• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Do games piss you off more and more?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Midwayman

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
5,723
325
126
I know that is not really helping the PC Gaming industry as they probably need that launch day price to make a better profit and, in turn, make more and hopefully better PC games, but I just can't bring myself to pay full price.

KT
Don't feel bad about that. At least they're seeing some money. Reality is that you won't capture all customers at full price.
 

darkewaffle

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2005
8,152
1
81
Well to be fair, how can it not be? Modern gaming is the problem.
I'm more inclined to blame overactive senses of nostalgia and entitlement more than anything else. Oh, and people getting old. It's no coincidence that aged folks are simultaneously convinced that old movies, old tv, old music, old books, old cars, old food, and old clothes were all superior too.

There are more great games out there that I want to dump hours upon hours into than I can ever play. I don't think the percentage of games that are good/bad has changed much, but simply by virtue of the market expanding so greatly the number of good games out there has increased absolutely even if their relative share remains unchanged.

Personally I think checkpoints are better for many modern games. Something that games in the last decade have really improved upon (and many now focus on) is immersion. To that end, I think it's beneficial to minimize the number of ways that players can be 'yanked' out of the game. I'm actually playing Bioshock for the first time and really enjoying it; but each time I open a shop, perform a hack, save, open the map: the world stops spinning. It's jarring and breaks a lot of the anxiety/intensity the game creates.

Plus manual saves are so easily abused in terms of difficulty. I think one thing checkpoints let you do well is force the player to complete entire "encounters" in one shot; which I don't think is a bad thing. But yes, they do need to be spaced intelligently (eg: after boss cutscenes rather than prior to it).
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,834
278
126
Checkpoint saves have existed long before that. But I'm lumping checkpoints and hard save locations in the same group. The way you describe the checkpoint system, you're probably right.

Resident Evil had the typewriters. Super Mario World used the special buildings and switches as save points. Most all JRPG's only let you save at certain places that aren't in the world map.
Yea but you manually go to those spots to save. Halo was the first game I can remember that had zero manual save spots
 

darkewaffle

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2005
8,152
1
81
and prices of game have been going up non stop
You can't honestly believe that. Video games are one of the only consumer goods that have not only not inflated, but even deflated.

Thirteen years ago I paid $60 or $70 for a brand new N64 game at release. While $50 or $60 is still a pretty typical price point for brand new games, if nothing else they haven't inflated. But at the same time, games are slowly creeping down to the $40 mark either at MSRP or simply because of rampant competition and discounting. Over the last year I've bought XCOM:EU, Borderlands 2, Guild Wars 2 all at release or just after it and I don't think I paid more than $40/$45 for any of them.
 

Dankk

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2008
5,556
24
81
and prices of game have been going up non stop.
This is not true. As the post above me mentioned, game prices have actually been on a steady decline for the past couple decades, particularly when you take currency inflation into account.
 

fixbsod

Senior member
Jan 25, 2012
415
0
0
Autosave only needs to DIE!! Seriously, like almost no game implements it properly and even the best implementation is still not nearly as good as just a simple save any time option. It is frustrating for us older gamers as our time constraints really show the inherent weakness to an auto-save system. Time for bed? Time to go to work? Time for dinner ? Well go flush 45+ mins down the toilet if you didn't hit that auto-save point. And since that can be like 1/2 my total gaming session time that's just insane. I think that games that don't have a manual save system should be REQUIRED to let you save where you exit. How many times have you been yelled at by gf/bf/so just cuz you need to trigger that stupid f'ing save point?

Hitman is one of the worst offenders as there are no auto-saves or anything for each level. Then to add insult to injury some levels will have a checkpoint but when you restart from a checkpoint all the enemies are revived -- what's the point?

Bioshock Infinite just doesn't have ENOUGH checkpoints. There's so many times I had to cheap around this by just leaving the level/area I was in which triggered the save (good tip btw). Far Cry 3 is like this too -- no manual save? Well I'll just go buy $10 of ammo and bam now I've saved.

