario Kart to anything of a political nature. You appropriating a game, or any other piece of entertainment, for instigating talks of a political nature does not make the game itself political. An example of a racing franchise that does go political, albeit not overly so, is Gran Turismo, which specifically talks about electric vehicles and progress in regards to lowering emissions. yet, even then, a game is not political just for including EV's in its roster. Driveclub, for instance, has electric cars serving no other purpose than to diversify the choice of vehicles available to the player.

    have fun trying to explain the political narrative in Pac Man, Space Invaders, or if we want to stick to modern games, From Software's Sekiro, Bloodborne or Dark Souls games. In these games, there are none, other than ones you yourself create.


    You make it sound like games have never shown any other theater than Western Europe from the American perspective. The old Call of Duty games portrayed the resistance in France, commando raids in North Africa and parts of Europe, and of course the Russian front, you know, the largest, most costly front. Battlefield V's campaign doesn't actually do anything new here, except looking and sounding better. It has virtually zero historical accuracy where anything is concerned, be it equipment, tactics, numbers involved or how the operation unfolded. The Last Tiger would be the closest you get, and again, is nothing new.

    I've said this in another thread, but if you wanted lesser known conflicts, and wanted women as part of the fighting force in conventional warfare, then Yugoslavia would've been the ultimate choice. While technically partisans, they also actively liberated and held territory, and fought conventional frontline battles against both German and Italian forces, the latter being another rather under represented actor in the war, and they did so with women and men alike. For the online component of the game, it would've maintained some historical accuracy, while checking the points they wanted checked. Other interesting lesser known units could be the mostly all black US 761st Tank Battalion, or the 92nd or 93rd black divisions, put into their own units because segregation was still very much a thing. They distinguished themselves on the battlefield, and exist in part as a reminder of the racial injustices still taking place in the US so many decades after the civil war. On the Soviet front, they could've portrayed soviet soldiers defecting to fight for the Germans, or the many nationalities that ended up fighting for the Germans less than willingly. In the Pacific theater, they could've portrayed the Chinese fighting the Japanese, which I can't recall any games doing. So many choices.

    But Dice opted instead not to focus on real instances, although their campaigns in theory were based on real operations, but instead continued on with the player (one man army) destroying hundreds of enemy combatants, and making absolutely zero attempt at making the online component reflect the actual war. Fully automatic weapons fitted with suppressors and red dots being as common as they would be in a game set in modern day, fighting units being coed and mixed race which disregards the reality (and injustice) of the time period, etcetera. There's nothing authentic about it, nor did the game do what you and the developers claim it set out to do. It doesn't convey those lesser known operations with any real degree of authenticity.


    There's no reason to lie about Dice's objectives with the game as the evidence is quite clear to everyone. You don't see people complaining about women being present in military themed games such as Valkyria Chronicles because those games don't claim to be authentic. You're taking everyone who complained about the lack of authenticity and labeling them as bigots who don't want girls in gaming? You might want to reflect on your own seemingly incessant focus on race and gender. Don't be surprised if people aren't keen on engaging in dialogue with you when your rhetoric clearly indicates hostility towards white males. Had it been directed at anyone else, it would be considered bigotry or racism, but white males are of course fair game...
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2020 at 10:40 AM
    Quattro20v and T0MMY3688 like this.