The only game I've played in recently memory that had a DECENT checkpoint system was Metro 2033. Still, a few levels (frontline/war?) were extremely difficult due to the checkpoint, but overall being a fast paced game it was workable. I would still prefer save/load but not nearly as crippling as Hitman or Bioshock. On 2nd thought tho there was the big drawback where you weren't quite sure what action would hit the auto-save and then by hitting it you were forced into the next level/area so you just kissed everything behind you goodbye. It still worked from a gameplay angle, and the game deserves a 2nd run through anyways, but still broken I would say.
 
Last edited:

KeithTalent

Elite Member | Administrator | No Lifer
Administrator
Nov 30, 2005
50,235
114
116
I thought Tomb Raider's autosave was quite excellent; you could use the camps for additional safety I guess, but the autosave worked so well I had no need to do anything else.

KT
 

Via

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2009
4,695
3
0
Funny you should mention Tomb Raider. I thought the original Tomb Raider had one of the few checkpoint systems that worked really well. You could choose to use the blue diamond or not, they were liberally sprinkled around the levels (especially right before you hit difficult sections or end bosses), and they never disappeared.

If you really wanted to save some busy work progress you could trek back to an old diamond and save. But once you used it it was gone.

As to the OP - I think he makes a good point about a checkpoints in a game like Hitman.
 

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
15,417
730
126
The games I have played most the last couple of months are world of tanks and CoH...
Yeah, I don't buy new games because they're pretty much the same console type of shooters...
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,834
278
126
You never played Mario?
Super Mario 1-3 didn't save. Super Mario world did but asked you after castles if you wanted to save and quit or save and continue. You could also choose to save and quit at any time. This wasn't a checkpoint system. You could manually choose to save your progress.
 

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,172
136
106
How can you train a population to accept checkpoints if you dont put them in all the games? Derp...
 

tential

Diamond Member
May 13, 2008
7,355
641
121
So this has turned into a whiner thread. It had some.merit with legit complaints now its just another "I hate modern gaming" fest
Modern entertainment in general has taken a turn for the worse.

With PC Gaming though, due to the wide array of hardware out there, and how a lot of things are ports, I don't buy anything on launch date anymore. Maybe a huge game like BF4 or something, but anything else, I wait for user reviews to ensure it works. Hardware compatibility is the thing I'm always worried about. After that, if the game just sucks, well, meh sometimes you win some sometimes you lose some.

I rarely buy games though and usually wait til they are a year or two old to play them anyway.
 

sweenish

Diamond Member
May 21, 2013
3,656
60
91
Super Mario 1-3 didn't save. Super Mario world did but asked you after castles if you wanted to save and quit or save and continue. You could also choose to save and quit at any time. This wasn't a checkpoint system. You could manually choose to save your progress.
there was no anytime save and quit option in super mario world. you had to basically beat a ghost house to save. from there, you could save and quit.

But as to the OP question, i don't hate games nearly as much as I hate gamers more and more. If the games have been getting worse, it's the "gamers' " fault.
 

AstroManLuca

Lifer
Jun 24, 2004
15,628
5
81
But as to the OP question, i don't hate games nearly as much as I hate gamers more and more. If the games have been getting worse, it's the "gamers' " fault.
lol so true. I've actually been getting progressively less frustrated with games. Not that games have been getting better, I'm just growing as a person to the point where I no longer feel it's worth getting angry over a video game of all things.
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
7
0
I want to add a few cents to this discussion, specifically about the Civilization franchise.

Civ5 went on sale during the Steam sale for ~7.50, I think it was, plus the Brace New World expansion was discounted as well.

Civ5 was garbage at release, riddled with bugs that made the game unplayable, and an AI that was so brain dead it exploited itself. Even players of average skill like myself were able to best the AI on the highest difficulty settings. Add in all the DLC packs for civilizations that were removed from the base game, the dumbed down gameplay, and the paid expansions that added back in basic features from its predecessor, and Civilization 5 is best described as a stain on the franchise. And yet, if one looks at /r/gaming, redditors are gushing over it. Its the greatest 4X game ever made, with players dropping a dozen hours at a time in it. I'm not sure of the ages of the players, but I'm going to make an educated guess that most never played any previous Civilization games. After IV, the penultimate evolution of the franchise so far, I've been utterly unable to spend more than an hour or so at time in 5. And I've played Civ2, 3, and 4 extensively. Steam has me at nearly 600 hours in CivIV, and that doesn't include the retail boxed copy I bought when it was released.

I've only preordered a few games in my 20 years of PC gaming because every time I do, Murphy's Law kicks in and whatever I preordered ends up being a worthless, unplayable shit stain. Civilization 5 rates as one of the worst pre orders I've ever done, 60 frickin dollars. I could have bought a decent amount of craft beer and gotten more entertainment.

Now, to be fair, some of the worst bugs have been fixed. I gave Civ5 another chance shortly after Gods and Kings was released, Amazon had it on sale for cheap and it was Steam ready, so I snapped it up. The AI's been polished up considerably, though still pretty dumb, it at least doesn't just hand victory to the player any more. The city limit bug appears to have been fixed, and the complete texture terrain redraw issues seem to have been fixed. But, the pacing is still off, where I can research gun powder and before I can complete training of my first Musketman, I've developed rifling. Didn't even get a chance to pop his combat cherry. I know mods exist to correct some of those problems, but one shouldn't need mods to fix basic game play.

And yet, because of the positive sales, publishers will think this is the crap people want. Shallow gameplay, loads of Zero Day DLC, and show stopping bugs will be ignored. We'll just get more of the same. :(

This saddens me because the historical 4X genre has been one of my favorites for nearly 2 decades, and its now suffering the same rot that's bring down other, more popular genres like FPSs.
 

obidamnkenobi

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2010
1,405
421
136
I want to add a few cents to this discussion, specifically about the Civilization franchise.

Civ5 went on sale during the Steam sale for ~7.50, I think it was, plus the Brace New World expansion was discounted as well.

Civ5 was garbage at release, riddled with bugs that made the game unplayable, and an AI that was so brain dead it exploited itself. Even players of average skill like myself were able to best the AI on the highest difficulty settings. Add in all the DLC packs for civilizations that were removed from the base game, the dumbed down gameplay, and the paid expansions that added back in basic features from its predecessor, and Civilization 5 is best described as a stain on the franchise. And yet, if one looks at /r/gaming, redditors are gushing over it. Its the greatest 4X game ever made, with players dropping a dozen hours at a time in it. I'm not sure of the ages of the players, but I'm going to make an educated guess that most never played any previous Civilization games. After IV, the penultimate evolution of the franchise so far, I've been utterly unable to spend more than an hour or so at time in 5. And I've played Civ2, 3, and 4 extensively. Steam has me at nearly 600 hours in CivIV, and that doesn't include the retail boxed copy I bought when it was released.

I've only preordered a few games in my 20 years of PC gaming because every time I do, Murphy's Law kicks in and whatever I preordered ends up being a worthless, unplayable shit stain. Civilization 5 rates as one of the worst pre orders I've ever done, 60 frickin dollars. I could have bought a decent amount of craft beer and gotten more entertainment.

Now, to be fair, some of the worst bugs have been fixed. I gave Civ5 another chance shortly after Gods and Kings was released, Amazon had it on sale for cheap and it was Steam ready, so I snapped it up. The AI's been polished up considerably, though still pretty dumb, it at least doesn't just hand victory to the player any more. The city limit bug appears to have been fixed, and the complete texture terrain redraw issues seem to have been fixed. But, the pacing is still off, where I can research gun powder and before I can complete training of my first Musketman, I've developed rifling. Didn't even get a chance to pop his combat cherry. I know mods exist to correct some of those problems, but one shouldn't need mods to fix basic game play.

And yet, because of the positive sales, publishers will think this is the crap people want. Shallow gameplay, loads of Zero Day DLC, and show stopping bugs will be ignored. We'll just get more of the same. :(

This saddens me because the historical 4X genre has been one of my favorites for nearly 2 decades, and its now suffering the same rot that's bring down other, more popular genres like FPSs.
Civ 4 is my most played game on steam, and I've been into the series off and on since Civ 1 and colonization when I was 13 or something (and had no idea what I was doing). Appreciate your insight into Civ5.

I was initially excited for Civ 5, but read all the negative opinions and never bought it. Sure, I could get it now get it for $7, but my time is more valuable than my money. Why would I waste time on 5 when Civ 4 is still amazing? In fact I played it till 3 am just last weekend.. Add in the Dune Wars mod which I still haven't put nearly enough time into, or Fall from heaven.

Will there be a Civ 6 that's same or worse than 5? Maybe, I don't know, and don't really care at this point.

If you are a historic strategy fan like myself, and haven't already, I suggest you look into Paradox' Europa Universalis 4 for a great strategy game, if a slightly different style. Due to be released in a month! So far it looks amazing and reports from "authorities" I trust say the same thing (specifically Rob Zackny of the three moves ahead podcast and others). And a user named quill18 (I think) on youtube has some great gameplay videos.

The only games close to my play time in Civ 4 are EU3 and crusader kings 2. And I feel like I've barely scratched the surface of CK2. Between those I have more strategy/4X games to play than I'll ever have time for!
 
Last edited:

PokeyHokey

Junior Member
Jul 25, 2013
12
0
0
Yea i find myself getting bored more quickly when playing games. Part of it is growing older and not having the time to deal with stuff
 

ibex333

Diamond Member
Mar 26, 2005
3,969
66
91
Not that this is justification for pirating, but it seems that I have more and more moments of regret and buyer's remorse when I buy games. I'm just not happy with their quality, by and large.

Most recent for me:

Hitman: Absolution

The save system totally ruins it for me because it relies on checkpoints. I can no longer save whenever I want, and considering Hitman has always been a game of perfection and quietly studying and waiting for the perfect moment, the fact that you have to repeat all of the waiting and the timing over and over because you had to reload at a certain checkpoint make it frustratingly bad. Basically it is incentive for me to just go in guns blazing and kill everything standing in the way.

And the fact that I paid money for this really makes me angry. I'm not playing money just so I can be frustrated to the point of wanting to smash my computer against a wall due to dumb game mechanics. And these games CERTAINLY aren't cheap.

Sure, there are demos and reviews (sometimes conflicting), but come on... do I have to do all this research beforehand for every single game I want to play from now on just to try and not get burned?

And of course there's the Call of Duty : Modern Warfare series, which are basically all cinematic, highly scripted shooting galleries with zero replay value.

I'm basically finding that more often than not I come away from games feeling utterly screwed out of my money. The last time I looked back at a game and actually felt satisfied were probably the older Assassin's Creed games, Borderlands 2, and Mass Effect, simply due to the amazing story and the characters.
Dude, I couldn't agree more. In a world of games that piss me off, Call of Duty is by far one of the worst offenders. "All flash, no substance" is probably the most accurate statement. I remember when I was playing COD 4 is was so annoying. The game is so heavily scripted, that you can spend an hour fighting off a never-ending stream of enemies in one spot, but if yo just dash through it, all those enemies magically disappear and you go on to next objective. Modern Warfare 2 was completely disgusting... Plastic looking enemies and weapons... Too much screen shaking makes my head spin.. World at War, the same thing...

Pretty games.. Great effects. But such BS. Such poor game-play.

Also,

Diablo 3.... Do I even need to talk about it? What an EPIC fail.


Civ 5 also disappointed me greatly. So did Sins of Solar Empire. Units look like they don't actually fly in space, but glide on a "space looking texture flat surface". I don't understand why people put up with such mediocrity. And Supreme Commander? The developers should be ashamed for releasing something like this, after the legacy Total Annihilation left.
 
Last edited:

tential

Diamond Member
May 13, 2008
7,355
641
121
there was no anytime save and quit option in super mario world. you had to basically beat a ghost house to save. from there, you could save and quit.

But as to the OP question, i don't hate games nearly as much as I hate gamers more and more. If the games have been getting worse, it's the "gamers' " fault.
God, the last statement and League of Legends go hand in hand. I wouldn't call it a great game by any standard, it's fun. But the playerbase of gamers is horrible. Kids break keyboards/mice when they lose a game.
Gaming has never made me angry enough to do anything, but man sometimes, I only want to get better at the game to troll the playerbase of over sensitive people.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY